Pregnant women's use of e-cigarettes in the UK: a cross-sectional survey.

OBJECTIVE: To estimate prevalence of vaping in pregnancy. Compare characteristics and attitudes between exclusive smokers and vapers, and between exclusive vapers and dual users (smoke and vape). DESIGN: Cross-sectional survey. SETTING: Hospitals across England and Scotland. POPULATION: Pregnant women attending antenatal clinics in 2017. METHODS: Women at 8-24 weeks' gestation completed screening questions about their smoking and vaping. Current or recent ex-smokers and/or vapers completed a full detailed survey about vaping and smoking. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The prevalence of vaping, characteristics and attitudes of women who vape and/or smoke. RESULTS: Of 3360 pregnant women who completed screening questions, 515 (15.3%, 95% CI 14.1-16.6) were exclusive smokers, 44 (1.3%, 95% CI 1.0-1.8) exclusive vapers and 118 (3.5%, 95% CI 2.9-4.2) dual users. In total, 867 (25.8%) women completed the full survey; compared with smokers (n = 434), vapers (n = 140) were more likely to hold higher educational qualifications (odds ratio [OR) 1.51, 95% CI 1.01-2.25). Compared with exclusive vapers (n = 33), dual users (n = 107) were younger (OR 0.91 95% CI 0.85-0.98) and less likely to hold high qualifications (OR 0.43, 95% CI 0.20-0.96). Compared with smokers, dual users were more likely to be planning to quit smoking (OR 2.27, 95% CI 1.24-4.18). Compared with smokers, vapers were more likely to think vaping was safer than smoking (78.6% versus 36.4%). CONCLUSIONS: One in 20 pregnant women report vaping, and most also smoke. Dual users are more motivated towards stopping smoking than smokers. Where women have tried but cannot stop smoking, clinicians could encourage them to consider vaping for smoking cessation. TWEETABLE EXTRACT: One in 20 women report vaping during pregnancy but of those that do vape, most also smoke, despite having intentions to quit.

Nicotine absorption from e-cigarettes over 12 months.

BACKGROUND: Research indicates that, over time, exclusive e-cigarette users (vapers) gradually reduce the nicotine concentration in their e-liquid and transition to more sophisticated devices. Alongside this, consumption of e-liquid increases and constant cotinine levels are maintained. AIMS: We aimed to confirm these observations in 27 experienced vapers tested at baseline and 12 months later, by measuring nicotine absorption (via salivary levels of the nicotine metabolite cotinine; ng/mL), nicotine concentrations in e-liquid (mg/mL), volume of e-liquid consumed (mL per day), device types and flavours used, both at baseline and 12 months. RESULTS: Vapers reduced both their nicotine concentrations in e-liquid over 12 months (from 13.83 mg/mL at baseline to 9.91 at follow up) but significantly increased their e-liquid consumption (from 4.44 to 6.84 mL). No significant changes in salivary cotinine concentrations (370.88 ng/mL at baseline and 415.78 ng/mL at follow up) were observed. There was an increase in sub-ohming (using an atomiser coil with resistance of <1â€¯Ω with increased power) at 12 months, and in the use of fruit flavoured e-liquids. CONCLUSIONS: Our sample of experienced vapers reduced the concentration of nicotine in their e-liquid over time, but maintained their nicotine intake possibly through self-titration via more intensive puffing. Findings suggest there may be little benefit in reducing nicotine e-liquid concentration since this appears to result in higher e-liquid consumption which may incur both a financial and health cost. Gaining an understanding of underlying reasons for lowering e-liquid concentration would be a useful line of empirical enquiry.

Effect of an electronic nicotine delivery device (e cigarette) on desire to smoke and withdrawal, user preferences and nicotine delivery: randomised cross-over trial.

OBJECTIVES: To measure the short-term effects of an electronic nicotine delivery device ("e cigarette", ENDD) on desire to smoke, withdrawal symptoms, acceptability, pharmacokinetic properties and adverse effects. DESIGN: Single blind randomised repeated measures cross-over trial of the Ruyan V8 ENDD. SETTING: University research centre in Auckland, New Zealand. PARTICIPANTS: 40 adult dependent smokers of 10 or more cigarettes per day. INTERVENTIONS: Participants were randomised to use ENDDs containing 16 mg nicotine or 0 mg capsules, Nicorette nicotine inhalator or their usual cigarette on each of four study days 3 days apart, with overnight smoking abstinence before use of each product. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary outcome was change in desire to smoke, measured as "area under the curve" on an 11-point visual analogue scale before and at intervals over 1 h of use. Secondary outcomes included withdrawal symptoms, acceptability and adverse events. In nine participants, serum nicotine levels were also measured. RESULTS: Over 60 min, participants using 16 mg ENDD recorded 0.82 units less desire to smoke than the placebo ENDD (p=0.006). No difference in desire to smoke was found between 16 mg ENDD and inhalator. ENDDs were more pleasant to use than inhalator (p=0.016) and produced less irritation of mouth and throat (p<0.001). On average, the ENDD increased serum nicotine to a peak of 1.3 mg/ml in 19.6 min, the inhalator to 2.1 ng/ml in 32 min and cigarettes to 13.4 ng/ml in 14.3 min. CONCLUSIONS: The 16 mg Ruyan V8 ENDD alleviated desire to smoke after overnight abstinence, was well tolerated and had a pharmacokinetic profile more like the Nicorette inhalator than a tobacco cigarette. Evaluation of the ENDD for longer-term safety, potential for long-term use and efficacy as a cessation aid is needed. Trial registration No.12607000587404, Australia and New Zealand Clinical Trials Register.

Acceptability and outcome of an Internet-based smoking cessation programme.

SETTING: Three district health boards (DHBs), organisations that govern public hospitals and services in Auckland, New Zealand. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate a commercial web-based smoking cessation programme (Smokestop). DESIGN: Smokestop was offered free of charge to 126 staff members of three Auckland DHBs who wanted to stop smoking. Following a 30 minute face-to-face enrolment meeting, participants were able to log on and use the programme. Nicotine replacement therapy (NRT) was available at no cost. All participants who used the programme at least once were followed up at 1, 3 and 6 months after first logging on for assessment of smoking status by self-report verified by carbon monoxide (CO) in expired breath. RESULTS: Of 104 participants who logged onto the programme, 12 (12%) achieved 6-month continuous CO-validated abstinence. Participant feedback was largely positive: 46% agreed that the programme had assisted them and 74% stated they would recommend it to other smokers. The concomitant use of NRT was seen as an important component. CONCLUSIONS: The results suggest that this internet-based smoking cessation programme is an acceptable method to deliver behavioural support to people who want help in stopping smoking, and that it shows promise as a smoking cessation intervention.

A cluster-randomised controlled trial of a brief training session to facilitate general practitioner referral to smoking cessation treatment.

OBJECTIVES: General practitioners (GPs) are the main source of referrals to specialist smoking cessation services (SSCS), but the referral rates are low. We evaluated effects of a brief GP training session on the number of referrals received by their local SSCS. METHODS: A cluster-randomised controlled trial was undertaken across three East London primary care trusts. A total of 91 GPs were randomly allocated to a training session or usual care. Participants in the intervention arm were offered a 40-min training session addressing the rationale and skills for referral of smokers for treatment. Participants in the usual care arm received referral guidance by post. The main outcome measure was the number of referrals recorded by the SSCS over 3 months after the intervention. RESULTS: Over the 3-month baseline period the average number of referrals per GP was 1.0 and 0.6 in the intervention and usual care arms, respectively. During the post-intervention period the mean number of referrals was 6.4 and 1.8 per GP. When adjusting for baseline variables the incidence rate ratio for the referrals from the intervention arm compared to usual care was 4.9 (p<0.001; 95% CI 1.7 to 14.7). CONCLUSION: A brief training session can significantly increase GP referral to smoking cessation services. TRIAL REGISTRATION: National Research Register, Department of Health, UK N0261148824 (available online at: http://www.nrr.nhs.uk/ViewDocument.asp?ID = N0261148824).

Non-nicotine pharmacotherapies for smoking cessation.

International chronic obstructive pulmonary disease guidelines recommend that smokers be strongly advised to quit, and should be offered help in doing so. The most effective smoking-cessation interventions combine behavioural support with pharmacotherapies. For smokers who do not wish to use nicotine replacement treatments, bupropion is a safe and effective non-nicotine alternative first-line treatment. Nortriptyline and clonidine have demonstrated efficacy in aiding smoking cessation, but are regarded as second-line therapies. A number of other non-nicotine treatments show promise, but more data are required before these can be recommended in assisting smokers to stop.

Nicotine replacement therapy in patients with cardiovascular disease: guidelines for health professionals.

The causal relationship between cigarette smoking and cardiovascular disease (CVD) is well known and it is of great importance that smokers with CVD are encouraged to stop. Nicotine replacement therapy (NRT) is an effective aid to smoking cessation. However, its use in patients with CVD is often avoided because of warnings on product labelling. This is not justified, as NRT use in dependent smokers is much safer than smoking. Arguments are presented for the following guidelines which may be used when recommending NRT to patients with CVD; (i) NRT can normally be recommended to smokers with CVD who tried and failed to quit without such help; (ii) in patients who have experienced a serious cardiovascular event within the past 4 weeks, involve the patient's consulting physician. In less acute cases this is not needed; (iii) ensure dosing does not exceed the manufacturer's recommendation; (iv) warn patients to stop using NRT if they relapse to smoking; and (v) target motivated smokers (i.e. those seeking help), and where possible provide or arrange intensive behavioural support to accompany NRT. This advice is conservative, but will hopefully remove some obstacles faced by smoking cessation counsellors and other health professionals when considering the use of NRT in people with history of CVD.