Safety of e-cigarettes and nicotine patches as stop-smoking aids in pregnancy: Secondary analysis of the Pregnancy Trial of E-cigarettes and Patches (PREP) randomized controlled trial.

AIMS: The aim of this study was to examine the safety of e-cigarettes (EC) and nicotine patches (NRT) when used to help pregnant smokers quit. DESIGN: A recent trial of EC versus NRT reported safety outcomes in the randomized arms. We conducted a further analysis based on product use. SETTING: Twenty-three hospitals in England and a stop-smoking service in Scotland took part. PARTICIPANTS: The participants comprised 1140 pregnant smokers. INTERVENTIONS: We compared women using and not using EC and NRT regularly during pregnancy. MEASUREMENTS: Measurements included nicotine intake compared with baseline, birth weight, other pregnancy outcomes, adverse events, maternal respiratory symptoms and relapse in early abstainers. FINDINGS: Use of EC was more common than use of NRT (47.3% vs 21.6%, P < 0.001). Women who stopped smoking (abstainers) and used EC at the end-of-pregnancy (EOP) reduced their salivary cotinine by 45% [49.3 ng/ml, 95% confidence interval (CI) = -79.8 to -10]. Only one abstainer used NRT at EOP. In dual users, cotinine increased by 19% (24 ng/ml, 95% CI = 3.5-68). In women reporting a reduction of at least 50% in cigarette consumption, cotinine levels increased by 10% in those using nicotine products and by 9% in those who did not. Birth weights in dual users and exclusive smokers were the same (3.1 kg). Birth weight in abstainers using either nicotine product was higher than in smokers [3.3 kg, standard deviation (SD) = 0.7] versus 3.1 kg, SD = 0.6; difference = 0.15 kg, 95% CI = 0.05-0.25) and not different from abstainers not using nicotine products (3.1 kg, SD = 0.8). Abstainers and smokers using nicotine products had no worse pregnancy outcomes or more adverse events than abstainers and smokers not using them. EC users reported more improvements than non-users in cough [adjusted relative risk (aRR) = 0.59, 95% CI = 0.37-0.93] and phlegm (aRR = 0.53, 95% CI = 0.31-0.92), controlling for smoking status. EC or NRT use had no association with relapse. CONCLUSIONS: Regular use of e-cigarettes or nicotine patches by pregnant smokers does not appear to be associated with any adverse outcomes.

Helping pregnant smokers quit: a multi-centre randomised controlled trial of electronic cigarettes versus nicotine replacement therapy.

Background: Some pregnant smokers try e-cigarettes, but effectiveness and safety of such use are unknown. Objectives: To compare effectiveness and safety of nicotine patches and e-cigarettes in pregnancy. Design: A pragmatic multi-centre randomised controlled trial. Setting: Twenty-three hospitals across England, and a Stop Smoking Service in Scotland. Participants: One thousand one hundred and forty pregnant daily smokers (12-24 weeks' gestation) motivated to stop smoking, with no strong preference for using nicotine patches or e-cigarettes. Interventions: Participants in the e-cigarette arm were posted a refillable e-cigarette device with two 10 ml bottles of tobacco-flavoured e-liquid (18 mg nicotine). Participants in the nicotine patches arm were posted a 2-week supply of 15 mg/16-hour nicotine patches. Supplies were provided for up to 8 weeks. Participants sourced further supplies themselves as needed. Participants in both arms received support calls prior to their target quit date, on the quit date, and weekly for the next 4 weeks. Outcome measures: The primary outcome was validated prolonged abstinence at the end of pregnancy. Participants lost to follow-up or not providing biochemical validation were included as non-abstainers. Secondary outcomes included self-reported abstinence at different time points, treatment adherence and safety outcomes. Results: Only 55% of self-reported abstainers mailed back useable saliva samples. Due to this, validated sustained abstinence rates were low (6.8% vs. 4.4% in the e-cigarettes and nicotine patches arms, respectively, risk ratio = 1.55, 95% confidence interval 0.95 to 2.53; Bayes factor = 2.7). In a pre-specified sensitivity analysis that excluded abstainers using non-allocated products, the difference became significant (6.8% vs. 3.6%, risk ratio = 1.93, 95% confidence interval 1.14 to 3.26; Bayes factor = 10). Almost a third of the sample did not set a target quit date and the uptake of support calls was low, as was the initial product use. At end of pregnancy, 33.8% versus 5.6% of participants were using their allocated product in the e-cigarettes versus nicotine patches arm (risk ratio = 6.01, 95% confidence interval 4.21 to 8.58). Regular use of e-cigarettes in the nicotine patches arm was more common than use of nicotine replacement products in the e-cigarette arm (17.8% vs. 2.8%). Rates of adverse events and adverse birth outcomes were similar in the two study arms, apart from participants in the e-cigarette arm having fewer infants with low birthweight (<2500 g) (9.6% vs. 14.8%, risk ratio = 0.65, 95% confidence interval 0.47 to 0.90; Bayes factor = 10.3). Limitations: Low rates of validation reduced the study power. A substantial proportion of participants did not use the support on offer sufficiently to test its benefits. Sample size may have been too small to detect differences in less frequent adverse effects. Conclusions: E-cigarettes were not significantly more effective than nicotine patches in the primary analysis, but when e-cigarettes use in the nicotine patches arm was accounted for, e-cigarettes were almost twice as effective as patches in all abstinence outcomes. In pregnant smokers seeking help, compared to nicotine patches, e-cigarettes are probably more effective, do not pose more risks to birth outcomes assessed in this study and may reduce the incidence of low birthweight. Future work: Routine monitoring of smoking cessation and birth outcomes in pregnant women using nicotine patches and e-cigarettes and further studies are needed to confirm these results. Trial registration: This trial is registered as ISRCTN62025374 and Eudract 2017-001237-65. Funding: This project was funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 27, No. 13. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

Like many other smokers in the UK, some pregnant smokers try to limit or stop smoking with the help of e-cigarettes. It is not known whether this helps with stopping smoking and whether using e-cigarettes has any bad effects on the baby. We recruited 1140 pregnant smokers who wanted to quit. A random half were given nicotine patches, which are commonly used to help smokers quit. The other half were given an e-cigarette. They also received six weekly phone calls to support them in stopping smoking. We then looked at how many in each group stopped smoking by the end of pregnancy. More women stopped smoking in the group that was given an e-cigarette, but the difference was small and could be due to chance. However, some of the women in the nicotine patch group who had successfully stopped smoking were using e-cigarettes rather than patches. When these (and women in the e-cigarette group who used patches) were not counted, e-cigarettes helped almost twice as many women stop smoking than patches. E-cigarettes were better than patches in preventing low birthweight (having babies who weigh less than 2.5 kg). Otherwise, women given patches and those given e-cigarettes (and their babies) had similar numbers of medical complications. For pregnant women who smoke and need help to quit, e-cigarettes are probably more helpful than nicotine patches, and do not pose any additional risks to women or their babies.

Electronic cigarettes versus nicotine patches for smoking cessation in pregnancy: a randomized controlled trial.

Nicotine replacement therapy, in the form of nicotine patches, is commonly offered to pregnant women who smoke to help them to stop smoking, but this approach has limited efficacy in this population. Electronic cigarettes (e-cigarettes) are also used by pregnant women who smoke but their safety and efficacy in pregnancy are unknown. Here, we report the results of a randomized controlled trial in 1,140 participants comparing refillable e-cigarettes with nicotine patches. Pregnant women who smoked were randomized to e-cigarettes (n = 569) or nicotine patches (n = 571). In the unadjusted analysis of the primary outcome, validated prolonged quit rates at the end of pregnancy in the two study arms were not significantly different (6.8% versus 4.4% in the e-cigarette and patch arms, respectively; relative risk (RR) = 1.55, 95%CI: 0.95-2.53, P = 0.08). However, some participants in the nicotine patch group also used e-cigarettes during the study. In a pre-specified sensitivity analysis excluding abstinent participants who used non-allocated products, e-cigarettes were more effective than patches (6.8% versus 3.6%; RR = 1.93, 95%CI: 1.14-3.26, P = 0.02). Safety outcomes included adverse events and maternal and birth outcomes. The safety profile was found to be similar for both study products, however, low birthweight (<2,500 g) was less frequent in the e-cigarette arm (14.8% versus 9.6%; RR = 0.65, 95%CI: 0.47-0.90, P = 0.01). Other adverse events and birth outcomes were similar in the two study arms. E-cigarettes might help women who are pregnant to stop smoking, and their safety for use in pregnancy is similar to that of nicotine patches. ISRCTN62025374.

E-cigarettes versus nicotine replacement treatment as harm reduction interventions for smokers who find quitting difficult: randomized controlled trial.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: The majority of smokers accessing the current best treatments continue to smoke. We aimed to test if e-cigarettes (EC) compared with nicotine replacement treatment (NRT) can help such smokers to reduce smoking. DESIGN: Randomized controlled trial of EC (n = 68) versus NRT (n = 67) with 6-month follow-up. SETTING: Stop smoking service in London, UK. PARTICIPANTS: A total of 135 smokers (median age = 40 years, 51% male) previously unable to stop smoking with conventional treatments. INTERVENTIONS: Participants received either NRT of their choice (8-week supply) or an EC starter pack and instructions to purchase further e-liquids of strength and flavours of their choice themselves. Products were accompanied by minimal behavioural support. MEASUREMENTS: Participants who reported that they stopped smoking or reduced their daily cigarette consumption by at least 50% at 6-month follow-up were invited to provide a carbon monoxide (CO) reading. The primary outcome was biochemically validated reduction in smoke intake of at least 50% at 6 months and the main secondary outcome was sustained validated abstinence at 6 months. Drop-outs were included as 'non-reducers'. FINDINGS: Validated smoking reduction (including cessation) was achieved by 26.5 versus 6.0% of participants in the EC and NRT study arms, respectively [relative risk (RR) = 4.4, P = 0.005, 95% confidence interval (CI) = 1.6-12.4]. Sustained validated abstinence rates at 6 months were 19.1 versus 3.0% (RR = 6.4, P = 0.01, 95% CI = 1.5-27.3). Product use was high and equal in both study arms initially, but at 6 months allocated product use was 47% in the EC arm versus 10% in the NRT arm (χ2(1)  = 22.0, P < 0.001), respectively. Adverse events were minor and infrequent. CONCLUSIONS: In smokers unable to quit using conventional methods, e-cigarettes were more effective than nicotine replacement therapy in facilitating validated long-term smoking reduction and smoking cessation when limited other support was provided.

A randomised controlled trial of the 5:2 diet.

OBJECTIVE: The 5:2 diet is a popular intermittent energy restriction method of weight management that awaits further evaluation. We compared the effects of one-off 5:2 instructions with the effects of one-off standard multicomponent weight-management advice; and also examined whether additional behavioural support enhances 5:2 adherence and efficacy compared to one-off instructions. METHODS: Three hundred adults with obesity were randomised to receive a Standard Brief Advice (SBA) covering diet and physical activity (N = 100); 5:2 self-help instructions (5:2SH) (N = 100); or 5:2SH plus six once-weekly group support sessions (N = 100). Participants were followed up for one year. RESULTS: Adherence to 5:2SH was initially high (74% at 6 weeks), but it declined over time (31% at 6 months and 22% at one year). 5:2SH and SBA achieved similar weight-loss at six months (-1.8kg (SD = 3.5) vs -1.7kg (SD = 4.4); b = 0.23, 95%CI:-0.79-1.27, p = 0.7) and at one year (-1.9kg (SD = 4.9) vs -1.8kg (SD = 5.7), b = 0.20, 95%CI:-1.21-1.60, p = 0.79), with 18% vs 15% participants losing ≥5% of their body weight with 5:2SH and SBA, respectively at one year (RR = 0.83, 95%CI:0.44-1.54, p = 0.55). Both interventions received positive ratings, but 5:2SH ratings were significantly higher. 5:2SH had no negative effect on fat and fiber intake and physical activity compared to SBA. Compared to 5:2SH, 5:2G generated a greater weight loss at 6 weeks (-2.3kg vs -1.5kg; b = 0.74, 95%CI:1.37-0.11, p = 0.02), but by one year, the difference was no longer significant (-2.6kg vs -1.9kg, p = 0.37; ≥5% body weight loss 28% vs 18%, p = 0.10). CONCLUSIONS: Simple 5:2 advice and multicomponent weight management advice generated similar modest results. The 5:2 diet did not undermine other health behaviours, and it received more favourable ratings. Adding initial group support enhanced 5:2 adherence and effects, but the impact diminished over time. Health professionals who provide brief weight management advice may consider including the 5:2 advice as an option. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ISRCTN registry (ISRCTN79408248).

Nicotine Delivery and User Ratings of IQOS Heated Tobacco System Compared With Cigarettes, Juul, and Refillable E-Cigarettes.

INTRODUCTION: Reduced-risk nicotine products are more likely to replace smoking if they match cigarettes in nicotine delivery and user satisfaction. AIMS AND METHODS: We examined the nicotine delivery profile and user ratings of IQOS heated tobacco system and compared it with own brand cigarettes (OBC), Juul, and refillable e-cigarettes (EC).Participants (N = 22) who were daily vapers smoking <1 cigarette per day on average, attended after overnight abstinence from smoking and vaping, to test at separate sessions OBC, IQOS, and Juul. Eight participants also tested two refillable EC using e-liquid with 20 mg/mL nicotine. At each session, a baseline blood sample was taken before participants used the product ad libitum for 5 minutes. Further samples were taken at 2, 4, 6, 8, 10, and 30 minutes. Maximum nicotine concentration (Cmax), time to Cmax (Tmax), and nicotine delivered over 30 minutes (AUC0->30) were calculated. Participants rated their urge to smoke and product characteristics. RESULTS: IQOS delivered less nicotine than OBC (AUC0->30: z = -2.73, p = .006), and than Juul (AUC0->30: z = -3.08, p = .002; Cmax: z = -2.65, p = .008), and received less favorable ratings than Juul (effect on urges to smoke: z = -3.23, p = .001; speed of urge relief: z = -2.75, p = .006; recommendation to friends: z = -2.45, p = .014). Compared with refillable EC, IQOS delivered nicotine faster (Tmax: z = -2.37, p = .018), but received less favorable overall ratings (recommended to friends: z = -2.32, p = .021). CONCLUSIONS: IQOS' pharmacokinetic profile suggests that it may be less effective than Juul for smoking cessation, but at least as effective as refillable EC; although participants, who were experienced vapers rather than IQOS users, preferred refillable EC. IMPLICATIONS: Because IQOS provided less efficient nicotine delivery than cigarettes and Juul in this sample, and also had a weaker effect on urges to smoke than Juul, it could be less helpful than Juul in assisting such dual users, and possibly smokers generally, to switch to an alternative product. IQOS, however, provided nicotine faster than refillable EC products, although participants preferred EC.

Immobilization of yeast cell walls with surface displayed laccase from Streptomyces cyaneus within dopamine-alginate beads for dye decolorization.

High amounts of toxic textile dyes are released into the environment due to coloring and wastewaters treatment processes' inefficiency. To remove dyes from the environment and wastewaters, researchers focused on applying immobilized enzymes due to mild reaction conditions and enzyme nontoxicity. Laccases are oxidases with wide substrate specificity, capable of degradation of many different dye types. Laccase from Streptomyces cyaneus was expressed on the surface of Saccharomyces cerevisiae EBY100 cells. The specific activity of surface-displayed laccase was increased by toluene-induced lysis to 3.1 U/g of cell walls. For cell wall laccase immobilization within hydrogel beads, alginate was modified by dopamine using periodate oxidation and reductive amination and characterized by UV-Vis, FTIR, and NMR spectroscopy. Cell wall laccase was immobilized within alginate and dopamine-alginate beads additionally cross-linked by oxygen and laccase. The immobilized enzyme's specific activity was two times higher using dopamine-alginate compared to native alginate beads, and immobilization yield increased 16 times. Cell wall laccase immobilized within dopamine-alginate beads decolorized Amido Black 10B, Reactive Black 5, Evans Blue, and Remazol Brilliant Blue with 100% efficiency and after ten rounds of multiple-use retained decolorization efficiency of 90% with Evans Blue and 61% with Amido Black.

Time restricted eating as a weight loss intervention in adults with obesity.

OBJECTIVES: Time-restricted eating (TRE) is a weight management approach in which food is consumed only within a specific period each day. The simplicity of this approach is appealing, but its efficacy is not known. The aim of this pilot cohort study was to assess adherence to TRE and its effects on weight and lipid profile. METHODS: Fifty participants with obesity attempted to follow TRE for 12 weeks. Surveys were conducted weekly over the phone to assess treatment adherence and ratings; and at 6 and 12 weeks, participants attended the clinic to be weighed, have their blood pressure taken and provide a blood sample for lipid profile. Treatment results were compared with data from previous comparable cohorts using other weight management methods. RESULTS: Mean age of the participants was 50 (SD = 12.0), mean weight 97kg (SD = 17.1), mean BMI = 35 (SD = 4.0) and most were female (74%). At weeks 6 and 12, 64% and 58% of participants continued to practice TRE on at least five days/week. Using the 'last observation carried forward' imputation, mean (SD) weight loss was 2.0 (1.7) kg and 2.6 (2.6) kg at 6 and 12 weeks. Among participants who provided follow-up data, those who adhered to the intervention for at least five days/week recorded greater weight loss than those with lower adherence (week 6: 2.5 (1.7) vs 1.0 (1.3), p = 0.003; week 12: 3.5 (2.7) vs 1.3 (2.0), p = 0.001). A total of 26% of the sample lost at least 5% of their body weight at 12 weeks. The intervention had no effect on blood pressure or lipid profile. CONCLUSIONS: TRE results were modest, but at least on par with those achieved with more complex interventions, and weight loss did not decline at 12 weeks. A formal trial of the intervention is warranted.

A Qualitative Study of Factors Influencing Adherence among Pregnant Women Taking Part in a Trial of E-Cigarettes for Smoking Cessation.

Use of e-cigarettes (vaping) has potential to help pregnant women stop smoking. This study explored factors influencing adherence among participants in the vaping arm of the first trial of vaping for smoking cessation in pregnancy. We conducted semi-structured telephone interviews (n = 28) with women at three-months postpartum. Interviews were analysed using thematic analysis, informed by the Theoretical-Domains Framework, Necessity-Concerns Framework and Perceptions and Practicalities Approach. Interviewees generally reported high levels of vaping. We found that: (1) intervention adherence was driven by four necessity beliefs-stopping smoking for the baby, and vaping for harm reduction, smoking cessation or as a last resort; (2) necessity beliefs outweighed vaping concerns, such as dependence and safety; (3) adherence was linked to four practicalities themes, acting as barriers and facilitators to vaping-device and e-liquid perceptions, resources and support, whether vaping became habitual, and social and environmental factors; and (4) intentional non-adherence was rare; unintentional non-adherence was due to device failures, forgetting to vape, and personal circumstances and stress. Pregnant smokers provided with e-cigarettes, and with generally high levels of vaping, had positive beliefs about the necessity of vaping for smoking cessation which outweighed concerns about vaping. Non-adherence was mainly due to unintentional factors.

Nicotine delivery and user reactions to Juul EU (20 mg/ml) compared with Juul US (59 mg/ml), cigarettes and other e-cigarette products.

RATIONALE: The degree to which the EU version of Juul with 20 mg/ml nicotine (Juul EU) delivers nicotine to users is likely to determine its treatment potential. OBJECTIVES: To compare the pharmacokinetic profile and user ratings of Juul EU, Juul US (59 mg/ml nicotine), cigarettes and other e-cigarette (EC) products. METHODS: In a within-subjects crossover design, 18 vapers used, at separate sessions, their own brand cigarette (OBC), Juul US and Juul EU for 5 min ad libitum, after overnight abstinence. Seven of the participants also tested eight other EC previously. Blood samples were taken at baseline and 2, 4, 6, 8, 10 and 30 min after initiating product use. Products were rated on a range of characteristics. RESULTS: Juul EU delivered less nicotine than OBC (t(13) = -4.64 p < .001) and than Juul US (t(13) = -6.40, p < .001): AUC0 ≥ 30 77.3, 324.8 and 355.9, respectively. Maximum nicotine concentration (Cmax) was also much lower for Juul EU than Juul US (z = -3.59, p < .001): Cmax 3.8 ng/ml vs 21.1 ng/ml, respectively. Juul EU was perceived to relieve urges to smoke less than Juul US (z = -2.29, p = .022) and to provide less nicotine (z = -2.57. p = 0.010). Juul EU delivered less nicotine than refillable EC (Cmax: t(6) = 3.02, p = 0.023; AUC0 ≥ 30: z = -2.20, p = 0.028) and also less than cig-a-like EC, though the difference did not reach significance (Cmax: t(6) = 2.49, p = 0.047; AUC0 ≥ 30: z = -1.99, p = 0.046). Subjective ratings of Juul EU and other EC products were similar. CONCLUSIONS: Juul EU delivers much less nicotine to users than Juul US, and also less than refillable EC products. It may thus have more limited potential to help smokers quit.

Nicotine delivery and users' reactions to Juul compared with cigarettes and other e-cigarette products.

AIMS: To assess the pharmacokinetic (PK) profile of, and users' reactions to, Juul (59 mg nicotine/ml) as an indication of its therapeutic and dependence potential. DESIGN: Cross-over, within-subjects study in which participants attended after overnight abstinence on separate sessions and smoked a cigarette or used Juul or eight other types of e-cigarettes (EC) ad libitum for 5 minutes. The Juul product used was the version available in the United States that has more nicotine in the e-liquid than the one available in the European Union. SETTING: Laboratory setting in the United Kingdom. PARTICIPANTS: Twenty dual users (smokers who also vape) provided data on Juul and cigarettes, with eight also providing data on other EC products. MEASUREMENTS: At each session, number of puffs taken was counted during the 5-minute product use period and blood samples were taken at baseline and at 2, 4, 6, 8, 10 and 30 minutes after starting smoking/vaping and analysed for nicotine. Participants also monitored their urges to smoke and rated the products on a range of characteristics. FINDINGS: Juul's PK profile was close to the PK profile of cigarettes [maximum concentration (Cmax ) = 20.4 versus 19.2 ng/ml; time to maximum concentration (Tmax ) = 4 versus 6 minutes; area under the curve (AUC): 307.9 versus 312.6, respectively]. Compared with other EC products, Juul had shorter Tmax [4 minutes, (IQR = 2.5-4.0) versus 6.3 minutes, (IQR = 4.7 - 8.1), P = 0.012] and higher Cmax (28.9 (SD = 15.6) versus 10.6 (SD = 5.5), P = 0.013) despite a lower number of puffs (12.5 (SD = 4.2) versus 17.0 (SD = 4.2), P = 0.084). Compared with other e-cigarette products, it also provided faster reduction of urges to smoke and obtained more favourable subjective ratings. CONCLUSION: Juul's PK profile and user ratings suggest that it could be more effective than other EC products in helping smokers to quit smoking, but it may also have a higher potential to generate regular use in non-smokers.

Cost-effectiveness of e-cigarettes compared with nicotine replacement therapy in stop smoking services in England (TEC study): a randomized controlled trial.

AIM: To evaluate the cost-effectiveness of e-cigarettes as a smoking cessation aid used in routine stop smoking services in England. DESIGN: Cost-effectiveness analysis was performed from the National Health Service (NHS) and Personal Social Services (PSS) perspective for 12-month periods and life-time. Costs, including that of both treatments, other smoking cessation help and health-care services, and health benefits, estimated from EQ-5D-5L and measured in quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), for the 12-month analysis, came from a randomized controlled trial. Life-time analysis was model-based with input from both trial data and published secondary data sources. Cost-effectiveness was measured by an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER). SETTING: Three stop-smoking service sites in England. PARTICIPANTS: Adult smokers (n = 886) who sought help to quit in the participating sites. INTERVENTION AND COMPARATOR: An e-cigarette (EC) starter kit versus provision of nicotine replacement therapy (NRT) for up to 3 months, both with standard behavioural support. A total of 886 participants were randomized (439 in the EC arm, 447 in the NRT arm). Excluding one death in each arm, the 1-year quit rate was 18.0 and 9.9%, respectively. MEASUREMENTS: Cost of treatments was estimated from the treatment log. Costs of other smoking cessation help and health-care services and EQ-5D-5 L were collected at baseline, 6- and 12-month follow-ups. Incremental costs and incremental QALYs were estimated using regression adjusting for baseline covariates and their respective baseline values. FINDINGS: The ICER was £1100 per QALY gained at the 12 months after quit date (87% probability below £20 000/QALY). Markov model estimated the life-time ICER of EC to be £65 per QALY (85% probability below £20 000/QALY). CONCLUSION: Using e-cigarettes as a smoking cessation aid with standard behavioural support in stop-smoking services in England is likely to be more cost-effective than using nicotine replacement therapy in the same setting.

E-cigarettes compared with nicotine replacement therapy within the UK Stop Smoking Services: the TEC RCT.

BACKGROUND: Over the past few years, a large number of smokers in the UK have stopped smoking with the help of e-cigarettes. So far, UK Stop Smoking Services (SSSs) have been reluctant to include e-cigarettes among their treatment options because data on their efficacy compared with the licensed medications are lacking. OBJECTIVE: The objective was to compare the efficacy of refillable e-cigarettes and nicotine replacement therapy (NRT) products, when accompanied by weekly behavioural support. DESIGN: A randomised controlled trial comparing e-cigarettes and NRT. SETTING: Three sites that provide local SSSs. PARTICIPANTS: The participants were 886 smokers seeking help to quit smoking, aged ≥ 18 years, not pregnant or breastfeeding, with no strong preference to use or not to use NRT or e-cigarettes in their quit attempt, and currently not using NRT or e-cigarettes. A total of 886 participants were randomised but two died during the study (one in each study arm) and were not included in the analysis. INTERVENTIONS: The NRT arm (n = 446) received NRT of their choice (single or combination), provided for up to 12 weeks. The e-cigarette arm (n = 438) received an e-cigarette starter pack and were encouraged to buy addtional e-liquids and e-cigarette products of their choice. Both arms received the same standard behavioural support. Participants attended weekly sessions at their SSS and provided outcome data at 4 weeks. They were then followed up by telephone at 6 and 12 months. Participants reporting abstinence or at least 50% reduction in cigarette consumption at 12 months were invited to attend for carbon monoxide (CO) validation. Participants/researchers could not be blinded to the intervention. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary outcome was CO-validated sustained abstinence rates at 52 weeks. Participants lost to follow-up or not providing biochemical validation were included as non-abstainers. Secondary outcomes included abstinence at other time points, reduction in smoke intake, treatment adherence and ratings, elicited adverse reactions, and changes in self-reported respiratory health. A cost-efficacy analysis of the intervention was also conducted. RESULTS: The 1-year quit rate was 9.9% in the NRT arm and 18.0% in the e-cigarette arm (risk ratio 1.83, 95% confidence interval 1.30 to 2.58; p < 0.001). The e-cigarette arm had significantly higher validated quit rates at all time points. Participants in the e-cigarette arm showed significantly better adherence and experienced fewer urges to smoke throughout the initial 4 weeks of their quit attempt than those in the NRT arm, and gave their allocated product more favourable ratings. They were also more likely to be still using their allocated product at 1 year (39.5% vs. 4.3%, χ2 = 161.4; p < 0.001). Participants assigned to e-cigarettes reported significantly less coughing and phlegm at 1 year than those assigned to NRT (controlling for smoking status). A detailed economic analysis confirmed that, because e-cigarettes incur lower NHS costs than NRT and generate a higher quit rate, e-cigarette use is more cost-effective. LIMITATIONS: The results may not be generalisable to other types of smokers or settings, or to cartridge-based e-cigarettes. CONCLUSIONS: Within the context of multisession treatment for smokers seeking help, e-cigarettes were significantly more effective than NRT. If SSSs provide e-cigarette starter packs, it is likely to boost their success rates and improve their cost-efficacy. FUTURE WORK: The efficacy of e-cigarettes provided with different levels of support will show whether smokers should be encouraged to switch to vaping within support services or whether e-cigarettes can be recommended with less intensive or no support. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN60477608. FUNDING: This project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 23, No. 43. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information. The trial was supported by the Cancer Research UK Prevention Trials Unit (grant A16893).

Alarge number of smokers in the UK have stopped smoking with the help of e-cigarettes, but it is not known if e-cigarettes are as helpful as stop smoking medications that are provided by the UK Stop Smoking Services (SSSs). This information is needed to decide whether or not SSSs should include e-cigarettes among their treatment options. A total of 886 smokers who were seeking help with quitting and did not mind whether they would use nicotine replacement therapy (NRT), such as nicotine patches, or e-cigarettes were recruited at three SSSs. The smokers were randomly allocated (by chance) to receive weekly behavioural support and either a NRT of their choice (a single NRT product or product combinations) (n = 447) or a starter pack of e-cigarettes (n = 439). The trial ran from May 2015 to February 2018. The participants were followed up for 1 year to see how many stopped smoking in each group. Smokers using e-cigarettes suffered less cigarette withdrawal discomfort early on and had higher quit rates at all time points. At 1 year, 10% of participants in the NRT trial arm had been abstinent for the whole year, compared with 18% in the e-cigarette arm; regarding abstinence for at least 6 months, the figures were 12% in the NRT arm and 21% in the e-cigarette arm. Of interest, coughs and phlegm production also reduced more in people quitting with e-cigarettes than those quitting with NRT. This supports previous reports suggesting that an ingredient in e-cigarettes (i.e. propylene glycol) may protect vapers from airborne infections. E-cigarette starter packs cost much less than NRT and so, if SSSs provide them, their use is likely to boost the success rates and reduce the costs of SSSs.

Are 'dual users' who smoke and use e-cigarettes interested in using varenicline to stop smoking altogether, and can they benefit from it? A cohort study of UK vapers.

OBJECTIVES: Smokers who use e-cigarettes (EC) do so mostly to stop smoking, but many continue to use both products. It is not known whether these 'dual users' are interested in stop-smoking medications and whether they can benefit from them. SETTING, PARTICIPANTS AND MEASURES: Dual users were recruited over social media and posted study questionnaire and saliva kits at baseline, 3 and 6 months. Those interested in varenicline were posted the medication and received weekly calls over the first 6 weeks, followed by three calls at fortnightly intervals. RESULTS: Of 204 participants, 124 (61%, CI=54% to 68%) expressed interest in receiving varenicline and 80 (39%, CI=32% to 45%) started varenicline (varenicline users, VU). VU were more dependent smokers (F=6.2, p=0.01) with higher cigarette consumption (F=8.7, p<0.01) who were using stronger nicotine e-liquids (F=13.9, p<0.001) than dual users not opting for varenicline (varenicline non-users, VN). In terms of abstinence for at least 3 months at the 6-month follow-up, VU were more likely than VN to report abstinence from smoking (17.5% vs 4.8%, p=0.006, RR=3.6, CI:1.4 to 9.0), vaping (12.5% vs 1.6%, p=0.007, RR=7.8, CI:1.7 to 34.5) and both smoking and vaping (8.8% vs 0.8%, p=0.02, RR=10.9, CI:1.4 to 86.6). The differences were significant across sensitivity analyses (RRs=4.9 to 14.0; p=0.02 to p<0.001 at 3 months; RRs=3.0 to 14.0; p=0.01 to p<0.001 at 6 months). VU reported a greater reduction in enjoyment of vaping by the end of the varenicline use period (F=4.1, p=0.04) and recorded a significantly greater reduction in nicotine intake than VN at 3 months (F=13.9, p<0.001) and 6 months (F=26.5, p<0.001). CONCLUSION: Varenicline offered to dual users is likely to promote successful abstinence from both smoking and vaping, although a randomised trial is needed to confirm this. Among dual users who want to stop smoking, there seems to be a high level of interest in smoking-cessation treatments.

A Randomized Trial of E-Cigarettes versus Nicotine-Replacement Therapy.

BACKGROUND: E-cigarettes are commonly used in attempts to stop smoking, but evidence is limited regarding their effectiveness as compared with that of nicotine products approved as smoking-cessation treatments. METHODS: We randomly assigned adults attending U.K. National Health Service stop-smoking services to either nicotine-replacement products of their choice, including product combinations, provided for up to 3 months, or an e-cigarette starter pack (a second-generation refillable e-cigarette with one bottle of nicotine e-liquid [18 mg per milliliter]), with a recommendation to purchase further e-liquids of the flavor and strength of their choice. Treatment included weekly behavioral support for at least 4 weeks. The primary outcome was sustained abstinence for 1 year, which was validated biochemically at the final visit. Participants who were lost to follow-up or did not provide biochemical validation were considered to not be abstinent. Secondary outcomes included participant-reported treatment usage and respiratory symptoms. RESULTS: A total of 886 participants underwent randomization. The 1-year abstinence rate was 18.0% in the e-cigarette group, as compared with 9.9% in the nicotine-replacement group (relative risk, 1.83; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.30 to 2.58; P<0.001). Among participants with 1-year abstinence, those in the e-cigarette group were more likely than those in the nicotine-replacement group to use their assigned product at 52 weeks (80% [63 of 79 participants] vs. 9% [4 of 44 participants]). Overall, throat or mouth irritation was reported more frequently in the e-cigarette group (65.3%, vs. 51.2% in the nicotine-replacement group) and nausea more frequently in the nicotine-replacement group (37.9%, vs. 31.3% in the e-cigarette group). The e-cigarette group reported greater declines in the incidence of cough and phlegm production from baseline to 52 weeks than did the nicotine-replacement group (relative risk for cough, 0.8; 95% CI, 0.6 to 0.9; relative risk for phlegm, 0.7; 95% CI, 0.6 to 0.9). There were no significant between-group differences in the incidence of wheezing or shortness of breath. CONCLUSIONS: E-cigarettes were more effective for smoking cessation than nicotine-replacement therapy, when both products were accompanied by behavioral support. (Funded by the National Institute for Health Research and Cancer Research UK; Current Controlled Trials number, ISRCTN60477608 .).

Progressive nicotine patch dosing prior to quitting smoking: feasibility, safety and effects during the pre-quit and post-quit periods.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Nicotine replacement therapy (NRT) may be more effective in aiding smoking cessation if higher doses of nicotine from it can be tolerated. We examined the responses to, and 4-week abstinence rates observed, when titrating the dose of transdermal nicotine patch up to 84 mg/day over 4 weeks prior to a target quit date and titrating down again over 4 weeks afterwards. DESIGN: Clinical cohort study. SETTING: Tobacco dependence clinic, Mar del Plata, Argentina. PARTICIPANTS: Fifty smokers seeking help with stopping smoking. INTERVENTION: Participants started on one 21-mg/24-hour patch 4 weeks prior to their target quit day (TQD). The dose was increased weekly by adding a 21-mg patch unless participants reported adverse effects and/or did not wish to increase the dose. The dose was reduced by 21 mg/day each week from 1 week post-TQD, until it reverted to the standard dose (21 mg/day) at 4 weeks post-TQD. Participants received weekly behavioural support and could also use oral NRT from the TQD. Participants were advised to smoke ad libitum during the pre-quit period. MEASUREMENTS: Proportion of participants progressing through each stage of dosing, adherence, adverse effects, changes in cigarette consumption, smoke intake and enjoyment of smoking during the pre-quit period; withdrawal symptoms; carbon monoxide-validated abstinence during 4 weeks post-TQD. FINDINGS: Of the 50 participants, 72.0% (n = 36) progressed to the 84-mg nicotine dose and 94.0% (n = 47) completed the trial. Adverse effects consisted primarily of nausea and were mild and well tolerated. Cigarette consumption, smoke intake and enjoyment of smoking declined significantly during the pre-quit period. Forty-one (82%) participants achieved 4 weeks validated abstinence. Abstainers experienced no detectable cigarette withdrawal symptoms. CONCLUSIONS: Most smokers seeking help with stopping appear to be able to tolerate doses of transdermal nicotine patch up to 84 mg/day during a 4-week pre-quit up-titration period with minimal side effects.