Associations between vaping and self-reported respiratory symptoms in young people in Canada, England and the US.

BACKGROUND: Prevalence of youth nicotine vaping has increased, heightening concerns around negative health effects. This study aimed to compare self-reported respiratory symptoms among youth by vaping behaviours. METHODS: Participants (n = 39,214) aged 16-19 from the 2020 and 2021 International Tobacco Control Policy Evaluation Project (ITC) Youth Tobacco and Vaping Surveys (Canada, England, US). Weighted multivariable logistic regression assessed associations between reporting any of five respiratory symptoms in the past week (shortness of breath, wheezing, chest pain, phlegm, cough) and: past 30-day smoking and/or vaping; lifetime/current vaping. Among past-30-day vapers (n = 4644), we assessed associations between symptoms and vaping frequency, use of nicotine salts, usual flavour and device type(s). RESULTS: Overall, 27.8% reported experiencing any of the five respiratory symptoms. Compared with youth who had only vaped, those who had only smoked had similar odds of symptoms [adjusted odds ratio, OR (95% confidence interval, CI): 0.97 (0.85-1.10)], those who both smoked and vaped had higher odds [1.26 (1.12-1.42)], and those who had done neither, lower odds [0.67 (0.61-0.72)]. Compared with those who had never vaped, past use, experimentation and current regular or occasional use were all associated with higher odds. Reporting usually using nicotine salts was associated with higher odds of symptoms [1.43 (1.22-1.68)] than non-salt but was often uncertain. Compared with tobacco flavour (including with menthol), menthol/mint and sweets flavours were associated with similar odds; fruit [1.44 (1.07-1.93)], multiple [1.76 (1.30-2.39)] and 'other' [2.14 (1.45-3.16)] flavours with higher odds. All device types were associated with similar odds. CONCLUSIONS: Among youth, vaping was associated with increased reporting of past-week respiratory symptoms. Among those who vaped, some flavour types and potentially nicotine salts were associated with respiratory symptoms.

Exposure to Tobacco-Specific Nitrosamines Among People Who Vape, Smoke, or do Neither: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

INTRODUCTION: Smoking exposes people to high levels of Tobacco-Specific Nitrosamines (TSNAs), which include potent carcinogens. We systematically reviewed TSNA exposure between people smoking, vaping, and doing neither. AIMS AND METHODS: Databases were searched between August 2017-March 2022, using vaping-related terms. Peer-reviewed articles reporting TSNA metabolites (NNAL, NNN, NAB, and NAT) levels in bio-samples among adults exclusively vaping, exclusively smoking, or doing neither were included. Where possible, meta-analyses were conducted. RESULTS: Of 12 781 identified studies, 22 were included. TSNA levels fell substantially when people who smoke switched to vaping in longitudinal studies and were lower among people who vaped compared to smoked in cross-sectional studies. Levels of TSNAs were similar when comparing people who switched from smoking to vaping, to those who switched to no use of nicotine products, in longitudinal studies. Levels were higher among people who vaped compared to people who neither vaped nor smoked in cross-sectional studies.When comparing people who vaped to smoked: pooled urinary NNAL was 79% lower across three randomized controlled trials and 96% lower across three cross-sectional studies; pooled NAB was 87% lower and NAT 94% lower in two cross-sectional studies. When comparing people who neither vaped nor smoked to people who vaped, pooled urinary NNAL was 80%, NAB 26%, and NAT 27% lower in two cross-sectional studies. Other longitudinal data, and NNN levels could not be pooled. CONCLUSIONS: Exposure to all TSNAs was lower among people who vaped compared to people who smoked. Levels were higher among people who vaped compared to people who neither vaped nor smoked. IMPLICATIONS: As well as TSNAs, there are many other toxicant exposures from smoking and vaping that can increase the risk of disease. However, it is likely that the reduced exposure to TSNAs from vaping relative to smoking reduces the risk to health of those who use vaping products to quit smoking. Future high-quality research, with robust definitions of exclusive vaping and smoking, and accounting for TSNAs half-lives, is needed to fully assess exposure to TSNAs among people who vape.

How is nicotine vaping product (e-cigarette) use monitored in primary care electronic health records in the United Kingdom? An exploratory analysis of Clinical Practice Research Datalink (CPRD).

BACKGROUND: Electronic health records (EHRs) could identify long-term health effects of nicotine vaping. We characterised the extent to which vaping is recorded in primary care EHRs in the UK, on a population level. METHODS: We performed descriptive analysis of Clinical Practice Research Datalink (CPRD), primary care electronic health records of 25% of the UK population (~ 16 million patients). Patients aged ≥ 18 years whose vaping status was recorded using medical codes between 2006 and 2022 were identified. We reported the frequency of vaping codes; their distribution by patient age, gender, and ethnicity; trends in vaping recording over time (including interrupted time series analyses); and transitions in patient smoking status. RESULTS: Seven medical codes indicated current or former vaping, from 150,114 patients. When their vaping status was first recorded, mean patient age was 50.2 years (standard deviation: 15.0), 52.4% were female, and 82.1% were White. Of those recorded as currently vaping, almost all (98.9%) had records of their prior smoking status: 55.0% had been smoking, 38.3% had stopped smoking, 5.6% had never smoked. Of those who were smoking prior to being recorded as vaping, more than a year after the vaping record, over a third (34.2%) were still smoking, under a quarter (23.7%) quit smoking, 1.7% received a 'never smoked' status, and there was no smoking status for 40.4%. The 'e-cigarette or vaping product use-associated lung injury' (EVALI) outbreak was significantly associated with a declining trend in new records of current vaping between September 2019 and March 2020; and an immediate significant increase in new records of former vaping, followed by a declining trend. CONCLUSIONS: Few patients are being asked about vaping. Most who vape had smoked, and many quit smoking after starting vaping. To enable electronic health records to provide stronger evidence on health effects, we recommend improved completeness, accuracy and consistency.

Self-reported depression and anxiety and healthcare professional interactions regarding smoking cessation and nicotine vaping: Findings from 2018 International Tobacco Control Four Country Smoking and Vaping (ITC 4CV) Survey.

INTRODUCTION: People with mental health conditions are disproportionately affected by smoking-related diseases and death. The aim of this study was to assess whether health professional (HP) interactions regarding smoking cessation and nicotine vaping products (NVPs) differ by mental health condition. METHODS: The cross-sectional 2018 International Tobacco Control Four Country (Australia, Canada, England, United States) Smoking and Vaping Survey data included 11040 adults currently smoking or recently quit. Adjusted weighted logistic regressions examined associations between mental health (self-reported current depression and/or anxiety) and visiting a HP in last 18 months; receiving advice to quit smoking; discussing NVPs with a HP; and receiving a recommendation to use NVPs. RESULTS: Overall, 16.1% self-reported depression and anxiety, 7.6% depression only, and 6.6% anxiety only. Compared with respondents with no depression/anxiety, those with depression (84.7%, AOR=2.65; 95% CI: 2.17-3.27), anxiety (82.2%, AOR=2.08; 95% CI: 1.70-2.57), and depression and anxiety (87.6%, AOR=3.74; 95% CI: 3.19-4.40) were more likely to have visited a HP. Among those who had visited a HP, 47.9% received advice to quit smoking, which was more likely among respondents with depression (AOR=1.58; 95% CI: 1.34-1.86), and NVP discussions were more likely among those with depression and anxiety (AOR=1.63; 95% CI: 1.29-2.06). Of the 6.1% who discussed NVPs, 33.5% received a recommendation to use them, with no difference by mental health. CONCLUSIONS: People with anxiety and/or depression who smoke were more likely to visit a HP than those without, but only those with depression were more likely to receive cessation advice, and only those with depression and anxiety were more likely to discuss NVPs. There are missed opportunities for HPs to deliver cessation advice. NVP discussions and receiving a positive recommendation to use them were rare overall.

Associations between smoking and vaping prevalence, product use characteristics, and mental health diagnoses in Great Britain: a population survey.

BACKGROUND: Rates of diseases and death from tobacco smoking are substantially higher among those with a mental health condition (MHC). Vaping can help some people quit smoking, but little is known about vaping among people with MHCs or psychological distress. We assessed the prevalence and characteristics (heaviness, product type) of smoking and/or vaping among those with and without a history of single or multiple MHC diagnoses and with no, moderate or serious psychological distress. METHODS: Data from 27,437 adults in Great Britain surveyed between 2020 and 2022. Multinomial regressions analysed associations between smoking, vaping and dual use prevalence, smoking/vaping characteristics and (a) history of a single or multiple MHC and (b) moderate or serious psychological distress, adjusted for age, gender, and socioeconomic status. RESULTS: Compared with people who had never smoked, those who currently smoked were more likely to report a history of a single (12.5% vs 15.0%, AOR=1.62, 95% CI=1.46-1.81, p<.001) or multiple MHCs (12.8% vs 29.3%, AOR=2.51, 95% CI=2.28-2.75, p<.001). Compared with non-vapers, current vapers were more likely to report a history of a single (13.5% vs 15.5%, AOR=1.28, 95% CI=1.11-1.48, p<.001) or multiple MHCs (15.5% vs 33.4%, AOR=1.66, 95% CI=1.47-1.87, p<.001). Dual users were more likely to report a history of multiple MHCs (36.8%), but not a single MHC than exclusive smokers (27.2%) and exclusive vapers (30.4%) (all p<.05). Similar associations were reported for those with moderate or serious psychological distress. Smoking roll-your-own cigarettes and smoking more heavily, were associated with a history of single or multiple MHCs. There were no associations between vaping characteristics and a history of MHCs. Frequency of vaping, device type and nicotine concentration differed by psychological distress. CONCLUSIONS: Smoking, vaping and dual use were substantially higher among those with a history of MHC, especially multiple MHC, and experiencing past month distress than those not having a history of MHC or experiencing past month distress respectively. Analysis used descriptive epidemiology and causation cannot be determined.

Implementation strategies to increase smoking cessation treatment provision in primary care: a systematic review of observational studies.

BACKGROUND: Internationally, there is an 'evidence-practice gap' in the rate healthcare professionals assess tobacco use and offer cessation support in clinical practice, including primary care. Evidence is needed for implementation strategies enacted in the 'real-world'. AIM: To identify implementation strategies aiming to increase smoking cessation treatment provision in primary care, their effectiveness, cost-effectiveness and any perceived facilitators and barriers for effectiveness. METHODS: 'Embase', 'Medline', 'PsycINFO', 'CINAHL', 'Global Health', 'Social Policy & Practice', 'ASSIA Applied Social Sciences Index and Abstracts' databases, and grey literature sources were searched from inception to April 2021. Studies were included if they evaluated an implementation strategy implemented on a nation-/state-wide scale, targeting any type of healthcare professional within the primary care setting, aiming to increase smoking cessation treatment provision. PRIMARY OUTCOME MEASURES: implementation strategy identification, and effectiveness (practitioner-/patient-level). SECONDARY OUTCOME MEASURES: perceived facilitators and barriers to effectiveness, and cost-effectiveness. Studies were assessed using the Risk Of Bias In Non-randomized Studies of Interventions (ROBINS-I) tool. A narrative synthesis was conducted using the Expert Recommendations for Implementing Change (ERIC) compilation and the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR). RESULTS: Of 49 included papers, half were of moderate/low risk of bias. The implementation strategy domains identified involved utilizing financial strategies, changing infrastructure, training and educating stakeholders, and engaging consumers. The first three increased practitioner-level smoking status recording and cessation advice provision. Interventions in the utilizing financial strategies domain also appeared to increase smoking cessation (patient-level). Key facilitator: external policies/incentives (tobacco control measures and funding for public health and cessation clinics). Key barriers: time and financial constraints, lack of free cessation medications and follow-up, deprioritisation and unclear targets in primary care, lack of knowledge of healthcare professionals, and unclear messaging to patients about available cessation support options. No studies assessed cost-effectiveness. CONCLUSIONS: Some implementation strategy categories increased the rate of smoking status recording and cessation advice provision in primary care. We found some evidence for interventions utilizing financial strategies having a beneficial impact on cessation. Identified barriers to effectiveness should be reduced. More pragmatic approaches are recommended, such as hybrid effectiveness-implementation designs and utilising Multiphase Optimization Strategy methodology. PROTOCOL REGISTRATION: PROSPERO:CRD42021246683.

Association of psychological distress with smoking cessation, duration of abstinence from smoking, and use of non-combustible nicotine-containing products: A cross-sectional population survey in Great Britain.

BACKGROUND: Tobacco smoking cessation is associated with improvements in mental health. This study assessed psychological distress, using the K6 non-specific screening tool ((items cover feelings of nervousness, hopelessness, restlessness, depression, 'everything an effort' and worthlessness), by smoking status, time since quit, and use of a non-combustible nicotine product. METHODS: Monthly repeat cross-sectional household survey of adults (18 + ) from October 2020-February 2022 in Great Britain (N = 32,727). Using unadjusted and adjusted logistic regression (adjusted models included socio-demographic characteristics and ever diagnosis with a mental health condition), we assessed: associations between any/serious past-month psychological distress and smoking status and time since quit, whether these relationships were moderated by ever diagnosis with a mental health condition, and associations between distress and use of a nicotine product by people who formerly smoked. RESULTS: In the unadjusted model, those who had not smoked for > 1y and who had never smoked had lower odds of any distress (OR = 0·42, 95 % CI 0·39-0·45; OR = 0·44, 0·41-0·47) compared with those who currently smoked. Moreover, the association of lower distress in those who had not smoked for > 1y and never smoked compared with those who currently smoked was more pronounced among those who had ever been diagnosed with a mental health condition (AOR = 0·58, 0·51-0·66; AOR = 0·60, 0·53-0·67) than among those who had not (AOR = 0·86, 0·76-0·98; AOR = 0·72, 0·65-0·81). In adjusted models of people who formerly smoked, current use of any nicotine product was associated with higher odds of distress compared with not using any nicotine product (AOR 1·23, 1·06-1·42). CONCLUSION: People who had never smoked, or had not smoked for > 1y had lower levels of distress than those who currently smoked. The lower odds of distress among people who had not smoked for > 1y was more pronounced among those with an ever (vs never) diagnosis of a mental health condition. Nicotine product use among those who formerly smoked was associated with greater distress. Due to potential residual confounding and selection bias more research is needed to determine causality.

Medium- and longer-term cardiovascular effects of e-cigarettes in adults making a stop-smoking attempt: a randomized controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Smoking is a major risk factor for cardiovascular disease and smoking cessation reduces excess risk. E-cigarettes are popular for smoking cessation but there is little evidence on their cardiovascular health effect. Our objective was to compare the medium- and longer-term cardiovascular effects in smokers attempting to quit smoking using e-cigarettes with or without nicotine or prescription nicotine replacement therapy (NRT). METHODS: This was a single-center, pragmatic three-arm randomized (1:1:1) controlled trial, which recruited adult smokers (≥ 10 cigarettes/day), who were willing to attempt to stop smoking with support (n = 248). Participants were randomized to receive behavioral support with either (a) e-cigarettes with 18 mg/ml nicotine, (b) e-cigarettes without nicotine, and (c) NRT. Flow-mediated dilation (%FMD) and peak cutaneous vascular conductance (CVCmax) responses to acetylcholine (ACh) and sodium nitroprusside (SNP), mean arterial pressure (MAP), and other outcomes were recorded at baseline, 3, and 6 months after stopping smoking. Data were analyzed using generalized estimating equations (GEE). RESULTS: At 3- and 6-month follow-up, %FMD showed an improvement over baseline in all three groups (e.g., p < 0.0001 at 6 months). Similarly, ACh, SNP, and MAP improved significantly over baseline in all groups both at 3 and 6 months (e.g., ACh: p = 0.004, at 6 months). CONCLUSIONS: Smokers attempting to quit experienced positive cardiovascular impact after both a 3- and 6-month period. None of the groups (i.e., nicotine-containing and nicotine-free e-cigarettes or NRT) offered superior cardiovascular benefits to the others. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT03061253 . Registered on 17 February 2017.

The Effect of Tobacco Control Mass Media Campaigns on Smoking-Related Behavior Among People With Mental Illness: A Systematic Literature Review.

INTRODUCTION: Tobacco control mass media campaigns (MMCs) can be effective generally, but little is known about their effects among people with mental illness. The objectives of this study were to systematically review: (1) Whether tobacco control MMCs affect smoking-related outcomes among people with mental illness. (2) Cost-effectiveness. AIMS AND METHODS: Data sources: MEDLINE, Embase, PsycInfo, Web of Science, CINAHL, the Cochrane Library (searched March 2021), reference lists of included articles and relevant systematic reviews. Study eligibility criteria: Population: Adults with mental illness and experience of smoking tobacco and/or using other nicotine-containing products. Intervention/exposure: Tobacco control MMC messages. Comparator: No exposure, other tobacco control intervention(s), no comparator. Primary outcome: Changes in quitting behaviors. Study design: All primary research. Quantitative data were appraised using the EPHPP tool, qualitative data using CASP's Studies Checklist. Data were synthesized narratively. RESULTS: Eight studies were included, seven were at high risk of bias. There was inconclusive evidence of the effect of MMCs on quit attempts and intentions to quit among people with mental illness. Increasing advertisement exposure did not increase quit attempts or intentions to quit among those with mental illness, however, increased exposure to an advertisement that addressed smoking and mental health did. None of the studies assessed cost-effectiveness. CONCLUSIONS: Findings should be interpreted with caution as data are limited and of low or moderate quality. There is evidence to suggest that tobacco control MMCs have limited impact on those with mental illness, although campaigns that are specific to smoking and mental health may be effective. IMPLICATIONS: There is a paucity of good-quality evidence of the effect of tobacco control MMC messages among people with mental illness. Careful consideration should be given to the design of future studies that evaluate MMCs in order to minimize the risk of bias, establish causality, and ensure the findings reflect real-world implementation. Further research should examine the need for MMC messages that address mental health.

Mental Health Symptoms and Associations with Tobacco Smoking, Dependence, Motivation, and Attempts to Quit: Findings from a Population Survey in Germany (DEBRA Study).

INTRODUCTION: This study aimed to estimate prevalence rates of mental health symptoms (anxiety, depression, and overall psychological distress) by tobacco smoking status, and associations between such symptoms and the level of dependence, motivation, and attempts to quit smoking in the German population. METHODS: Cross-sectional analysis of data from six waves of a nationally representative household survey collected in 2018/19 (N = 11,937 respondents aged ≥18). Mental health symptoms were assessed with the Patient Health Questionnaire-4. Associations with smoking status, dependence, motivation to quit, and ≥1 past-year quit attempt (yes/no) were analysed with adjusted regression models among the total group, and among subgroups of current (n = 3,248) and past-year smokers (quit ≤12 months ago, n = 3,357). RESULTS: Weighted prevalence rates of mental health symptoms among current, former, and never smokers were: 4.1%, 2.4%, 2.5% (anxiety), 5.4%, 4.7%, 4.0% (depression), and 3.1%, 2.5%, 2.4% (psychological distress). Current versus never smokers were more likely to report symptoms of anxiety and depression. Smokers with higher versus lower levels of dependence were more likely to report higher levels of all three mental health symptoms. Higher versus lower levels of overall psychological distress were associated with a higher motivation to quit smoking and, among past-year smokers, with higher odds of reporting a past-year quit attempt. CONCLUSIONS: We found various relevant associations between mental health symptoms and smoking behaviour. Healthcare professionals need to be informed about these associations and trained to effectively support this vulnerable group in translating their motivation into abstinence.

Harm perceptions of nicotine-containing products and associated sources of information in UK adults with and without mental ill health: A cross-sectional survey.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: People with mental ill health are more likely to smoke and experience smoking-related harm than those without. Switching from combustible tobacco to lower-risk nicotine-containing products may be of benefit; however, misperceptions of harm may prevent their use. We aimed to assess, among adults with and without mental ill health, (1) perceptions of harm from nicotine and relative harm and addictiveness of different nicotine-containing products and (2) sources of information associated with harm perceptions. DESIGN: Cross-sectional study. SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS: On-line survey of adults (n = 3400) who smoke cigarettes and/or use e-cigarettes, or have recently stopped, in the United Kingdom. MEASUREMENTS: Outcomes: harm perceptions of nicotine; relative perceived harm and addictiveness of different nicotine-containing products; sources of information for harm perceptions of nicotine, cigarette smoking and e-cigarettes. Demographics: sex, age, education, ethnic group and region. Other measures: self-reported smoking, vaping and mental health status. ANALYSES: frequencies and logistic regressions adjusting for demographic/other measures. FINDINGS: Among those with serious mental distress (versus no/low mental distress): 9.6% [13.9%, adjusted odds ratio (aOR) = 0.69, 95% confidence interval (CI) = 0.50-0.97] correctly identified that none/a very small amount of the health risks of smoking cigarettes come from nicotine; 41.7% (53.5%, aOR = 0.67, 95% CI = 0.54-0.84) perceived e-cigarettes and 53.2% (70.3%, aOR = 0.62, 95% CI = 0.50-0.77) perceived nicotine replacement therapy to be less harmful than cigarettes; and 42.1% (51.3%, aOR = 0.77, 95% CI = 0.62-0.95) perceived e-cigarettes as being less likely than cigarettes to cause cancer, 35.4% (45.5%, aOR = 0.71, 95% CI = 0.57-0.88) heart attacks and 34.9% (42.3%, aOR = 0.80, 95% CI = 0.64-0.99) lung problems. The most popular sources of information for cigarette smoking, e-cigarettes and nicotine were scientific experts' opinions and media reports, with little variation by mental distress. CONCLUSIONS: Among adults with a history of tobacco and/or e-cigarette use, those with serious mental distress appear to have less accurate harm perceptions of nicotine and nicotine-containing products than those with no/low distress, despite reporting similar sources of information.

Participant Experiences of a Quit Smoking Attempt Through Either Nicotine Replacement Therapy (NRT) Methods or the Use of an E-cigarette.

OBJECTIVES: There is a lack of evidence exploring experiences of using e-cigarettes for smoking cessation. The study's main aim was to explore participant experiences of e-cigarettes compared to nicotine replacement therapy (NRT) delivered through stop smoking services. METHODS: Semi-structured, face-to-face, and telephone interviews at 3-month post-quit follow-up in a randomized controlled trial comparing nicotine-containing e-cigarettes, nicotine-free e-cigarettes, and NRT for smoking cessation. N = 17 participants, 9 were male, mean age 44 years, 5 using nicotine-containing e-cigarettes, 7 nicotine-free e-cigarettes, and 5 NRT. Interviews were transcribed and analyzed using thematic analysis. RESULTS: Two global themes and 5 organizing themes were identified. Global themes included: (1) experiences of e-cigarette and NRT quit aids (e-cigarette positive impact and dilemmas, NRT perceptions and experiences), and (2) key mechanisms to support quit attempt (physical aids, advice and support, feedback and structure). E-cigarettes were viewed with caution, however, generally evaluated positively alongside NRT methods, finding e-cigarettes useful during a quit attempt due to their versatility in application. Nicotinecontaining e-cigarettes were favored due to their support with nicotine cravings. Participants were, however, wary of replacing smoking addiction with vaping habit. CONCLUSIONS: Participant e-cigarette experience were generally positive; however, concerns over long-term application were noted. There was a noticeable preference for nicotine-containing e-cigarettes, but further research is required to better understand how nicotine is used in conjunction with e-cigarettes long-term as a quit aid alongside other NRT.

The Use of Tobacco Industry Vaping Products in the UK and Product Characteristics: A Cross-Sectional Survey.

BACKGROUND: Tobacco industry (TI) companies have entered the UK e-cigarette ("vaping") market in recent years. However, their motives and ambitions are unclear. This study explored how popular TI vaping products are and who uses them, and how they differ from independent products. METHODS: Secondary analysis of data from a longitudinal web-based survey of smokers, ex-smokers, and vapers (n = 3883) in the UK in 2019. The main study sample consisted of daily and nondaily vapers, who were current or ex-cigarette smokers, and had stated the brand of their preferred e-cigarette device (n = 1202). Proportions using TI and independent brands were calculated and regression analysis assessed associations with sociodemographic and smoking/vaping characteristics between vapers of TI and independent products. Chi-square tests were used to analyze differences between TI and independent products. RESULTS: Overall, 53.4% used TI products. A university education (67.6%; adjOR = 1.54; 95% CI, 1.140-2.088), nondaily vaping (68.2%; adjOR = 1.39; CI, 1.029-1.880), and cigarette dependence (moderate, strong and very strong urges to smoke) were associated with using TI vaping brands. TI products used were less likely to be refillable ("open") than independent brands (60.9% vs. 18.3%, chi-square = 228.98, p < .001), more likely to use nicotine salts (16.7% vs. 8.6%, chi-square = 25.04, p < .001) and tobacco flavors (23.8% vs. 17.9%, chi-square = 12.65, p < .001). CONCLUSION: TI vaping products were popular in the UK, associations with product and user characteristics suggest that TI products may be less conducive to smoking cessation, although the findings were not always consistent. IMPLICATIONS: Consequences of regulations need to be carefully considered to ensure that independent producers are not more negatively impacted than tobacco industry producers, and to avoid reducing utility of products for smoking cessation.

Short-Term Cardiovascular Effects of E-Cigarettes in Adults Making a Stop-Smoking Attempt: A Randomized Controlled Trial.

Smoking increases cardiovascular disease (CVD) risk by leading to endothelial injury. E-cigarettes remain a popular way to stop smoking. Evidence on their effect on cardiovascular health is growing but remains limited, particularly in the short-term. The main objective of this study was to compare short-term cardiovascular effects in smokers who quit smoking using e-cigarettes with or without nicotine or prescription nicotine replacement therapy (NRT). This was a single-centre (Sheffield, UK) pragmatic three-arm randomised controlled trial which recruited adult smokers (≥10 cigarettes per day), who were willing to attempt to stop smoking with support (n = 248). Participants were randomised to receive either: (a) behavioral support and e-cigarettes with 18 mg/mL nicotine (n = 84); (b) behavioral support and e-cigarettes without nicotine (n = 82); (c) behavioral support and NRT (n = 82). Flow Mediated Dilation (%FMD), peak cutaneous vascular conductance responses to acetylcholine (ACh) and sodium nitroprusside (SNP) and mean arterial pressure (MAP) were recorded at baseline and three days after stopping smoking. General Linear Models were used to compare changes between groups and changes from follow-up. Adjusting for baseline, at follow-up, all outcomes (for the 208 participants that completed the 3-day assessments) with the exception of SNP had improved significantly over baseline and there were no differences between groups (%FMD F = 1.03, p = 0.360, df = 2,207; ACh F = 0.172, p = 0.84, df = 2,207; SNP F = 0.382, p = 0.68, df = 2,207; MAP F = 0.176, p = 0.84, df = 2,207). For smokers ≥20 cigarettes per day, benefits were also pronounced. Smoking cessation showed positive cardiovascular impact even after a 3-day period and the effects did not differ between nicotine-containing e-cigarettes, nicotine-free e-cigarettes and NRT.

Heated Tobacco Products and Nicotine Pouches: A Survey of People with Experience of Smoking and/or Vaping in the UK.

Background: To gauge the public health impact of new nicotine products, information is needed on use among different populations. Aims were to assess in adults who smoked, vaped, did both or had recently stopped: (1) awareness, ever and current use of heated tobacco products (HTPs) and nicotine pouches (NP), (2) characteristics associated with ever use, (3) reasons for use of and satisfaction with HTPs, (4) characteristics associated with interest in use of HTPs. Methods: Online survey in the UK in 2019, n = 3883. (1) Proportion aware, ever and current (≥monthly) use; (2) ever use regressed onto socio-demographics and smoking/vaping; (3) frequency of reasons for HTP use and satisfaction; (4) interest in trying HTPs regressed onto socio-demographics and smoking/vaping status. Results: Awareness was 34.8% for HTP and 15.9% for NP; current use was 3.2% and 2.7%. Being <45 years, higher education, living in London and currently both smoking and vaping were associated with ever having used the products. Curiosity was the most common reason for HTP use (79.8%) and 72.0% of ever HTP users found them at least as satisfying as smoking. Among those not currently using HTPs, 48.5% expressed any interest-lower among those aged over 65 and higher among those smoking and vaping. Conclusions: In this sample of adults with a history of nicotine use, very few currently used heated tobacco products or nicotine pouches. Satisfaction with and interest in HTPs were substantial. The low level of use is unlikely to substantially reduce the public health impact of smoking.

The effectiveness of using e-cigarettes for quitting smoking compared to other cessation methods among adults in the United Kingdom.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Evidence on the effectiveness of electronic cigarettes (ECs) to facilitate abstinence from smoking is limited. The current study aimed to estimate the relative effectiveness of ECs and smoking cessation medication compared with using no help, accounting for frequency of use of ECs. DESIGN: Four consecutive wave-to-wave transitions (waves 1-2, 2-3, 3-4 or 4-5) of a longitudinal online survey collected between 2012 and 2017 were analysed. Time between waves ranged between 12 and 17 months. Cigarette smokers at the baseline wave who attempted to quit smoking between waves were included. SETTING: United Kingdom PARTICIPANTS: A total of 1155 respondents (aged 18-81, 56.1% male, 64.6% in social grade C2DE, 93.8% white) provided 1580 pairs of observations for the primary analysis. MEASUREMENTS: Primary outcome: abstinence from smoking for at least 1 month at follow-up; secondary outcome: at least 1 month's abstinence from smoking between baseline and follow-up. The main predictor was stop smoking aid used (No help, nicotine replacement therapy only, smoking cessation medication only, disposable/cartridge EC, refill/modular EC, combination), adjusted for demographics. FINDINGS: Primary Compared with using no help, the odds of abstinence were increased by daily use of disposable/cartridge ECs (OR = 3.31 (1.32, 8.26), P = .010) and daily use of refill/modular ECs (OR = 5.47 (2.70, 11.11), P < .001). Odds were reduced by non-daily use of disposable/cartridge ECs (OR = 0.23 (0.08-0.63), P = .005), and by use of disposable/cartridge ECs to quit and no longer using at follow-up (OR = 0.10 (0.16-0.62), P < .013). Secondary Results were similar to the primary outcome; however, odds of abstinence were also increased by use of smoking cessation medication (OR = 4.15 (1.79, 9.62), P = .001). CONCLUSIONS: When used daily, electronic cigarettes appear to facilitate abstinence from smoking when compared with using no help.

The SPECTRUM Consortium: a new UK Prevention Research Partnership consortium focussed on the commercial determinants of health, the prevention of non-communicable diseases, and the reduction of health inequalities.

The main causes of non-communicable diseases (NCDs), health inequalities and health inequity include consumption of unhealthy commodities such as tobacco, alcohol and/or foods high in fat, salt and/or sugar. These exposures are preventable, but the commodities involved are highly profitable. The economic interests of 'Unhealthy Commodity Producers' (UCPs) often conflict with health goals but their role in determining health has received insufficient attention. In order to address this gap, a new research consortium has been established. This open letter introduces the SPECTRUM ( S haping  Public h Ealth poli Cies  To  Reduce ineq Ualities and har M)Consortium: a multi-disciplinary group comprising researchers from 10 United Kingdom (UK) universities and overseas, and partner organisations including three national public health agencies in Great Britain (GB), five multi-agency alliances and two companies providing data and analytic support. Through eight integrated work packages, the Consortium seeks to provide an understanding of the nature of the complex systems underlying the consumption of unhealthy commodities, the role of UCPs in shaping these systems and influencing health and policy, the role of systems-level interventions, and the effectiveness of existing and emerging policies. Co-production is central to the Consortium's approach to advance research and achieve meaningful impact and we will involve the public in the design and delivery of our research. We will also establish and sustain mutually beneficial relationships with policy makers, alongside our partners, to increase the visibility, credibility and impact of our evidence. The Consortium's ultimate aim is to achieve meaningful health benefits for the UK population by reducing harm and inequalities from the consumption of unhealthy commodities over the next five years and beyond.

Vaping in Pregnancy: A Systematic Review.

INTRODUCTION: Smoking in pregnancy increases the risk of negative health outcomes. Vaping can be effective for smoking cessation in nonpregnant populations. We conducted a systematic review of vaping in pregnancy, covering prevalence, patterns of use, reasons for use, smoking cessation, and health effects. METHODS: Five academic databases were searched on 17 February 2020. Studies reporting prevalence, patterns, reasons, cessation, or health effects of vaping in pregnancy were included; animal and in vitro studies were excluded. A narrative review was used, with risk of bias assessed using Hoy and colleague's tool, the Newcastle-Ottawa scale, and the Consolidated Criteria for reporting Qualitative Research. RESULTS: Twenty-three studies were identified: 11 survey, 7 qualitative, 3 cohort, and 2 secondary analyses of randomized clinical trials. Prevalence of vaping in pregnancy (four studies) was between 1.2% and 7.0% overall, and <1% among nonsmokers. Twelve studies reported patterns of use, but findings were inconsistent. Twelve of 14 studies asking why pregnant women vaped reported that most vaped to reduce or quit smoking. Mixed findings were reported from six studies on smoking cessation. Of three studies with health-related outcomes, two were underpowered and one reported similar birthweights for babies born to nonsmokers and women who vaped, with both higher (p < .0001) than the birthweight of babies born to smokers. CONCLUSIONS: There were insufficient data to draw conclusions about prevalence, patterns, and effects of vaping in pregnancy on smoking cessation. The limited literature suggests that vaping in pregnancy has little or no effect on birthweight. IMPLICATIONS: Smoking causes many negative health outcomes for pregnant women and to babies born to people who smoke. There remains a paucity of research on the effects of vaping in pregnancy. There is, however, the potential for vaping products to reduce the negative health outcomes associated with smoking. More research is needed to develop an evidence base in this area.

Cannabis use and co-use in tobacco smokers and non-smokers: prevalence and associations with mental health in a cross-sectional, nationally representative sample of adults in Great Britain, 2020.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: In Great Britain, cannabis and tobacco are commonly used substances, both independently and together. Use of either substance is associated with mental health problems, but prevalence of co-use within these populations is unknown. We aimed to (1) estimate prevalence of cannabis use, frequency of use and routes of administration (ROA) among tobacco smokers and non-smokers and (2) investigate mental health problems among non-users, tobacco-only, cannabis-only and co-users of both substances. DESIGN: Cross-sectional national on-line survey (Action on Smoking and Health) fielded in February-March 2020. SETTING: Great Britain. PARTICIPANTS: Adults in Great Britain aged ≥ 18 years (n = 12 809) MEASUREMENTS: Tobacco use status [smoker (daily or non-daily) or non-smoker (never or ex-smoker)], cannabis use frequency (never to daily), detailed ROAs of cannabis, self-reported treatment for mental health disorders (depression, anxiety and any). Statistically weighted prevalence estimates were computed to ensure representativeness. Correlates were assessed using χ2 tests and logistic regression. FINDINGS: In Great Britain in 2020, 7.1% of the sample had used cannabis in the past year. Tobacco smokers had greater odds of using cannabis in the past year (21.9%) and using cannabis daily (8.7%) than non-smokers [past-year: 4.7%; adjusted odds ratio (aOR) = 10.07, 95% confidence interval (CI) = 8.4-12.0; daily: 0.7%; aOR = 24.6, 95% CI = 18.0-33.6)]. Co-administration with tobacco was common (46.2% of non-smokers, 80.8% of tobacco smokers). Co-users reported the highest prevalence of any treatment for mental health problems (54.2%) in comparison to cannabis-only (45.8%), tobacco-only (33.2%) and non-users (22.7%; all P ≤ 0.05). CONCLUSION: Approximately one in 13 adults in Great Britain reports having used cannabis in the past year, approximately four times as many among cigarette smokers as non-smokers. Co-administration of cannabis and tobacco, via smoking, appears to be common, including among self-identified non-smokers. Mental health problems appear to be particularly common among dual users.

Contingency management for tobacco smoking during opioid addiction treatment: Implementation challenges.

INTRODUCTION AND AIMS: Tobacco smoking prevalence in opioid addiction patients is approximately six times that of the general population, highlighting the need for novel interventions. A pilot/feasibility study was conducted to investigate whether a contingency management (CM) intervention could be added to UK standard smoking cessation treatment. The aim of this report is to describe the challenges experienced during the implementation of this CM intervention. DESIGN AND METHODS: A two-armed, randomised, pilot/feasibility study of a 5-week escalating with reset CM intervention, conducted as an adjunct to smoking cessation treatment in an outpatient drug and alcohol treatment centre. RESULTS: Forty participants were recruited, but only 19 attended the baseline session. Ten participants attended all treatment sessions (25% retention), with only one contactable at 6-month follow-up. While smoking cessation clinic engagement was higher than previously, implementation issues included limited operating hours of the smoking treatment clinic, ineffective biochemical verification of abstinence and overly restrictive inclusion criteria. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS: This study highlighted not only the difficulty of integrating CM interventions into standard smoking cessation treatment for this population, but also the potential of CM to engage this group with smoking cessation treatment. Future research in this area should consider increasing the availability and flexibility of smoking cessation treatment, and relaxing inclusion criteria to be more reflective of the opioid-treatment-seeking population. This study is registered on ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT03015597, https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT03015597).