Transitions between smoking and vaping: Evidence (or lack thereof) on potential differences by gender and sex.

OBJECTIVE: To synthesize existing evidence on possible differential effects by sex and gender from two Cochrane reviews evaluating vaping and smoking transitions. METHODS: We screened included studies from two Cochrane reviews for studies reporting smoking outcomes based on gender or sex. The first review examines the effects of using e-cigarettes to help people quit smoking and includes randomized controlled trials and uncontrolled intervention studies published to July 2023. The second review aims to assess the evidence on the relationship between the use and availability of e-cigarettes and subsequent smoking in young people (aged 29 and younger) and includes quasi-experimental and cohort studies published to April 2023. Due to the paucity and heterogeneity of data, we report results narratively. RESULTS: 10 of 161 studies included in the two relevant reviews met our criteria. Only five reported analyzing whether observed effects or associations varied based on sex and/or gender. A further three provided relevant descriptive information, and two did not report overall outcomes regarding vaping and smoking transitions but did investigate whether these differed by sex/gender. Synthesized data were largely inconclusive, but there was some suggestion that vaping was more strongly associated with subsequent smoking in young males than females. No studies reported data on nonbinary participants. CONCLUSIONS: Despite plausible reasons why sex and gender may be moderators of vaping and smoking transitions, there is little evidence investigating this. Future studies of vaping and smoking transitions should conduct and report analyses investigating potential differences based on sex and gender.

PROTOCOL: The efficacy of nutritional interventions in reducing childhood/youth aggressive and antisocial behavior: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

This is a protocol for a Campbell systematic review of intervention effectiveness. The goal of this systematic review is to answer the following questions based on the available empirical evidence: Are there nutritional interventions (dietary manipulation, fortification or supplementation) that can reduce excessive aggression towards others in children/youth? If yes, how strong is their effect and is there a difference among the three intervention types? Are there nutritional interventions that can reduce antisocial behaviors in children/youth? If yes, how strong is their effect and is there a difference among the intervention types? Are there nutritional interventions that can reduce violent offending in children/youth? If yes, how strong is their effect and is there a difference among the intervention types? Are there nutritional interventions that can reduce non-violent offending in children/youth? If yes, how strong is their effect and is there a difference among the intervention types? What implementation barriers and solutions to these exist in relation to the above nutritional interventions in children/youth?

Patient-planetary health co-benefit prescribing in a circumpolar health region: a qualitative study of physician voices from the Northwest Territories, Canada.

BACKGROUND: Despite climate change being described as a code red for humanity, health systems have been particularly slow in both climate mitigation and adaptation responses. The effects of climate change on health and health systems will not be felt equally, with underserved and marginalised communities disproportionately impacted. The circumpolar region is warming at 3-4 times the global rate, amplifying already existing socioeconomic barriers and health inequities, with particular amplified effects for the substantial Indigenous population in the area. OBJECTIVES AND SETTING: We therefore sought to explore perspectives of physicians around patient-planetary health (P-PH) co-benefit prescribing in a circumpolar region in the Northwest Territories (NWT), Canada, known to be one of the ground zero levels for climate change. METHODS: Thirteen semi-structured physician interviews were carried out in the NWT region between May 2022 and March 2023 using purposive sampling. Interviews were transcribed verbatim and reflexive thematic analysis was carried out to identify key themes. RESULTS: There were three main themes identified including (1) current healthcare system does not support planetary health, (2) supporting patient-planetary health is currently difficult for clinicians and (3) considering change in the NWT to support patient-planetary health. Participants noted key opportunities to move planetary health forward, with the NWT having the potential to be an innovative model for planetary health-informed change for other health systems. CONCLUSION: The NWT health system has unique features due to its rural and remote nature and smaller population base. Despite this, our study identified some key opportunities for advancing P-PH co-benefit efforts. The identified opportunities may be considered in future intervention, organisational change and policy-making efforts with potential relevance in other settings.

Defining success in adult obesity management: A systematic review and framework synthesis of clinical practice guidelines.

Obesity is a chronic and complex disease affecting millions of people worldwide. Currently, there is no standard definition of success for the management of obesity. We set out to complete a synthesis of clinical practice guidelines for obesity management for adult populations, aiming to provide both a quantitative descriptive and qualitative analysis of definitions of success in clinical practice guidelines. An electronic search retrieved 4477 references. Sixteen clinical practice guidelines were included after screening and full-text review. We coded definitions of success 147 times across the included guidelines. No standard or explicit definition of success was identified in the guidelines but rather success was implicitly defined. We developed three themes describing how success was defined in the clinical practice guidelines: Knowledge-based decision making; management of expectations; and the perception of control. The review reinforced that success is an inherently subjective and complex concept. Defining success is limited by existing studies that focus on weight loss and would benefit from additional research on different outcomes. Equally, the relationship between people living with obesity and their clinicians should be further explored to understand how defining success is controlled, discussed and framed in a clinical setting.

Electronic cigarettes for smoking cessation.

BACKGROUND: Electronic cigarettes (ECs) are handheld electronic vaping devices which produce an aerosol by heating an e-liquid. People who smoke, healthcare providers and regulators want to know if ECs can help people quit smoking, and if they are safe to use for this purpose. This is a review update conducted as part of a living systematic review. OBJECTIVES: To examine the safety, tolerability and effectiveness of using electronic cigarettes (ECs) to help people who smoke tobacco achieve long-term smoking abstinence, in comparison to non-nicotine EC, other smoking cessation treatments and no treatment. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Tobacco Addiction Group's Specialized Register to 1 February 2023, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, Embase, and PsycINFO to 1 July 2023, and reference-checked and contacted study authors. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included trials in which people who smoke were randomized to an EC or control condition. We also included uncontrolled intervention studies in which all participants received an EC intervention as these studies have the potential to provide further information on harms and longer-term use. Studies had to report an eligible outcome. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We followed standard Cochrane methods for screening and data extraction. Critical outcomes were abstinence from smoking after at least six months, adverse events (AEs), and serious adverse events (SAEs). We used a fixed-effect Mantel-Haenszel model to calculate risk ratios (RRs) with a 95% confidence interval (CI) for dichotomous outcomes. For continuous outcomes, we calculated mean differences. Where appropriate, we pooled data in pairwise and network meta-analyses (NMA). MAIN RESULTS: We included 88 completed studies (10 new to this update), representing 27,235 participants, of which 47 were randomized controlled trials (RCTs). Of the included studies, we rated ten (all but one contributing to our main comparisons) at low risk of bias overall, 58 at high risk overall (including all non-randomized studies), and the remainder at unclear risk. There is high certainty that nicotine EC increases quit rates compared to nicotine replacement therapy (NRT) (RR 1.59, 95% CI 1.29 to 1.93; I2 = 0%; 7 studies, 2544 participants). In absolute terms, this might translate to an additional four quitters per 100 (95% CI 2 to 6 more). There is moderate-certainty evidence (limited by imprecision) that the rate of occurrence of AEs is similar between groups (RR 1.03, 95% CI 0.91 to 1.17; I2 = 0%; 5 studies, 2052 participants). SAEs were rare, and there is insufficient evidence to determine whether rates differ between groups due to very serious imprecision (RR 1.20, 95% CI 0.90 to 1.60; I2 = 32%; 6 studies, 2761 participants; low-certainty evidence). There is moderate-certainty evidence, limited by imprecision, that nicotine EC increases quit rates compared to non-nicotine EC (RR 1.46, 95% CI 1.09 to 1.96; I2 = 4%; 6 studies, 1613 participants). In absolute terms, this might lead to an additional three quitters per 100 (95% CI 1 to 7 more). There is moderate-certainty evidence of no difference in the rate of AEs between these groups (RR 1.01, 95% CI 0.91 to 1.11; I2 = 0%; 5 studies, 1840 participants). There is insufficient evidence to determine whether rates of SAEs differ between groups, due to very serious imprecision (RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.56 to 1.79; I2 = 0%; 9 studies, 1412 participants; low-certainty evidence). Due to issues with risk of bias, there is low-certainty evidence that, compared to behavioural support only/no support, quit rates may be higher for participants randomized to nicotine EC (RR 1.88, 95% CI 1.56 to 2.25; I2 = 0%; 9 studies, 5024 participants). In absolute terms, this represents an additional four quitters per 100 (95% CI 2 to 5 more). There was some evidence that (non-serious) AEs may be more common in people randomized to nicotine EC (RR 1.22, 95% CI 1.12 to 1.32; I2 = 41%, low-certainty evidence; 4 studies, 765 participants) and, again, insufficient evidence to determine whether rates of SAEs differed between groups (RR 0.89, 95% CI 0.59 to 1.34; I2 = 23%; 10 studies, 3263 participants; very low-certainty evidence). Results from the NMA were consistent with those from pairwise meta-analyses for all critical outcomes, and there was no indication of inconsistency within the networks. Data from non-randomized studies were consistent with RCT data. The most commonly reported AEs were throat/mouth irritation, headache, cough, and nausea, which tended to dissipate with continued EC use. Very few studies reported data on other outcomes or comparisons, hence, evidence for these is limited, with CIs often encompassing both clinically significant harm and benefit. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: There is high-certainty evidence that ECs with nicotine increase quit rates compared to NRT and moderate-certainty evidence that they increase quit rates compared to ECs without nicotine. Evidence comparing nicotine EC with usual care/no treatment also suggests benefit, but is less certain due to risk of bias inherent in the study design. Confidence intervals were for the most part wide for data on AEs, SAEs and other safety markers, with no difference in AEs between nicotine and non-nicotine ECs nor between nicotine ECs and NRT. Overall incidence of SAEs was low across all study arms. We did not detect evidence of serious harm from nicotine EC, but the longest follow-up was two years and the number of studies was small. The main limitation of the evidence base remains imprecision due to the small number of RCTs, often with low event rates. Further RCTs are underway. To ensure the review continues to provide up-to-date information to decision-makers, this review is a living systematic review. We run searches monthly, with the review updated when relevant new evidence becomes available. Please refer to the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews for the review's current status.

The impact of the COVID-19 pandemic and associated disruptions in health-care provision on clinical outcomes in people with diabetes: a systematic review.

The COVID-19 pandemic triggered disruptions to health care and lifestyles that could conceivably impact diabetes management. We set out to identify the impact of disruptions caused by COVID-19 on clinical outcomes in people with diabetes. We performed a systematic review of the available literature in the MEDLINE and OVID databases from Jan 1, 2020, to June 7, 2023, and included 138 studies (n>1 000 000 people). All but five studies were judged to be at some risk of bias. All studies compared prepandemic with pandemic periods. All-cause mortality (six studies) and diabetes-related mortality (13 studies) showed consistent increases, and most studies indicated increases in sight loss (six studies). In adult and mixed samples, data generally suggested no difference in diabetic ketoacidosis frequency or severity, whereas in children and adolescents most studies showed increases with some due to new-onset diabetes (69 studies). Data suggested decreases in hospital admissions in adults but increases in diabetes-related admissions to paediatric intensive care units (35 studies). Data were equivocal on diabetic foot ulcer presentations (nine studies), emergency department admissions (nine studies), and overall amputation rates (20 studies). No studies investigated renal failure. Where reported, the impact was most pronounced for females, younger people, and racial and ethnic minority groups. Further studies are needed to investigate the longer-term impact of the pandemic and the on potential differential impacts, which risk further exacerbating existing inequalities within people with diabetes.

Tailoring CONSORT-SPI to improve the reporting of smoking cessation intervention trials: An expert consensus study.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Inadequate reporting of smoking cessation intervention trials is common and leads to significant challenges for researchers. The aim of this study was to tailor CONSORT (Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials)-SPI (Social and Psychological Interventions) guidelines to improve reporting of trials of behavioural interventions to promote smoking cessation. METHOD: Informed by missing data from the IC-SMOKE (Intervention and Comparison group support provided in SMOKing cEssation) systematic review project, this study used a multi-stage Delphi process to examine which items could be added or modified to improve the reporting of smoking cessation trials. The first stage involved an on-line survey of 17 international experts in smoking cessation and trial methodology voting on the importance of items for inclusion in the updated guidelines. This was followed by a face-to-face expert consensus meeting attended by 15 of these experts, where the final inclusion and exclusion of new items and modifications were agreed upon. A nine-point Likert scale was used to establish consensus, with suggested modifications requiring agreement of 75% or more. Disagreements in the first stage were presented again at the second stage for discussion and a second round of voting. Only items which reached the threshold for agreement were included. RESULTS: The experts agreed on the inclusion of 10 new items and the specification of 12 existing items. This included modifications that could apply to trials more widely (e.g. the rationale for the comparator), but also modifications that were very specific to smoking cessation trials (e.g. the reporting of smoking cessation outcomes). CONCLUSIONS: A Delphi study has developed a modified CONSORT-SPI guideline (CONSORT-SPI-SMOKE) to improve the reporting of trials of behavioural interventions to promote smoking cessation.

Optimizing process and methods for a living systematic review: 30 search updates and three review updates later.

OBJECTIVE: To describe the living systematic review (LSR) process and to share experience of planning, searches, screening, extraction, publishing and dissemination to inform and assist authors planning their own LSR. Many LSR do not publish more than one update, we hope this paper helps to increase this. STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: A Cochrane LSR with an international author team that has been 'living' for two years, with monthly search updates and three full updates published in this time. LSRs are regularly updated systematic reviews that allow new evidence to be incorporated as it becomes available. LSR are ideally suited to policy-relevant topics where there is uncertainty and new evidence will likely impact the interpretation and/or certainty of outcomes. RESULTS: The key features of the process that require consideration are: specifying the frequency of searches and triggers for full updates in the protocol; stakeholder input; publishing and disseminating monthly search findings. A strong team, incorporating methodological and topic expertise, with core members that meet regularly is essential. Regular search updates make it important to have a clear cyclical schedule of activity. To achieve timely updates this process should be streamlined, for example, using automated monthly searches, and systematic reviewing software for screening. LSR provide a unique opportunity to incorporate stakeholder feedback. CONCLUSIONS: We recommend that LSRs should be: justified; carefully planned including the timing of search updates, triggers for publication and termination; published in a timely manner; have a clear dissemination plan; and a strong core team of authors.

Effectiveness of culturally tailoring smoking cessation interventions for reducing or quitting combustible tobacco: A systematic review and meta-analyses.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Standard approaches to smoking cessation may not be as effective for certain populations, and tailoring on cultural factors could improve their effectiveness. This systematic review measured the effectiveness of culturally tailoring smoking cessation interventions on quitting or reducing smoking combustible tobacco. METHOD: We searched MEDLINE, PsychInfo, Embase and Cochrane Central Register from inception to 21 June 2023 for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of community-based, primary care or web-based interventions for smoking cessation in adults who smoked tobacco, with measurement of smoking abstinence or reduction at least 3 months following baseline. We examined comparisons between either an intensity-matched culturally tailored intervention and a non-tailored intervention or a standard non-tailored intervention and the same intervention plus a culturally tailored adjunct. We sub-grouped studies according to the level of tailoring and performed subgroup analyses where appropriate. We assessed risk of bias and certainty of evidence. RESULTS: We identified 43 studies, 33 of which were meta-analyzed (n = 12 346 participants). We found moderate certainty evidence, limited by heterogeneity, that intensity-matched culturally tailored cessation interventions increased quit success when compared with non-tailored interventions at 3-month follow-up or longer (n = 5602, risk ratio [RR] = 1.29 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.10, 1.51, I2  = 47%, 14 studies). We found a positive effect of adding a culturally tailored component to a standard intervention compared with the standard intervention alone (n = 6674, RR = 1.47, 95% CI 1.10, 1.95, I2  = 74%, 18 studies), but our certainty in this effect was low due to imprecision and substantial statistical heterogeneity. CONCLUSION: Culturally tailored smoking cessation interventions may help more people to quit smoking than a non-tailored intervention. Adapting or adding cultural components to smoking cessation interventions originally developed for majority populations could improve cessation rates in populations who do not fully identify with majority cultural norms.

Digital Health Technology for Real-World Clinical Outcome Measurement Using Patient-Generated Data: Systematic Scoping Review.

BACKGROUND: Digital health technologies (DHTs) play an ever-expanding role in health care management and delivery. Beyond their use as interventions, DHTs also serve as a vehicle for real-world data collection to characterize patients, their care journeys, and their responses to other clinical interventions. There is a need to comprehensively map the evidence-across all conditions and technology types-on DHT measurement of patient outcomes in the real world. OBJECTIVE: We aimed to investigate the use of DHTs to measure real-world clinical outcomes using patient-generated data. METHODS: We conducted this systematic scoping review in accordance with the Joanna Briggs Institute methodology. Detailed eligibility criteria documented in a preregistered protocol informed a search strategy for the following databases: MEDLINE (Ovid), CINAHL, Cochrane (CENTRAL), Embase, PsycINFO, ClinicalTrials.gov, and the EU Clinical Trials Register. We considered studies published between 2000 and 2022 wherein digital health data were collected, passively or actively, from patients with any specified health condition outside of clinical visits. Categories for key concepts, such as DHT type and analytical applications, were established where needed. Following screening and full-text review, data were extracted and analyzed using predefined fields, and findings were reported in accordance with established guidelines. RESULTS: The search strategy identified 11,015 publications, with 7308 records after duplicates and reviews were removed. After screening and full-text review, 510 studies were included for extraction. These studies encompassed 169 different conditions in over 20 therapeutic areas and 44 countries. The DHTs used for mental health and addictions research (111/510, 21.8%) were the most prevalent. The most common type of DHT, mobile apps, was observed in approximately half of the studies (250/510, 49%). Most studies used only 1 DHT (346/510, 67.8%); however, the majority of technologies used were able to collect more than 1 type of data, with the most common being physiological data (189/510, 37.1%), clinical symptoms data (188/510, 36.9%), and behavioral data (171/510, 33.5%). Overall, there has been real growth in the depth and breadth of evidence, number of DHT types, and use of artificial intelligence and advanced analytics over time. CONCLUSIONS: This scoping review offers a comprehensive view of the variety of types of technology, data, collection methods, analytical approaches, and therapeutic applications within this growing body of evidence. To unlock the full potential of DHT for measuring health outcomes and capturing digital biomarkers, there is a need for more rigorous research that goes beyond technology validation to demonstrate whether robust real-world data can be reliably captured from patients in their daily life and whether its capture improves patient outcomes. This study provides a valuable repository of DHT studies to inform subsequent research by health care providers, policy makers, and the life sciences industry. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Open Science Framework 5TMKY; https://osf.io/5tmky/.

Data visualisation approaches for component network meta-analysis: visualising the data structure.

BACKGROUND: Health and social care interventions are often complex and can be decomposed into multiple components. Multicomponent interventions are often evaluated in randomised controlled trials. Across trials, interventions often have components in common which are given alongside other components which differ across trials. Multicomponent interventions can be synthesised using component NMA (CNMA). CNMA is limited by the structure of the available evidence, but it is not always straightforward to visualise such complex evidence networks. The aim of this paper is to develop tools to visualise the structure of complex evidence networks to support CNMA. METHODS: We performed a citation review of two key CNMA methods papers to identify existing published CNMA analyses and reviewed how they graphically represent intervention complexity and comparisons across trials. Building on identified shortcomings of existing visualisation approaches, we propose three approaches to standardise visualising the data structure and/or availability of data: CNMA-UpSet plot, CNMA heat map, CNMA-circle plot. We use a motivating example to illustrate these plots. RESULTS: We identified 34 articles reporting CNMAs. A network diagram was the most common plot type used to visualise the data structure for CNMA (26/34 papers), but was unable to express the complex data structures and large number of components and potential combinations of components associated with CNMA. Therefore, we focused visualisation development around representing the data structure of a CNMA more completely. The CNMA-UpSet plot presents arm-level data and is suitable for networks with large numbers of components or combinations of components. Heat maps can be utilised to inform decisions about which pairwise interactions to consider for inclusion in a CNMA model. The CNMA-circle plot visualises the combinations of components which differ between trial arms and offers flexibility in presenting additional information such as the number of patients experiencing the outcome of interest in each arm. CONCLUSIONS: As CNMA becomes more widely used for the evaluation of multicomponent interventions, the novel CNMA-specific visualisations presented in this paper, which improve on the limitations of existing visualisations, will be important to aid understanding of the complex data structure and facilitate interpretation of the CNMA results.

Pharmacological and electronic cigarette interventions for smoking cessation in adults: component network meta-analyses.

BACKGROUND: Tobacco smoking is the leading preventable cause of death and disease worldwide. Stopping smoking can reduce this harm and many people would like to stop. There are a number of medicines licenced to help people quit globally, and e-cigarettes are used for this purpose in many countries. Typically treatments work by reducing cravings to smoke, thus aiding initial abstinence and preventing relapse. More information on comparative effects of these treatments is needed to inform treatment decisions and policies. OBJECTIVES: To investigate the comparative benefits, harms and tolerability of different smoking cessation pharmacotherapies and e-cigarettes, when used to help people stop smoking tobacco. SEARCH METHODS: We identified studies from recent updates of Cochrane Reviews investigating our interventions of interest. We updated the searches for each review using the Cochrane Tobacco Addiction Group (TAG) specialised register to 29 April 2022. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs), cluster-RCTs and factorial RCTs, which measured smoking cessation at six months or longer, recruited adults who smoked combustible cigarettes at enrolment (excluding pregnant people) and randomised them to approved pharmacotherapies and technologies used for smoking cessation worldwide (varenicline, cytisine, nortriptyline, bupropion, nicotine replacement therapy (NRT) and e-cigarettes) versus no pharmacological intervention, placebo (control) or another approved pharmacotherapy. Studies providing co-interventions (e.g. behavioural support) were eligible if the co-intervention was provided equally to study arms. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We followed standard Cochrane methods for screening, data extraction and risk of bias (RoB) assessment (using the RoB 1 tool). Primary outcome measures were smoking cessation at six months or longer, and the number of people reporting serious adverse events (SAEs). We also measured withdrawals due to treatment. We used Bayesian component network meta-analyses (cNMA) to examine intervention type, delivery mode, dose, duration, timing in relation to quit day and tapering of nicotine dose, using odds ratios (OR) and 95% credibility intervals (CrIs). We calculated an effect estimate for combination NRT using an additive model. We evaluated the influence of population and study characteristics, provision of behavioural support and control arm rates using meta-regression. We evaluated certainty using GRADE. MAIN RESULTS: Of our 332 eligible RCTs, 319 (835 study arms, 157,179 participants) provided sufficient data to be included in our cNMA. Of these, we judged 51 to be at low risk of bias overall, 104 at high risk and 164 at unclear risk, and 118 reported pharmaceutical or e-cigarette/tobacco industry funding. Removing studies at high risk of bias did not change our interpretation of the results. Benefits We found high-certainty evidence that nicotine e-cigarettes (OR 2.37, 95% CrI 1.73 to 3.24; 16 RCTs, 3828 participants), varenicline (OR 2.33, 95% CrI 2.02 to 2.68; 67 RCTs, 16,430 participants) and cytisine (OR 2.21, 95% CrI 1.66 to 2.97; 7 RCTs, 3848 participants) were associated with higher quit rates than control. In absolute terms, this might lead to an additional eight (95% CrI 4 to 13), eight (95% CrI 6 to 10) and seven additional quitters per 100 (95% CrI 4 to 12), respectively. These interventions appeared to be more effective than the other interventions apart from combination NRT (patch and a fast-acting form of NRT), which had a lower point estimate (calculated additive effect) but overlapping 95% CrIs (OR 1.93, 95% CrI 1.61 to 2.34). There was also high-certainty evidence that nicotine patch alone (OR 1.37, 95% CrI 1.20 to 1.56; 105 RCTs, 37,319 participants), fast-acting NRT alone (OR 1.41, 95% CrI 1.29 to 1.55; 120 RCTs, 31,756 participants) and bupropion (OR 1.43, 95% CrI 1.26 to 1.62; 71 RCTs, 14,759 participants) were more effective than control, resulting in two (95% CrI 1 to 3), three (95% CrI 2 to 3) and three (95% CrI 2 to 4) additional quitters per 100 respectively. Nortriptyline is probably associated with higher quit rates than control (OR 1.35, 95% CrI 1.02 to 1.81; 10 RCTs, 1290 participants; moderate-certainty evidence), resulting in two (CrI 0 to 5) additional quitters per 100. Non-nicotine/placebo e-cigarettes (OR 1.16, 95% CrI 0.74 to 1.80; 8 RCTs, 1094 participants; low-certainty evidence), equating to one additional quitter (95% CrI -2 to 5), had point estimates favouring the intervention over control, but CrIs encompassed the potential for no difference and harm. There was low-certainty evidence that tapering the dose of NRT prior to stopping treatment may improve effectiveness; however, 95% CrIs also incorporated the null (OR 1.14, 95% CrI 1.00 to 1.29; 111 RCTs, 33,156 participants). This might lead to an additional one quitter per 100 (95% CrI 0 to 2). Harms There were insufficient data to include nortriptyline and non-nicotine EC in the final SAE model. Overall rates of SAEs for the remaining treatments were low (average 3%). Low-certainty evidence did not show a clear difference in the number of people reporting SAEs for nicotine e-cigarettes, varenicline, cytisine or NRT when compared to no pharmacotherapy/e-cigarettes or placebo. Bupropion may slightly increase rates of SAEs, although the CrI also incorporated no difference (moderate certainty). In absolute terms bupropion may cause one more person in 100 to experience an SAE (95% CrI 0 to 2). AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: The most effective interventions were nicotine e-cigarettes, varenicline and cytisine (all high certainty), as well as combination NRT (additive effect, certainty not rated). There was also high-certainty evidence for the effectiveness of nicotine patch, fast-acting NRT and bupropion. Less certain evidence of benefit was present for nortriptyline (moderate certainty), non-nicotine e-cigarettes and tapering of nicotine dose (both low certainty). There was moderate-certainty evidence that bupropion may slightly increase the frequency of SAEs, although there was also the possibility of no increased risk. There was no clear evidence that any other tested interventions increased SAEs. Overall, SAE data were sparse with very low numbers of SAEs, and so further evidence may change our interpretation and certainty. Future studies should report SAEs to strengthen certainty in this outcome. More head-to-head comparisons of the most effective interventions are needed, as are tests of combinations of these. Future work should unify data from behavioural and pharmacological interventions to inform approaches to combined support for smoking cessation.

Different doses, durations and modes of delivery of nicotine replacement therapy for smoking cessation.

BACKGROUND: Nicotine replacement therapy (NRT) aims to replace nicotine from cigarettes. This helps to reduce cravings and withdrawal symptoms, and ease the transition from cigarette smoking to complete abstinence. Although there is high-certainty evidence that NRT is effective for achieving long-term smoking abstinence, it is unclear whether different forms, doses, durations of treatment or timing of use impacts its effects. OBJECTIVES: To determine the effectiveness and safety of different forms, deliveries, doses, durations and schedules of NRT, for achieving long-term smoking cessation. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Tobacco Addiction Group trials register for papers mentioning NRT in the title, abstract or keywords, most recently in April 2022. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised trials in people motivated to quit, comparing one type of NRT use with another. We excluded studies that did not assess cessation as an outcome, with follow-up of fewer than six months, and with additional intervention components not matched between arms. Separate reviews cover studies comparing NRT to control, or to other pharmacotherapies. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We followed standard Cochrane methods. We measured smoking abstinence after at least six months, using the most rigorous definition available. We extracted data on cardiac adverse events (AEs), serious adverse events (SAEs) and study withdrawals due to treatment.  MAIN RESULTS: We identified 68 completed studies with 43,327 participants, five of which are new to this update. Most completed studies recruited adults either from the community or from healthcare clinics. We judged 28 of the 68 studies to be at high risk of bias. Restricting the analysis only to those studies at low or unclear risk of bias did not significantly alter results for any comparisons apart from the preloading comparison, which tested the effect of using NRT prior to quit day whilst still smoking.  There is high-certainty evidence that combination NRT (fast-acting form plus patch) results in higher long-term quit rates than single form (risk ratio (RR) 1.27, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.17 to 1.37; I2 = 12%; 16 studies, 12,169 participants). Moderate-certainty evidence, limited by imprecision, indicates that 42/44 mg patches are as effective as 21/22 mg (24-hour) patches (RR 1.09, 95% CI 0.93 to 1.29; I2 = 38%; 5 studies, 1655 participants), and that 21 mg patches are more effective than 14 mg (24-hour) patches (RR 1.48, 95% CI 1.06 to 2.08; 1 study, 537 participants). Moderate-certainty evidence, again limited by imprecision, also suggests a benefit of 25 mg over 15 mg (16-hour) patches, but the lower limit of the CI encompassed no difference (RR 1.19, 95% CI 1.00 to 1.41; I2 = 0%; 3 studies, 3446 participants). Nine studies tested the effect of using NRT prior to quit day (preloading) in comparison to using it from quit day onward. There was moderate-certainty evidence, limited by risk of bias, of a favourable effect of preloading on abstinence (RR 1.25, 95% CI 1.08 to 1.44; I2 = 0%; 9 studies, 4395 participants). High-certainty evidence from eight studies suggests that using either a form of fast-acting NRT or a nicotine patch results in similar long-term quit rates (RR 0.90, 95% CI 0.77 to 1.05; I2 = 0%; 8 studies, 3319 participants). We found no clear evidence of an effect of duration of nicotine patch use (low-certainty evidence); duration of combination NRT use (low- and very low-certainty evidence); or fast-acting NRT type (very low-certainty evidence). Cardiac AEs, SAEs and withdrawals due to treatment were all measured variably and infrequently across studies, resulting in low- or very low-certainty evidence for all comparisons. Most comparisons found no clear evidence of an effect on these outcomes, and rates were low overall. More withdrawals due to treatment were reported in people using nasal spray compared to patches in one study (RR 3.47, 95% CI 1.15 to 10.46; 1 study, 922 participants; very low-certainty evidence) and in people using 42/44 mg patches in comparison to 21/22 mg patches across two studies (RR 4.99, 95% CI 1.60 to 15.50; I2 = 0%; 2 studies, 544 participants; low-certainty evidence). AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: There is high-certainty evidence that using combination NRT versus single-form NRT and 4 mg versus 2 mg nicotine gum can result in an increase in the chances of successfully stopping smoking. Due to imprecision, evidence was of moderate certainty for patch dose comparisons. There is some indication that the lower-dose nicotine patches and gum may be less effective than higher-dose products. Using a fast-acting form of NRT, such as gum or lozenge, resulted in similar quit rates to nicotine patches. There is moderate-certainty evidence that using NRT before quitting may improve quit rates versus using it from quit date only; however, further research is needed to ensure the robustness of this finding. Evidence for the comparative safety and tolerability of different types of NRT use is limited. New studies should ensure that AEs, SAEs and withdrawals due to treatment are reported.

Physicians' views of patient-planetary health co-benefit prescribing: a mixed methods systematic review.

Health professionals are increasingly called to become partners in planetary health. Using patient-planetary health (P-PH) co-benefit prescribing framing, we did a mixed methods systematic review to identify barriers and facilitators to adopting P-PH co-benefit prescribing by physicians and mapped these onto the Capability, Opportunity, Motivation, and Behaviour (COM-B) model and Theoretical Domains Framework (TDF). We searched electronic databases from inception until October, 2022, and did a content analysis of the included articles (n=12). Relevant categories were matched to items in the COM-B model and TDF. Nine barriers and eight facilitators were identified. Barriers included an absence of, or little, knowledge of how to change practice and time to implement change; facilitators included having policy statements and guidelines from respected associations. More diverse study designs that include health professionals, patients, and health-care system stakeholders are needed to ensure a more holistic understanding of the individual, system, and policy levers involved in implementing clinical work informed by planetary health.

Assessing and minimizing risk of bias in randomized controlled trials of tobacco cessation interventions: Guidance from the Cochrane Tobacco Addiction Group.

The Cochrane Tobacco Addiction Group has created risk of bias tools, which are topic-agnostic. In 2012 the Cochrane Tobacco Addiction Group created guidance specific to considerations for reviews of randomized controlled trials of tobacco cessation interventions, building on existing Cochrane tools. The guidance covers issues relating to selection bias, performance bias, detection bias, attrition bias and selective reporting. In this paper, we set out to make this guidance publicly available, so that others can use and cite it. We provide advice for using this tool to appraise trials critically as a systematic reviewer. We also provide guidance for triallists on ways to use this tool to improve trial design and reporting.

Estimating the true effectiveness of smoking cessation interventions under variable comparator conditions: A systematic review and meta-regression.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Behavioural smoking cessation trials have used comparators that vary considerably between trials. Although some previous meta-analyses made attempts to account for variability in comparators, these relied on subsets of trials and incomplete data on comparators. This study aimed to estimate the relative effectiveness of (individual) smoking cessation interventions while accounting for variability in comparators using comprehensive data on experimental and comparator interventions. METHODS: A systematic review and meta-regression was conducted including 172 randomised controlled trials with at least 6 months follow-up and biochemically verified smoking cessation. Authors were contacted to obtain unpublished information. This information was coded in terms of active content and attributes of the study population and methods. Meta-regression was used to create a model predicting smoking cessation outcomes. This model was used to re-estimate intervention effects, as if all interventions have been evaluated against the same comparators. Outcome measures included log odds of smoking cessation for the meta-regression models and smoking cessation differences and ratios to compare relative effectiveness. RESULTS: The meta-regression model predicted smoking cessation rates well (pseudo R2 = 0.44). Standardising the comparator had substantial impact on conclusions regarding the (relative) effectiveness of trials and types of intervention. Compared with a 'no support comparator', self-help was 1.33 times (95% CI = 1.16-1.49), brief physician advice 1.61 times (95% CI = 1.31-1.90), nurse individual counselling 1.76 times (95% CI = 1.62-1.90), psychologist individual counselling 2.04 times (95% CI = 1.95-2.15) and group psychologist interventions 2.06 times (95% CI = 1.92-2.20) more effective. Notably, more elaborate experimental interventions (e.g. psychologist counselling) were typically compared with more elaborate comparators, masking their effectiveness. CONCLUSIONS: Comparator variability and underreporting of comparators obscures the interpretation, comparison and generalisability of behavioural smoking cessation trials. Comparator variability should, therefore, be taken into account when interpreting and synthesising evidence from trials. Otherwise, policymakers, practitioners and researchers may draw incorrect conclusions about the (cost) effectiveness of smoking cessation interventions and their constituent components.

Antidepressants for smoking cessation.

BACKGROUND: The pharmacological profiles and mechanisms of antidepressants are varied. However, there are common reasons why they might help people to stop smoking tobacco: nicotine withdrawal can produce short-term low mood that antidepressants may relieve; and some antidepressants may have a specific effect on neural pathways or receptors that underlie nicotine addiction. OBJECTIVES: To assess the evidence for the efficacy, harms, and tolerability of medications with antidepressant properties in assisting long-term tobacco smoking cessation in people who smoke cigarettes. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Tobacco Addiction Group Specialised Register, most recently on 29 April 2022. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) in people who smoked, comparing antidepressant medications with placebo or no pharmacological treatment, an alternative pharmacotherapy, or the same medication used differently. We excluded trials with fewer than six months of follow-up from efficacy analyses. We included trials with any follow-up length for our analyses of harms. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We extracted data and assessed risk of bias using standard Cochrane methods. Our primary outcome measure was smoking cessation after at least six months' follow-up. We used the most rigorous definition of abstinence available in each trial, and biochemically validated rates if available. Our secondary outcomes were harms and tolerance outcomes, including adverse events (AEs), serious adverse events (SAEs), psychiatric AEs, seizures, overdoses, suicide attempts, death by suicide, all-cause mortality, and trial dropouts due to treatment. We carried out meta-analyses where appropriate. MAIN RESULTS: We included a total of 124 studies (48,832 participants) in this review, with 10 new studies added to this update version. Most studies recruited adults from the community or from smoking cessation clinics; four studies focused on adolescents (with participants between 12 and 21 years old). We judged 34 studies to be at high risk of bias; however, restricting analyses only to studies at low or unclear risk of bias did not change clinical interpretation of the results.  There was high-certainty evidence that bupropion increased smoking cessation rates when compared to placebo or no pharmacological treatment (RR 1.60, 95% CI 1.49 to 1.72; I2 = 16%; 50 studies, 18,577 participants). There was moderate-certainty evidence that a combination of bupropion and varenicline may have resulted in superior quit rates to varenicline alone (RR 1.21, 95% CI 0.95 to 1.55; I2 = 15%; 3 studies, 1057 participants). However, there was insufficient evidence to establish whether a combination of bupropion and nicotine replacement therapy (NRT) resulted in superior quit rates to NRT alone (RR 1.17, 95% CI 0.95 to 1.44; I2 = 43%; 15 studies, 4117 participants; low-certainty evidence). There was moderate-certainty evidence that participants taking bupropion were more likely to report SAEs than those taking placebo or no pharmacological treatment. However, results were imprecise and the CI also encompassed no difference (RR 1.16, 95% CI 0.90 to 1.48; I2 = 0%; 23 studies, 10,958 participants). Results were also imprecise when comparing SAEs between people randomised to a combination of bupropion and NRT versus NRT alone (RR 1.52, 95% CI 0.26 to 8.89; I2 = 0%; 4 studies, 657 participants) and randomised to bupropion plus varenicline versus varenicline alone (RR 1.23, 95% CI 0.63 to 2.42; I2 = 0%; 5 studies, 1268 participants). In both cases, we judged evidence to be of low certainty. There was high-certainty evidence that bupropion resulted in more trial dropouts due to AEs than placebo or no pharmacological treatment (RR 1.44, 95% CI 1.27 to 1.65; I2 = 2%; 25 studies, 12,346 participants). However, there was insufficient evidence that bupropion combined with NRT versus NRT alone (RR 1.67, 95% CI 0.95 to 2.92; I2 = 0%; 3 studies, 737 participants) or bupropion combined with varenicline versus varenicline alone (RR 0.80, 95% CI 0.45 to 1.45; I2 = 0%; 4 studies, 1230 participants) had an impact on the number of dropouts due to treatment. In both cases, imprecision was substantial (we judged the evidence to be of low certainty for both comparisons). Bupropion resulted in inferior smoking cessation rates to varenicline (RR 0.73, 95% CI 0.67 to 0.80; I2 = 0%; 9 studies, 7564 participants), and to combination NRT (RR 0.74, 95% CI 0.55 to 0.98; I2 = 0%; 2 studies; 720 participants). However, there was no clear evidence of a difference in efficacy between bupropion and single-form NRT (RR 1.03, 95% CI 0.93 to 1.13; I2 = 0%; 10 studies, 7613 participants). We also found evidence that nortriptyline aided smoking cessation when compared with placebo (RR 2.03, 95% CI 1.48 to 2.78; I2 = 16%; 6 studies, 975 participants), and some evidence that bupropion resulted in superior quit rates to nortriptyline (RR 1.30, 95% CI 0.93 to 1.82; I2 = 0%; 3 studies, 417 participants), although this result was subject to imprecision. Findings were sparse and inconsistent as to whether antidepressants, primarily bupropion and nortriptyline, had a particular benefit for people with current or previous depression. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: There is high-certainty evidence that bupropion can aid long-term smoking cessation. However, bupropion may increase SAEs (moderate-certainty evidence when compared to placebo/no pharmacological treatment). There is high-certainty evidence that people taking bupropion are more likely to discontinue treatment compared with people receiving placebo or no pharmacological treatment. Nortriptyline also appears to have a beneficial effect on smoking quit rates relative to placebo, although bupropion may be more effective. Evidence also suggests that bupropion may be as successful as single-form NRT in helping people to quit smoking, but less effective than combination NRT and varenicline. In most cases, a paucity of data made it difficult to draw conclusions regarding harms and tolerability. Further studies investigating the efficacy of bupropion versus placebo are unlikely to change our interpretation of the effect, providing no clear justification for pursuing bupropion for smoking cessation over other licensed smoking cessation treatments; namely, NRT and varenicline. However, it is important that future studies of antidepressants for smoking cessation measure and report on harms and tolerability.

Use of Cognitive and Behavioral Strategies During a Weight Loss Program: A Secondary Analysis of the Doctor Referral of Overweight People to Low-Energy Total Diet Replacement Treatment (DROPLET) Trial.

BACKGROUND: Achieving a sustained energy deficit is essential for weight loss, but the cognitive and behavioral strategies that support this goal are unclear. OBJECTIVE: The goal of this study was to investigate the number and type of cognitive and behavioral strategies used by participants who were enrolled in a 1-year weight loss trial and to explore associations between strategies and magnitude of weight loss at 3 months and 1 year. DESIGN: The study is a secondary post-hoc exploratory analysis of data collected as part of the Doctor Referral of Overweight People to Low-Energy total diet replacement Treatment (DROPLET), a randomized controlled trial conducted in general practices in England, United Kingdom, between January 2016 and August 2017. PARTICIPANTS/SETTING: This study involved 164 participants from both intervention and control groups of the DROPLET trial who completed the Oxford Food and Behaviours (OxFAB) questionnaire to assess the use of 115 strategies grouped into 21 domains used to manage their weight. INTERVENTIONS: Participants were randomized to either a behavioral weight loss program involving 8 weeks total diet replacement (TDR) and 4 weeks of food reintroduction or a program delivered by a medical practice nurse over a 3-month period (usual care [UC]). MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Weight was objectively measured at baseline, 3 months, and 1 year. Cognitive and behavioral strategies used to support weight loss were assessed using the OxFAB questionnaire at 3 months. STATISTICAL ANALYSIS PERFORMED: Exploratory factor analysis was used to generate data-driven patterns of strategy use, and a linear mixed-effects model was used to examine associations between use of these patterns and weight change. RESULTS: No evidence was found of a difference in the number of strategies (mean difference, 2.41; 95% confidence interval [CI], -0.83, 5.65) or the number of domains used (mean difference, -0.23; 95% CI, -0.69, 0.23) between the TDR group and the UC group. The number of strategies was not associated with weight loss at either 3 months (-0.02 kg; 95% CI, -0.11, 0.06) or 1 year (-0.05 kg; 95% CI, -0.14, 0.02). Similarly, the number of domains used was not associated with weight loss at 3 months (-0.02 kg; 95% CI, -0.53, 0.49) or 1 year (-0.07 kg; 95% CI, -0.60, 0.46). Factor analysis identified four coherent patterns of strategy use, identified as Physical Activity, Motivation, Planned Eating, and Food Purchasing patterns. Greater use of strategies in the Food Purchasing (-2.6 kg; 95% CI, -4.42, -0.71) and Planned Eating patterns (-3.20 kg; 95% CI, -4.94, -1.46) was associated with greater weight loss at 1 year. CONCLUSIONS: The number of cognitive and behavioral strategies or domains used does not appear to influence weight loss, but the types of strategy appear of greater importance. Supporting people to adopt strategies linked to planned eating and food purchasing may aid long-term weight loss.

Long-Term Effect of Weight Regain Following Behavioral Weight Management Programs on Cardiometabolic Disease Incidence and Risk: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

BACKGROUND: Behavioral weight management programs (BWMPs) enhance weight loss in the short term, but longer term cardiometabolic effects are uncertain as weight is commonly regained. We assessed the impact of weight regain after BWMPs on cardiovascular risk factors, diabetes, and cardiovascular disease. METHODS: Trial registries, 11 databases, and forward-citation searching (latest search, December 19) were used to identify articles published in English, from any geographical region. Randomized trials of BWMPs in adults with overweight/obesity reporting cardiometabolic outcomes at ≥12 months at and after program end were included. Differences between more intensive interventions and comparator groups were synthesized using mixed-effects, meta-regression, and time-to-event models to assess the impact of weight regain on cardiovascular disease incidence and risk. RESULTS: One hundred twenty-four trials reporting on ≥1 cardiometabolic outcomes with a median follow-up of 28 (range, 11-360) months after program end were included. Median baseline participant body mass index was 33 kg/m2; median age was 51 years. Eight and 15 study arms (7889 and 4202 participants, respectively) examined the incidence of cardiovascular disease and type 2 diabetes, respectively, with imprecise evidence of a lower incidence for at least 5 years. Weight regain in BWMPs relative to comparators reduced these differences. One and 5 years after program end, total cholesterol/HDL (high-density lipoprotein) ratio was 1.5 points lower at both times (82 studies; 19 003 participants), systolic blood pressure was 1.5 mm mercury and 0.4 mm lower (84 studies; 30 836 participants), and HbA1c (%) 0.38 lower at both times (94 studies; 28 083 participants). Of the included studies, 22% were judged at high risk of bias; removing these did not meaningfully change results. CONCLUSIONS: Despite weight regain, BWMPs reduce cardiometabolic risk factors with effects lasting at least 5 years after program end and dwindling with weight regain. Evidence that they reduce the incidence of cardiovascular disease or diabetes is less certain. Few studies followed participants for ≥5 years. REGISTRATION: URL: https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/; Unique identifier: CRD42018105744.