Leonie S. Brose

Associations Between E-Cigarette Type, Frequency of Use, and Quitting Smoking: Findings From a Longitudinal Online Panel Survey in Great Britain

Introduction: E-cigarettes can be categorized into two basic types, (1) cigalikes, that are disposable or use pre-filled cartridges and (2) tanks, that can be refilled with liquids. The aims of this study were to examine: (1) predictors of using the two e-cigarette types, and (2) the association between type used, frequency of use (daily vs. non-daily vs. no use), and quitting. Methods: Online longitudinal survey of smokers in Great Britain was first conducted in November 2012. Of 4064 respondents meeting inclusion criteria at baseline, this study included (N = 1643) current smokers followed-up 1 year later. Type and frequency of e-cigarette use were measured at follow-up. Results: At follow-up, 64% reported no e-cigarette use, 27% used cigalikes, and 9% used tanks. Among e-cigarette users at follow-up, respondents most likely to use tanks versus cigalikes included: 40–54 versus 18–24 year olds and those with low versus moderate/high education. Compared to no e-cigarette use at follow-up, non-daily cigalike users were less likely to have quit smoking since baseline (P = .0002), daily cigalike or non-daily tank users were no more or less likely to have quit (P = .3644 and P = .4216, respectively), and daily tank users were more likely to have quit (P = .0012). Conclusions: Whether e-cigarette use is associated with quitting depends on type and frequency of use. Compared with respondents not using e-cigarettes, daily tank users were more likely, and non-daily cigalike users were less likely, to have quit. Tanks were more likely to be used by older respondents and respondents with lower education.

Is the use of electronic cigarettes while smoking associated with smoking cessation attempts, cessation and reduced cigarette consumption? A survey with a 1‐year follow‐up

Abstract Aims To use a unique longitudinal data set to assess the association between e‐cigarette use while smoking with smoking cessation attempts, cessation and substantial reduction, taking into account frequency of use and key potential confounders. Design Web‐based survey, baseline November/December 2012, 1‐year follow‐up in December 2013. Setting Great Britain. Participants National general population sample of 4064 adult smokers, with 1759 (43%) followed‐up. Measurements Main outcome measures were cessation attempt, cessation and substantial reduction (≥50% from baseline to follow‐up) of cigarettes per day (CPD). In logistic regression models, cessation attempt in the last year (analysis n = 1473) and smoking status (n = 1656) at follow‐up were regressed on to baseline e‐cigarette use (none, non‐daily, daily) while adjusting for baseline socio‐demographics, dependence and nicotine replacement (NRT) use. Substantial reduction (n = 1042) was regressed on to follow‐up e‐cigarette use while adjusting for baseline socio‐demographics and dependence and follow‐up NRT use. Findings Compared with non‐use, daily e‐cigarette use at baseline was associated with increased cessation attempts [odds ratio (OR) = 2.11, 95% confidence interval (CI) = 1.24–3.58, P = 0.006], but not with cessation at follow‐up (OR = 0.62, 95% CI = 0.28–1.37, P = 0.24). Non‐daily use was not associated with cessation attempts or cessation. Daily e‐cigarette use at follow‐up was associated with increased odds of substantial reduction (OR = 2.49, 95% CI = 1.14–5.45, P = 0.02), non‐daily use was not. Conclusions Daily use of e‐cigarettes while smoking appears to be associated with subsequent increases in rates of attempting to stop smoking and reducing smoking, but not with smoking cessation. Non‐daily use of e‐cigarettes while smoking does not appear to be associated with cessation attempts, cessation or reduced smoking.

What makes for an effective stop-smoking service?

Background The English network of stop-smoking services (SSSs) is among the best-value life-preserving clinical intervention in the UK NHS and is internationally renowned. However, success varies considerably across services, making it important to examine the factors that influence their effectiveness. Methods Data from 126 890 treatment episodes in 24 SSSs in 2009–10 were used to assess the association between intervention characteristics and success rates, adjusting for key smoker characteristics. Treatment characteristics examined were setting (eg, primary care, specialist clinics, pharmacy), type of support (eg, group, one-to-one) and medication (eg, varenicline, single nicotine replacement therapy (NRT), combination of two or more forms of NRT). The main outcome measure was abstinence from smoking 4 weeks after the target quit date, verified by carbon monoxide concentration in expired air. Results There was substantial variation in success rates across intervention characteristics after adjusting for smoker characteristics. Single NRT was associated with higher success rates than no medication (OR 1.75, 95% CI 1.39 to 2.22); combination NRT and varenicline were more successful than single NRT (OR 1.42, 95% CI 1.06 to 1.91 and OR 1.78, 95% CI 1.57 to 2.02, respectively); group support was linked to higher success rates than one-to-one support (OR 1.43, 95% CI 1.16 to 1.76); primary care settings were less successful than specialist clinics (OR 0.80, 95% CI 0.66 to 0.99). Conclusions Routine clinic data support findings from randomised controlled trials that smokers receiving stop-smoking support from specialist clinics, treatment in groups and varenicline or combination NRT are more likely to succeed than those receiving treatment in primary care, one-to-one and single NRT. All smokers should have access to, and be encouraged to use, the most effective intervention options.

Association between nicotine replacement therapy use in pregnancy and smoking cessation

BACKGROUND There is an urgent need to find better ways of helping pregnant smokers to stop. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) have not detected an effect of nicotine replacement therapy (NRT) for smoking cessation in pregnancy. This may be because of inadequate dosing because of faster nicotine metabolism in this group. In England, many pregnant smokers use single form and combination NRT (patch plus a faster acting form). This correlational study examined whether the latter is associated with higher quit rates. METHODS Routinely collected data from 3880 pregnant smokers attempting to stop in one of 44 Stop Smoking Services in England. The outcome measure was 4-week quit rates, verified by expired-air carbon monoxide level<10 ppm. Outcome was compared between those not using medication versus using single form NRT (patch or one of the faster acting forms), or combination NRT. Potential confounders were intervention setting (specialist clinic, home visit, primary care, other), intervention type (one-to-one, group, drop-in, other), months pregnant, age, ethnicity and occupational group in multi-level logistic regressions. RESULTS After adjustment, combination NRT was associated with higher odds of quitting compared with no medication (OR=1.93, 95% CI=1.13-3.29, p=0.016), whereas single NRT showed no benefit (OR=1.06, 95% CI=0.60-1.86, p=0.84). CONCLUSIONS Use of a combination of nicotine patch and a faster acting form may confer a benefit in terms of promoting smoking cessation during pregnancy. While this conclusion is based on correlational data, it lends support to continuing this treatment option pending confirmation by an RCT.

A Systematic Review of Smoking Cessation Interventions for Adults in Substance Abuse Treatment or Recovery

Introduction: The aim was to evaluate the effectiveness of smoking cessation interventions for patients with substance use disorders. The secondary aim was to evaluate impact on substance use treatment outcomes. Methods: Randomized controlled trials involving adult smokers, recently or currently receiving inpatient or outpatient treatment for substance use disorders were reviewed. Databases, grey literature, reference lists, and journals were searched for relevant studies between 1990 and August 2014. Two authors extracted data and assessed quality. The primary outcome was biochemically verified continuous abstinence from smoking at 6 or 12 months, secondary outcomes were biochemically verified 7-day point prevalence smoking abstinence (PPA) at 6 or 12 months and substance use outcomes. Heterogeneity between studies precluded pooled analyses of the data. Results: Seventeen of 847 publications were included. Five studies reported significant effects on smoking cessation: (1) nicotine patches improved continuous abstinence at 6 months; (2) nicotine gum improved continuous abstinence at 12 months; (3) counseling, contingency management and relapse prevention improved continuous abstinence at 6 and 12 months; (4) cognitive behavioral therapy, plus nicotine replacement therapy (NRT), improved PPA at 6 months; and (5) a combination of bupropion, NRT, counseling and contingency management improved PPA at 6 months. Two studies showed some evidence of improved substance use outcomes with the remaining eight studies measuring substance use outcomes showing no difference. Conclusions: NRT, behavioral support, and combination approaches appear to increase smoking abstinence in those treated for substance use disorders. Higher quality studies are required to strengthen the evidence base.

Perceived relative harm of electronic cigarettes over time and impact on subsequent use. A survey with 1-year and 2-year follow-ups.

Highlights • A cohort of smokers and ex-smokers was followed over a period of two years.• Perceived harm of electronic cigarettes relative to cigarettes increased over time.• Smoking cessation ande-cigarette use predicted subsequent perceived relative harm.• Perceived relative harm predicted subsequent use of e-cigarettes in non-users.

Behavioural therapy for smoking cessation: the effectiveness of different intervention types for disadvantaged and affluent smokers.

Background Disadvantaged smokers are less likely to be successful when trying to stop smoking than more affluent smokers. In the UK, NHS Stop Smoking Services (SSS) provide a range of pharmacotherapy and behavioural support, delivered by advisors with a range of backgrounds. Whether the types of support provided and who provides it influence differences in quit rates amongst low SES smokers compared with high SES smokers has not previously been examined. Methods 202,084 records of smokers in England who attended a NHS Stop Smoking Service between July 2010 and June 2011 were acquired. Smokers were followed-up by services at four weeks post quit date. Multilevel logistic regression models of CO validated quits were employed. Disadvantage was explored through the National Statistics Socio-Economic Classification (NS-SEC) and by eligibility for free prescriptions, an indicator of low income amongst adults aged between 19 and 59 in England. Results Affluent smokers were more likely to quit than disadvantaged smokers (OR 1.38 (1.35 to 1.42) for clients who paid for prescriptions compared to those eligible for free prescriptions). 80% of service clients received one-to-one counselling but open group forms of behavioural therapy were more successful (main effect OR 1.26 (1.12 to 1.41)) except amongst some of the most disadvantaged clients (long-term unemployed and prisoners). Closed groups were little deployed and they were not significantly more successful than one-to-one behavioural therapy after controls. Who delivered treatment did make a difference for some clients, with all but the most affluent less likely to be successful if they had been treated by a nurse compared with other types of advisers, including smoking cessation specialists (main effect OR 0.73 (0.65 to 0.83)). Conclusion This study provides further evidence that disadvantaged smokers find quitting more difficult even when they have attended a smoking cessation programme. The findings suggest that open groups should be promoted, although they may not be as effective as other forms of behavioural therapy for the long-term unemployed or prisoners. Further research is required to explore why most groups of smokers who attended services staffed by nurses were less likely to quit than those who received treatment from other types of advisors.

Novel Delivery Systems for Nicotine Replacement Therapy as an Aid to Smoking Cessation and for Harm Reduction: Rationale, and Evidence for Advantages over Existing Systems

Nicotine replacement therapy (NRT) has been used in the treatment of tobacco dependence for over three decades. Whilst the choice of NRT was limited early on, in the last ten years there has been substantial increase in the number of nicotine delivery devices that have become available. This article briefly summarises existing forms of NRT, evidence of their efficacy and use, and reviews the rationale for the development of novel products delivering nicotine via buccal, transdermal or pulmonary routes (including nicotine mouth spray, nicotine films, advanced nicotine inhalers and electronic cigarettes). It presents available evidence on the efficacy, tolerability and abuse potential of these products, with a focus on their advantages as well as disadvantages compared with established forms of NRT for use as an aid to both smoking cessation as well as harm reduction.

Does it matter who you see to help you stop smoking? Short-term quit rates across specialist stop smoking practitioners in England.

AIMS A network of Stop Smoking Services has been set up within the National Health Service (NHS) in England. The services deliver a combination of behavioural support and medication. It is important to establish the degree of variability in quit rates attributable to differences between individual practitioners, to gauge the scope for improvement by training and professional support. The aim of the present analysis was to examine how far short-term quit rates depend on the practitioner delivering the intervention after adjusting for potential confounding variables. DESIGN Observational study using routinely collected data. SETTING Thirty-one NHS Stop Smoking Services in England. PARTICIPANTS Data from 46,237 one-to-one treatment episodes (supported quit attempts) delivered by specialist practitioners. MEASUREMENTS Three-level logistic regression models were fitted for carbon monoxide (CO)-validated short-term (4-week) quit rates. Models adjusted for age, gender, exemption from prescription charges, medication and intervention setting for each treatment episode, number of clients for each practitioner and economic deprivation at the level of the Stop Smoking Service. Secondary analyses included (i) the heaviness-of-smoking index (HSI) as predictor and (ii) 4-week quit rates whether or not confirmed by CO. FINDINGS Differences between individual specialist practitioners explained 7.6% of the variance in CO-verified quit rates after adjusting for client demographics, intervention characteristics and practitioner and service variables (P < 0.001). HSI had little impact on this figure; in quits not necessarily validated by CO, practitioners explained less variance. CONCLUSIONS Individual stop smoking practitioners appear to differ to a significant degree in effectiveness. It is important to examine what underlies these differences in order to improve selection, training and professional development.

Comparison of the Effectiveness of Varenicline and Combination Nicotine Replacement Therapy for Smoking Cessation in Clinical Practice

OBJECTIVE To compare the effectiveness of varenicline and combination nicotine replacement therapy (NRT) for treating smokers attempting to stop, as it is unclear which of the 2 is more effective. PATIENTS AND METHODS Data from 167,487 treatment episodes in patients from 42 National Health Service Stop Smoking Services (April 1, 2009, through June 30, 2011) using varenicline or combination NRT were analyzed. The outcome was carbon monoxide-validated 4-week smoking abstinence. Potential predictors were age, sex, occupational grade, exemption from prescription charges, intervention setting (specialist or other), support (group or other), and year of quit attempt. RESULTS Observed smoking abstinence rates were higher with varenicline (43.5% vs 36.9%). However, there was evidence of systematic variation in medication effect across clinical services and differences in predictors of outcome between medications. Allowing for these influences indicated a small mean advantage for varenicline (odds ratio, 1.080; 95% CI, 1.003-1.163; difference, 1.86%; 95% CI, 0.07%-3.67%; P=.04). The relative effectiveness of the 2 medications was not moderated by setting, type of support, or year. CONCLUSION The relative effect of medication varies substantially according to clinical practice and population treated. Averaged across current English clinical practice and populations, varenicline is marginally more effective than combination NRT. Demographic and intervention characteristics associated with success predict varenicline use.