Differences in cigarette smoking quit attempts and cessation between adults who did and did not take up nicotine vaping: Findings from the ITC four country smoking and vaping surveys.

There is mixed evidence as to whether nicotine vaping products (NVPs) can help adults who smoke transition away from cigarettes. This study investigated if self-reported attempts to quit smoking and smoking cessation, over a period of either 18 or 24 months, differed between respondents who initiated nicotine vaping versus those who did not. Outcome comparisons were made between those who: (1) initiated vaping vs. those who did not; (2) initiated daily or non-daily vaping vs. those who did not; and (3) initiated daily or non-daily vaping between surveys and continued to vape at follow-up (daily or non-daily) vs. those who did not initiate vaping. This cohort study included 3516 respondents from the ITC Four Country Smoking and Vaping Surveys (Australia, Canada, England, United Sates), recruited at Wave 1 (2016) or 2 (2018) and followed up at Wave 2 (18 months) and/or 3 (2020, 24 months). Adults who smoked daily at baseline and did not have a history of regular vaping were included. Initiation of vaping was defined as beginning to vape at least monthly between surveys. Respondents indicated whether they made an attempt to quit smoking between surveys. Smoking cessation was defined as those who self-reported no longer smoking cigarettes at follow-up. Relative to those who did not initiate vaping, initiation of any daily vaping between surveys was associated with a greater likelihood of smokers making a cigarette quit attempt (p < 0.001) and quitting smoking (p < 0.001). Among smokers who attempted to quit smoking, initiation of daily vaping was associated with a greater likelihood of being abstinent from smoking at follow-up (p = 0.001). Respondents who initiated vaping between surveys and were vaping daily at follow up were significantly more likely to have attempted to quit smoking (p < 0.001) and to have quit smoking (p < 0.001) than those who did not initiate vaping. Respondents who initiated non-daily vaping did not differ significantly from those who did not initiate vaping on any of the outcome measures. Daily NVP use was associated with increased attempts to quit smoking and abstinence from smoking cigarettes. These findings are consistent with the concept that complete cigarette substitution may be more likely to be achieved when smokers vape nicotine daily.

Gravely S ，Meng G ，Hammond D ，Hyland A ，Michael Cummings K ，Borland R ，Kasza KA ，Yong HH ，Thompson ME ，Quah ACK ，Ouimet J ，Martin N ，O'Connor RJ ，East KA ，McNeill A ，Boudreau C ，Levy DT ，Sweanor DT ，Fong GT ... -  《-》

Self-Reported Quit Aids and Assistance Used By Smokers At Their Most Recent Quit Attempt: Findings from the 2020 International Tobacco Control Four Country Smoking and Vaping Survey.

This study retrospectively describes smoking cessation aids, cessation services, and other types of assistance used by current and ex-smokers at their last quit attempt in four high-income countries. Data are from the Wave 3 (2020) International Tobacco Control Four Country Smoking and Vaping Survey in Australia, Canada, England, and the United States (US). Eligible respondents were daily smokers or past-daily recent ex-smokers who made a quit attempt/quit smoking in the last 24-months, resulting in 3614 respondents. Self-reported quit aids/assistance included: nicotine vaping products (NVPs), nicotine replacement therapy (NRT), other pharmacological therapies (OPT: varenicline/bupropion/cytisine), tobacco (noncombustible: heated tobacco product/smokeless tobacco), cessation services (quitline/counseling/doctor), other cessation support (e.g., mobile apps/website/pamphlets, etc.), or no aid. Among all respondents, at last quit attempt, 28.8% used NRT, 28.0% used an NVP, 12.0% used OPT, 7.8% used a cessation service, 1.7% used a tobacco product, 16.5% other cessation support, and 38.6% used no aid/assistance. Slightly more than half of all smokers and ex-smokers (57.2%) reported using any type of pharmacotherapy (NRT or OPT) and/or an NVP, half-used NRT and/or an NVP (49.9%), and 38.4% used any type of pharmacotherapy (NRT and/or OPT). A quarter of smokers/ex-smokers used a combination of aids. NVPs and NRT were the most prevalent types of cessation aids used in all four countries; however, NRT was more commonly used in Australia relative to NVPs, and in England, NVPs were more commonly used than NRT. The use of NVPs or NRT was more evenly distributed in Canada and the US. It appears that many smokers are still trying to quit unassisted, rather than utilizing cessation aids or other forms of assistance. Of those who did use assistance, NRT and NVPs were the most common method, which appears to suggest that nicotine substitution is important for smokers when trying to quit smoking. Clinical practice guidelines in a number of countries state that the most effective smoking cessation method is a combination of pharmacotherapy and face-to-face behavioral support by a health professional. Most quit attempts however are made unassisted, particularly without the use of government-approved cessation medications. This study found that about two in five daily smokers used approved cessation medications (nicotine replacement therapy (NRT) or other approved pharmacotherapies, such as varenicline). Notably, nicotine substitution in the form of either NRT and nicotine vaping products (NVPs) were the most common method of cessation assistance (used by one in two respondents), but the proportion using NRT and/or NVPs varied by country. Few smokers who attempted to quit utilized cessation services such as stop-smoking programs/counseling or quitlines, despite that these types of support are effective in helping smokers manage withdrawals and cravings. Primary healthcare professionals should ask their patients about smoking and offer them evidence-based treatment, as well as be prepared to provide smokers with a referral to trained cessation counselors, particularly when it comes to tailoring intensive treatment programs for regular daily smokers. Additionally, healthcare providers should be prepared to discuss the use of NVPs, particularly if smokers are seeking advice about NVPs, wanting to try/or already using an NVP to quit smoking, have failed repeatedly to quit with other cessation methods, and/or if they do not want to give up tobacco/nicotine use completely.

Gravely S ，Cummings KM ，Hammond D ，Borland R ，McNeill A ，East KA ，Loewen R ，Martin N ，Yong HH ，Li L ，Liber A ，Levy DT ，Quah ACK ，Ouimet J ，Hitchman SC ，Thompson ME ，Boudreau C ，Fong GT ... -  《-》

Tobacco Product Use and Associated Factors Among Middle and High School Students - National Youth Tobacco Survey, United States, 2021.

Gentzke AS ，Wang TW ，Cornelius M ，Park-Lee E ，Ren C ，Sawdey MD ，Cullen KA ，Loretan C ，Jamal A ，Homa DM ... -  《MMWR SURVEILLANCE SUMMARIES》

Interventions for preventing weight gain after smoking cessation.

Most people who stop smoking gain weight. This can discourage some people from making a quit attempt and risks offsetting some, but not all, of the health advantages of quitting. Interventions to prevent weight gain could improve health outcomes, but there is a concern that they may undermine quitting. To systematically review the effects of: (1) interventions targeting post-cessation weight gain on weight change and smoking cessation (referred to as 'Part 1') and (2) interventions designed to aid smoking cessation that plausibly affect post-cessation weight gain (referred to as 'Part 2'). Part 1 - We searched the Cochrane Tobacco Addiction Group's Specialized Register and CENTRAL; latest search 16 October 2020. Part 2 - We searched included studies in the following 'parent' Cochrane reviews: nicotine replacement therapy (NRT), antidepressants, nicotine receptor partial agonists, e-cigarettes, and exercise interventions for smoking cessation published in Issue 10, 2020 of the Cochrane Library. We updated register searches for the review of nicotine receptor partial agonists. Part 1 - trials of interventions that targeted post-cessation weight gain and had measured weight at any follow-up point or smoking cessation, or both, six or more months after quit day. Part 2 - trials included in the selected parent Cochrane reviews reporting weight change at any time point. Screening and data extraction followed standard Cochrane methods. Change in weight was expressed as difference in weight change from baseline to follow-up between trial arms and was reported only in people abstinent from smoking. Abstinence from smoking was expressed as a risk ratio (RR). Where appropriate, we performed meta-analysis using the inverse variance method for weight, and Mantel-Haenszel method for smoking. Part 1: We include 37 completed studies; 21 are new to this update. We judged five studies to be at low risk of bias, 17 to be at unclear risk and the remainder at high risk.  An intermittent very low calorie diet (VLCD) comprising full meal replacement provided free of charge and accompanied by intensive dietitian support significantly reduced weight gain at end of treatment compared with education on how to avoid weight gain (mean difference (MD) -3.70 kg, 95% confidence interval (CI) -4.82 to -2.58; 1 study, 121 participants), but there was no evidence of benefit at 12 months (MD -1.30 kg, 95% CI -3.49 to 0.89; 1 study, 62 participants). The VLCD increased the chances of abstinence at 12 months (RR 1.73, 95% CI 1.10 to 2.73; 1 study, 287 participants). However, a second study  found that no-one completed the VLCD intervention or achieved abstinence. Interventions aimed at increasing acceptance of weight gain reported mixed effects at end of treatment, 6 months and 12 months with confidence intervals including both increases and decreases in weight gain compared with no advice or health education. Due to high heterogeneity, we did not combine the data. These interventions increased quit rates at 6 months (RR 1.42, 95% CI 1.03 to 1.96; 4 studies, 619 participants; I2 = 21%), but there was no evidence at 12 months (RR 1.25, 95% CI 0.76 to 2.06; 2 studies, 496 participants; I2 = 26%). Some pharmacological interventions tested for limiting post-cessation weight gain (PCWG) reduced weight gain at the end of treatment (dexfenfluramine, phenylpropanolamine, naltrexone). The effects of ephedrine and caffeine combined, lorcaserin, and chromium were too imprecise to give useful estimates of treatment effects. There was very low-certainty evidence that personalized weight management support reduced weight gain at end of treatment (MD -1.11 kg, 95% CI -1.93 to -0.29; 3 studies, 121 participants; I2 = 0%), but no evidence in the longer-term 12 months (MD -0.44 kg, 95% CI -2.34 to 1.46; 4 studies, 530 participants; I2 = 41%). There was low to very low-certainty evidence that detailed weight management education without personalized assessment, planning and feedback did not reduce weight gain and may have reduced smoking cessation rates (12 months: MD -0.21 kg, 95% CI -2.28 to 1.86; 2 studies, 61 participants; I2 = 0%; RR for smoking cessation 0.66, 95% CI 0.48 to 0.90; 2 studies, 522 participants; I2 = 0%). Part 2: We include 83 completed studies, 27 of which are new to this update. There was low certainty that exercise interventions led to minimal or no weight reduction compared with standard care at end of treatment (MD -0.25 kg, 95% CI -0.78 to 0.29; 4 studies, 404 participants; I2 = 0%). However, weight was reduced at 12 months (MD -2.07 kg, 95% CI -3.78 to -0.36; 3 studies, 182 participants; I2 = 0%). Both bupropion and fluoxetine limited weight gain at end of treatment (bupropion MD -1.01 kg, 95% CI -1.35 to -0.67; 10 studies, 1098 participants; I2 = 3%); (fluoxetine MD -1.01 kg, 95% CI -1.49 to -0.53; 2 studies, 144 participants; I2 = 38%; low- and very low-certainty evidence, respectively). There was no evidence of benefit at 12 months for bupropion, but estimates were imprecise (bupropion MD -0.26 kg, 95% CI -1.31 to 0.78; 7 studies, 471 participants; I2 = 0%). No studies of fluoxetine provided data at 12 months. There was moderate-certainty that NRT reduced weight at end of treatment (MD -0.52 kg, 95% CI -0.99 to -0.05; 21 studies, 2784 participants; I2 = 81%) and moderate-certainty that the effect may be similar at 12 months (MD -0.37 kg, 95% CI -0.86 to 0.11; 17 studies, 1463 participants; I2 = 0%), although the estimates are too imprecise to assess long-term benefit. There was mixed evidence of the effect of varenicline on weight, with high-certainty evidence that weight change was very modestly lower at the end of treatment (MD -0.23 kg, 95% CI -0.53 to 0.06; 14 studies, 2566 participants; I2 = 32%); a low-certainty estimate gave an imprecise estimate of higher weight at 12 months (MD 1.05 kg, 95% CI -0.58 to 2.69; 3 studies, 237 participants; I2 = 0%). Overall, there is no intervention for which there is moderate certainty of a clinically useful effect on long-term weight gain. There is also no moderate- or high-certainty evidence that interventions designed to limit weight gain reduce the chances of people achieving abstinence from smoking.

Hartmann-Boyce J ，Theodoulou A ，Farley A ，Hajek P ，Lycett D ，Jones LL ，Kudlek L ，Heath L ，Hajizadeh A ，Schenkels M ，Aveyard P ... -  《Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews》

Strategies to improve smoking cessation rates in primary care.

Primary care is an important setting in which to treat tobacco addiction. However, the rates at which providers address smoking cessation and the success of that support vary. Strategies can be implemented to improve and increase the delivery of smoking cessation support (e.g. through provider training), and to increase the amount and breadth of support given to people who smoke (e.g. through additional counseling or tailored printed materials). To assess the effectiveness of strategies intended to increase the success of smoking cessation interventions in primary care settings. To assess whether any effect that these interventions have on smoking cessation may be due to increased implementation by healthcare providers. We searched the Cochrane Tobacco Addiction Group's Specialized Register, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, Embase, and trial registries to 10 September 2020. We included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and cluster-RCTs (cRCTs) carried out in primary care, including non-pregnant adults. Studies investigated a strategy or strategies to improve the implementation or success of smoking cessation treatment in primary care. These strategies could include interventions designed to increase or enhance the quality of existing support, or smoking cessation interventions offered in addition to standard care (adjunctive interventions). Intervention strategies had to be tested in addition to and in comparison with standard care, or in addition to other active intervention strategies if the effect of an individual strategy could be isolated. Standard care typically incorporates physician-delivered brief behavioral support, and an offer of smoking cessation medication, but differs across studies. Studies had to measure smoking abstinence at six months' follow-up or longer. We followed standard Cochrane methods. Our primary outcome - smoking abstinence - was measured using the most rigorous intention-to-treat definition available. We also extracted outcome data for quit attempts, and the following markers of healthcare provider performance: asking about smoking status; advising on cessation; assessment of participant readiness to quit; assisting with cessation; arranging follow-up for smoking participants. Where more than one study investigated the same strategy or set of strategies, and measured the same outcome, we conducted meta-analyses using Mantel-Haenszel random-effects methods to generate pooled risk ratios (RRs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs). We included 81 RCTs and cRCTs, involving 112,159 participants. Fourteen were rated at low risk of bias, 44 at high risk, and the remainder at unclear risk. We identified moderate-certainty evidence, limited by inconsistency, that the provision of adjunctive counseling by a health professional other than the physician (RR 1.31, 95% CI 1.10 to 1.55; I2 = 44%; 22 studies, 18,150 participants), and provision of cost-free medications (RR 1.36, 95% CI 1.05 to 1.76; I2 = 63%; 10 studies,7560 participants) increased smoking quit rates in primary care. There was also moderate-certainty evidence, limited by risk of bias, that the addition of tailored print materials to standard smoking cessation treatment increased the number of people who had successfully stopped smoking at six months' follow-up or more (RR 1.29, 95% CI 1.04 to 1.59; I2 = 37%; 6 studies, 15,978 participants). There was no clear evidence that providing participants who smoked with biomedical risk feedback increased their likelihood of quitting (RR 1.07, 95% CI 0.81 to 1.41; I2 = 40%; 7 studies, 3491 participants), or that provider smoking cessation training (RR 1.10, 95% CI 0.85 to 1.41; I2 = 66%; 7 studies, 13,685 participants) or provider incentives (RR 1.14, 95% CI 0.97 to 1.34; I2 = 0%; 2 studies, 2454 participants) increased smoking abstinence rates. However, in assessing the former two strategies we judged the evidence to be of low certainty and in assessing the latter strategies it was of very low certainty. We downgraded the evidence due to imprecision, inconsistency and risk of bias across these comparisons. There was some indication that provider training increased the delivery of smoking cessation support, along with the provision of adjunctive counseling and cost-free medications. However, our secondary outcomes were not measured consistently, and in many cases analyses were subject to substantial statistical heterogeneity, imprecision, or both, making it difficult to draw conclusions. Thirty-four studies investigated multicomponent interventions to improve smoking cessation rates. There was substantial variation in the combinations of strategies tested, and the resulting individual study effect estimates, precluding meta-analyses in most cases. Meta-analyses provided some evidence that adjunctive counseling combined with either cost-free medications or provider training enhanced quit rates when compared with standard care alone. However, analyses were limited by small numbers of events, high statistical heterogeneity, and studies at high risk of bias. Analyses looking at the effects of combining provider training with flow sheets to aid physician decision-making, and with outreach facilitation, found no clear evidence that these combinations increased quit rates; however, analyses were limited by imprecision, and there was some indication that these approaches did improve some forms of provider implementation. There is moderate-certainty evidence that providing adjunctive counseling by an allied health professional, cost-free smoking cessation medications, and tailored printed materials as part of smoking cessation support in primary care can increase the number of people who achieve smoking cessation. There is no clear evidence that providing participants with biomedical risk feedback, or primary care providers with training or incentives to provide smoking cessation support enhance quit rates. However, we rated this evidence as of low or very low certainty, and so conclusions are likely to change as further evidence becomes available. Most of the studies in this review evaluated smoking cessation interventions that had already been extensively tested in the general population. Further studies should assess strategies designed to optimize the delivery of those interventions already known to be effective within the primary care setting. Such studies should be cluster-randomized to account for the implications of implementation in this particular setting. Due to substantial variation between studies in this review, identifying optimal characteristics of multicomponent interventions to improve the delivery of smoking cessation treatment was challenging. Future research could use component network meta-analysis to investigate this further.

Lindson N ，Pritchard G ，Hong B ，Fanshawe TR ，Pipe A ，Papadakis S ... -  《Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews》