Smoking cessation and vaccination.

A significant proportion of COPD patients (∼40%) continue smoking despite knowing that they have the disease. Smokers with COPD exhibit higher levels of nicotine dependence, and have lower self-efficacy and self-esteem, which affects their ability to quit smoking. Treatment should be adapted to the needs of individual patients with different levels of tobacco dependence. The combination of counselling plus pharmacotherapy is the most effective cessation treatment for COPD. In patients with severe COPD, varenicline and bupropion have been shown to have the highest abstinence rates compared with nicotine replacement therapy. There is a lack of evidence to support that smoking cessation reduction or harm reduction strategies have benefits in COPD patients. The long-term efficacy and safety of electronic cigarettes for smoking cessation need to be evaluated in high-risk populations; therefore, it is not possible to recommend their use for smoking cessation in COPD. Future studies with the new generation of nicotine vaccines are necessary to determine their effectiveness in smokers in general and in COPD patients.

Increased Nicotine Consumption in Australia During the First Months of the COVID-19 Pandemic.

INTRODUCTION: Mixed findings have been reported about the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on smoking behavior in different populations. AIMS AND METHODS: In this study, we aimed to quantify changes in smoking prevalence through the proxy of nicotine consumption in the Australian population from 2017 to 2020 inclusive. Estimates of nicotine consumption between 2017 and 2020 were retrieved from a national wastewater monitoring program that covers up to 50% of the Australian population. National sales data for nicotine replacement therapy (NRT) products from 2017 to 2020 were also acquired. Linear regression and pairwise comparison were conducted to identify data trends and to test differences between time periods. RESULTS: The average consumption of nicotine in Australia decreased between 2017 and 2019 but increased in 2020. Estimated consumption in the first half of 2020 was significantly higher (~30%) than the previous period. Sales of NRT products increased gradually from 2017 to 2020 although sales in the first half of the year were consistently lower than in the second half. CONCLUSION: Total nicotine consumption increased in Australia during the early stage of the pandemic in 2020. Increased nicotine consumption may be due to people managing higher stress levels, such as from loneliness due to control measures, and also greater opportunities to smoke/vape while working from home and during lockdowns in the early stage of the pandemic. IMPLICATIONS: Tobacco and nicotine consumption have been decreasing in Australia but the COVID-19 pandemic may have temporarily disrupted this trend. In 2020, the higher impacts of lockdowns and working from home arrangements may have led to a temporary reversal of the previous downward trend in smoking during the early stage of the pandemic.

Tobacco use and risk of COVID-19 infection in the Finnish general population.

Empirical evidence, primarily based on hospital-based or voluntary samples, suggests that current smokers have a lower risk of COVID-19 infection than never smokers. In this study, we used nationally representative data to examine the association between tobacco use and the risk of having a confirmed COVID-19 case. We explored several forms of tobacco use, contributing to separate the role of nicotine from smoking. We used data from 44,199 participants from three pooled national health surveys in Finland (FinSote 2018-2020). The primary outcome was a confirmed COVID-19 case. We examined current smoking, moist smokeless tobacco (snus), e-cigarettes with and without nicotine and nicotine replacement therapy products. Current daily smokers had a relative risk of 1.12 of a confirmed COVID-19 case (95% CI 0.65; 1.94) in fully adjusted models compared with never smokers. Current snus use was associated with a 68% higher risk of a confirmed COVID-19 case (RR 1.68, 95% CI 1.02; 2.75) than never users. We did not find conclusive evidence of associations between e-cigarettes with and without nicotine and nicotine replacement therapy products and the risk of confirmed COVID-19 cases. Our findings suggest that nicotine might not have a protective role in the risk of COVID-19 as previously hypothesized.

Effect of financial voucher incentives provided with UK stop smoking services on the cessation of smoking in pregnant women (CPIT III): pragmatic, multicentre, single blinded, phase 3, randomised controlled trial.

OBJECTIVE: To examine effectiveness, cost effectiveness, generalisability, and acceptability of financial incentives for smoking cessation during pregnancy in addition to variously organised UK stop smoking services. DESIGN: Pragmatic, multicentre, single blinded, phase 3, randomised controlled trial (Cessation in Pregnancy Incentives Trial phase 3 (CPIT III)). SETTING: Seven UK stop smoking services provided in primary and secondary care facilities in Scotland, Northern Ireland, and England. PARTICIPANTS: 944 pregnant women (age ≥16 years) who self-reported as being smokers (at least one cigarette in the past week) when asked at first maternity visit, less than 24 weeks' gestation, and notified to the trial team by routine stop smoking services. INTERVENTIONS: Participants in the control group were offered the standard stop smoking services, which includes the offer of counselling by specially trained workers using withdrawal orientated therapy and the offer of free nicotine replacement therapy. The intervention was the offer of usual support from the stop smoking services and the addition of up to £400 ($440; €455) of LoveToShop financial voucher incentives for engaging with current stop smoking services or to stop smoking, or both, during pregnancy. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Self-reported smoking cessation in late pregnancy (between 34 and 38 weeks' gestation) corroborated by saliva cotinine (and anabasine if using nicotine replacement products). Results were adjusted for age, smoking years, index of multiple deprivation, Fagerström score, before or after covid, and recruitment site. Secondary outcomes included point and continuous abstinence six months after expected date of delivery, engagement with stop smoking services, biochemically validated abstinence from smoking at four weeks after stop smoking date, birth weight of baby, cost effectiveness, generalisability documenting formats of stop smoking services, and acceptability to pregnant women and their carers. RESULTS: From 9 January 2018 to 4 April 2020, of 4032 women screened by stop smoking services, 944 people were randomly assigned to the intervention group (n=471) or the control group (n=470). Three people asked for their data to be removed. 126 (27%) of 471 participants stopped smoking from the intervention group and 58 (12%) of 470 from the control group (adjusted odds ratio 2.78 (1.94 to 3.97) P<0.001). Serious adverse events were miscarriages and other expected pregnancy events requiring hospital admission; all serious adverse events were unrelated to the intervention. Most people who stopped smoking from both groups relapsed after their baby was born. CONCLUSIONS: The offer of up to £400 of financial voucher incentives to stop smoking during pregnancy as an addition to current UK stop smoking services is highly effective. This bolt-on intervention supports new guidance from the UK National Institute for Health and Care Excellence, which includes the addition of financial incentives to support pregnant women to stop smoking. Continuing incentives to 12 months after birth is being examined to prevent relapse. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ISRCTN Registry ISRCTN15236311.

Patient survey examining the experience of care of a hospital-based opt-out tobacco dependency treatment service (the CURE Project).

INTRODUCTION: Treating tobacco dependency in patients admitted to hospital is a key priority in the National Health Service long-term plan. This service evaluation assessed the perception, needs and experience of care within an opt-out hospital-based tobacco dependency treatment service (the Conversation, Understand, Replace, Experts and Evidence Base (CURE) team) in North-West England. METHODS: A survey was offered to all eligible patients between 1 July 2020 and 30 September 2020. Eligibility criteria were adult patients identified as an active smoker being approached by the CURE team as part of the standard opt-out service model, on a non-covid ward without a high suspicion of COVID-19 infection and able to read and write in English. RESULTS: 106 completed surveys were evaluated. Participants demonstrated high levels of tobacco dependency with an average of 37 years smoking history and 66% describing the onset of cravings within 30 min of hospital admission. The average number quit attempts in the previous 12 months was 1.3 but only 9% had used the most effective National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) recommended treatments. 100% felt the opt-out service model was appropriate and 96% stated the treatment and support they had received had prompted them to consider a further quit attempt. 82% of participants rated their experience of care as 9/10 or 10/10. Participants wanted a broad range of support post discharge with the most popular option being with their general practitioner. 66% and 65% of participants would have been interested in a vaping kit as stop smoking intervention and support vaping-friendly hospital grounds respectively. CONCLUSION: These results suggest this hospital-based, opt-out tobacco dependency treatment service delivers high-quality experience of care and meets the needs of the patients it serves. It also highlights the opportunity to enhance outcomes by providing access to NICE recommended most-effective interventions (varenicline, vaping and combination nicotine replacement therapy) and providing flexible, individualised discharge pathways.

Comparative Effectiveness of Postdischarge Smoking Cessation Interventions for Hospital Patients: The Helping HAND 4 Randomized Clinical Trial.

Importance: Smoking cessation interventions for hospitalized patients must continue after discharge to improve long-term tobacco abstinence. How health systems can best deliver postdischarge tobacco treatment is uncertain. Objective: To determine if health system-based tobacco cessation treatment after hospital discharge produces more long-term tobacco abstinence than referral to a community-based quitline. Design, Setting, and Participants: This randomized clinical trial was conducted September 2018 to November 2020 in 3 hospitals in Massachusetts, Pennsylvania, and Tennessee. Cigarette smokers admitted to a study hospital who received brief in-hospital tobacco treatment and wanted to quit smoking were recruited for participation and randomized for postdischarge treatment to health system-based Transitional Tobacco Care Management (TTCM) or electronic referral to a community-based quitline (QL). Both multicomponent interventions offered smoking cessation counseling and nicotine replacement therapy (NRT) for up to 3 months. Data were analyzed from February 1, 2021, to April 25, 2022. Interventions: TTCM provided 8 weeks of NRT at discharge and 7 automated calls with a hospital-based counselor call-back option. The QL intervention sent referrals from the hospital electronic health record to the state quitline, which offered 5 counseling calls and an NRT sample. Main Outcomes and Measures: The main outcome was biochemically verified past 7-day tobacco abstinence at 6 months. Self-reported point-prevalence and continuous tobacco abstinence and tobacco treatment utilization were assessed 1, 3, and 6 months after discharge. Results: A total of 1409 participants (mean [SD] age, 51.7 [12.6] years; 784 [55.6%] women; mean [SD] 16.4 [10.6] cigarettes/day) were recruited, including 706 randomized to TTCM and 703 randomized to QL. Participants were comparable at baseline, including 216 Black participants (15.3%), 82 Hispanic participants (5.8%), and 1089 White participants (77.3%). At 1 and 3 months after discharge, more TTCM participants than QL participants used cessation counseling (1 month: 245 participants [34.7%] vs 154 participants [21.9%]; 3 months: 248 participants [35.1%] vs 123 participants [17.5%]; P < .001) and pharmacotherapy (1 month: 455 participants [64.4%] vs 324 participants [46.1%]; 3 months: 367 participants [52.0%] vs 264 participants [37.6%]; P < .001). More TTCM than QL participants reported continuous abstinence for 3 months (RR, 1.30; 95% CI, 1.06-1.58) and point-prevalence abstinence at 1 month (RR, 1.22; 95% CI, 1.08-1.35) and 3 months (RR, 1.23; 95% CI, 1.09-1.37) but not at 6 months (RR, 1.14; 95% CI, 0.99-1.29). The primary outcome, biochemically verified point-prevalence abstinence at 6 months, was not statistically significantly different between groups (19.9% vs 16.9%; RR, 1.18; 95% CI, 0.92-1.50). Conclusions and Relevance: In this randomized clinical trial, biochemically verified tobacco abstinence rates were not significantly different between groups at the 6-month follow-up. However, the health system-based model was superior to the community-based quitline model throughout the 3 months of active treatment. A longer duration of postdischarge treatment may sustain the superiority of the health system-based model. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03603496.

Prevalence of use and real-world effectiveness of smoking cessation aids during the COVID-19 pandemic: a representative study of smokers in England.

AIM: To measure whether the prevalence of use and real-world effectiveness of different smoking cessation aids has changed in England since the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic. DESIGN: Representative monthly cross-sectional surveys, January 2015-June 2021. SETTING: England. PARTICIPANTS: A total of 7300 adults (≥18 y) who had smoked within the previous 12 months and had made ≥1 quit attempt during that period. MEASUREMENTS: The independent variable was the timing of the COVID-19 pandemic (pre-pandemic [January 2015-February 2020] vs pandemic [April 2020-June 2021]). We analysed (i) the association between the pandemic period and self-reported use (vs non-use) during the most recent quit attempt of: prescription medication (nicotine replacement therapy [NRT]/varenicline/bupropion), NRT bought over-the-counter, e-cigarettes, traditional behavioural support and traditional remote support (telephone support/written self-help materials/websites) and (ii) the interaction between the pandemic period and use of these cessation aids on self-reported abstinence from quit date to survey. Covariates included age, sex, social grade, level of cigarette addiction and characteristics related to the quit attempt. FINDINGS: After adjustment for secular trends, there was a significant increase from the pre-pandemic to pandemic period in the prevalence of use of traditional remote support by past-year smokers in a quit attempt (OR = 2.18; 95% CI, 1.42-3.33); specifically telephone support (OR = 7.16; 95% CI, 2.19-23.45) and websites (OR = 2.39; 95% CI, 1.41-4.08). There was also an increase in the prevalence of use of prescription medication (OR = 1.47; 95% CI, 1.08-2.00); specifically varenicline (OR = 1.66; 95% CI, 1.09-2.52). There were no significant changes in prevalence of use of other cessation aids after adjustment for secular trends. People who reported using prescription medication (OR = 1.41; 95% CI, 1.09-1.84) and e-cigarettes (OR = 1.87; 95% CI, 1.62-2.16) had greater odds of reporting abstinence than people who did not. There were no significant interactions between the pandemic period and use of any cessation aid on abstinence, after adjustment for covariates and use of the other aids, although data were insensitive to distinguish no change from meaningful modest (OR = 1.34) effects (Bayes factors 0.72-1.98). CONCLUSIONS: In England, the COVID-19 pandemic was associated with an increase in use of remote support for smoking cessation and varenicline by smokers in a quit attempt up to June 2021. The data were inconclusive regarding an association between the pandemic and changes in the real-world effectiveness of popular smoking cessation aids.

Changes in Smoking Cessation-Related Behaviors Among US Adults During the COVID-19 Pandemic.

Importance: Smoking cessation is an urgent public health priority given that smoking is associated with increased risk of severe COVID-19 outcomes and other diseases. It is unknown how smoking cessation changed nationally during the COVID-19 pandemic. Objective: To investigate changes in smoking cessation-related behaviors in the US during the COVID-19 pandemic. Design, Setting, and Participants: This cross-sectional study was conducted using 2011 to 2020 data on 788 008 individuals who had smoked in the past year from the nationally representative Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System (BRFSS) survey. Representative retail scanner sales data between January 2017 and July 2021 for 1004 unique nicotine replacement therapy (NRT) universal product codes in 31 US states from NielsenIQ were also used. Exposures: Calendar year and 4-week sales periods. Main Outcomes and Measures: Changes in annual self-reported prevalence of past-year quit attempts and recent successful cessation before (ie, 2011-2019) and during (ie, 2020) the COVID-19 pandemic and changes in sales volumes in millions of pieces of nicotine gum, lozenge, and patch brands before (1271 four-week sales periods between January 2017 and February 2020) and during (558 four-week sales periods between March 2020 and July 2021) the COVID-19 pandemic were calculated. Results: The 2011 to 2020 pooled BRFSS sample (response rate range, 45.2%-49.9%) included 788 008 respondents (243 061 individuals ages 25-44 years [weighted percentage, 42.5%]; 374 519 men [weighted percentage, 55.7%]). For the first time since 2011, annual past-year quit attempt prevalence decreased between 2019 and 2020, from 65.2% (95% CI, 64.5% to 65.9%) to 63.2% (95% CI, 62.3% to 64.0%), with the largest relative decreases among individuals ages 45 to 64 years (61.4% [95% CI, 60.3% to 62.5%] vs 57.7% [95% CI, 56.3% to 59.2%]), those with 2 or more comorbidities (67.1% [95% CI, 66.0% to 68.2%] to 63.0% [95% CI, 61.6% to 64.4%]), and Black individuals (72.5% [95% CI, 70.3 to 74.6] vs 68.4% [95% CI, 65.3% to 71.3%]). Recent successful cessation remained unchanged during 2019 to 2020. Observed mean (SD) 4-week NRT sales volume in the prepandemic period was 105.6 (66.2) million gum pieces, 51.9 (31.6) million lozenges, and 2.0 (1.1) million patches. Compared with expected sales, observed sales during the COVID-19 pandemic were lower by 13.0% (95% CI, -13.7% to -12.3%) for lozenges, 6.4% (95% CI, -7.3% to -5.5%) for patches, and 1.2% (95% CI, -1.7% to -0.7%) for gum. Conclusions and Relevance: This study found that serious smoking cessation activity among US adults decreased immediately and remained depressed for more than a year during the COVID-19 pandemic. These findings suggest that smokers experiencing disproportionately negative outcomes during the pandemic should be reengaged and assisted in quit attempts.

Substance use and homelessness: A longitudinal interview study conducted during COVID-19 with implications for policy and practice.

BACKGROUND: People who are homeless and using substances frequently encounter barriers to accessing support. This paper aims to inform policy and practice by analysing changes in the tobacco, alcohol and illicit drug use of people experiencing homelessness. METHODS: Data derive from a qualitative longitudinal study (undertaken 2020/2021) and involving telephone interviews (n = 310) conducted with 34 people accommodated in two London hotels provided as part of a UK policy response to COVID-19. The hotels offered various supports, including opioid replacement therapy, prescribed alcohol, licensed nicotine replacement therapy, and e-cigarettes. Participants' substance use data were organised by Iterative Categorization and subjected to a content analysis to identify patterns and themes.. RESULTS: At entry to the hotel, 5/34 participants (14.7%) had never used alcohol nor illicit drugs; 10/34 (29.4%) had only ever used alcohol (mostly without a problem); 11/34 (32.4%) had ever used illicit drugs but without a problem; and 8/34 (23.5%) had ever had a problem with illicit drugs. Sub-groups had different socio-demographic characteristics, particularly regarding being/not being a UK national, sex, and homelessness duration. Tobacco smoking was common across all sub-groups (18/34; 52.9%). Participants were often anxious about living with others who were using substances, and some worried about their own substance use. Substance use was changeable, with more decreases than increases. Changes related to intrapersonal (psychological), interpersonal (social) and structural (resource-based) factors. For example, decreases were precipitated by people feeling motivated to change, separation from others who used drugs, and receiving treatment or support. CONCLUSION: Findings indicate that various interventions and accommodation models may benefit people who are homeless and using substances. An initiative that combined shelter and basic amenities, pharmacological treatment, psychosocial support, and space where substances were not available and other people using substances could be avoided resulted in an overall reduction in substance use amongst those accommodated.

Heated tobacco products for smoking cessation and reducing smoking prevalence.

BACKGROUND: Heated tobacco products (HTPs) are designed to heat tobacco to a high enough temperature to release aerosol, without burning it or producing smoke. They differ from e-cigarettes because they heat tobacco leaf/sheet rather than a liquid. Companies who make HTPs claim they produce fewer harmful chemicals than conventional cigarettes. Some people report stopping smoking cigarettes entirely by switching to using HTPs, so clinicians need to know whether they are effective for this purpose and relatively safe. Also, to regulate HTPs appropriately, policymakers should understand their impact on health and on cigarette smoking prevalence. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the effectiveness and safety of HTPs for smoking cessation and the impact of HTPs on smoking prevalence.  SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Tobacco Addiction Group's Specialised Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, and six other databases for relevant records to January 2021, together with reference-checking and contact with study authors and relevant groups. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) in which people who smoked cigarettes were randomised to switch to exclusive HTP use or a control condition. Eligible outcomes were smoking cessation, adverse events, and selected biomarkers.  RCTs conducted in clinic or in an ambulatory setting were deemed eligible when assessing safety, including those randomising participants to exclusively use HTPs, smoke cigarettes, or attempt abstinence from all tobacco. Time-series studies were also eligible for inclusion if they examined the population-level impact of heated tobacco on smoking prevalence or cigarette sales as an indirect measure. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We followed standard Cochrane methods for screening and data extraction. Our primary outcome measures were abstinence from smoking at the longest follow-up point available, adverse events, serious adverse events, and changes in smoking prevalence or cigarette sales. Other outcomes included biomarkers of harm and exposure to toxicants/carcinogens (e.g. NNAL and carboxyhaemoglobin (COHb)). We used a random-effects Mantel-Haenszel model to calculate risk ratios (RR) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for dichotomous outcomes. For continuous outcomes, we calculated mean differences on the log-transformed scale (LMD) with 95% CIs. We pooled data across studies using meta-analysis where possible. MAIN RESULTS: We included 13 completed studies, of which 11 were RCTs assessing safety (2666 participants) and two were time-series studies. We judged eight RCTs to be at unclear risk of bias and three at high risk. All RCTs were funded by tobacco companies. Median length of follow-up was 13 weeks. No studies reported smoking cessation outcomes.  There was insufficient evidence for a difference in risk of adverse events between smokers randomised to switch to heated tobacco or continue smoking cigarettes, limited by imprecision and risk of bias (RR 1.03, 95% CI 0.92 to 1.15; I2 = 0%; 6 studies, 1713 participants). There was insufficient evidence to determine whether risk of serious adverse events differed between groups due to very serious imprecision and risk of bias (RR 0.79, 95% CI 0.33 to 1.94; I2 = 0%; 4 studies, 1472 participants). There was moderate-certainty evidence for lower NNAL and COHb at follow-up in heated tobacco than cigarette smoking groups, limited by risk of bias (NNAL: LMD -0.81, 95% CI -1.07 to -0.55; I2 = 92%; 10 studies, 1959 participants; COHb: LMD -0.74, 95% CI -0.92 to -0.52; I2 = 96%; 9 studies, 1807 participants). Evidence for additional biomarkers of exposure are reported in the main body of the review. There was insufficient evidence for a difference in risk of adverse events in smokers randomised to switch to heated tobacco or attempt abstinence from all tobacco, limited by risk of bias and imprecision (RR 1.12, 95% CI 0.86 to 1.46; I2 = 0%; 2 studies, 237 participants). Five studies reported that no serious adverse events occurred in either group (533 participants). There was moderate-certainty evidence, limited by risk of bias, that urine concentrations of NNAL at follow-up were higher in the heated tobacco use compared with abstinence group (LMD 0.50, 95% CI 0.34 to 0.66; I2 = 0%; 5 studies, 382 participants). In addition, there was very low-certainty evidence, limited by risk of bias, inconsistency, and imprecision, for higher COHb in the heated tobacco use compared with abstinence group for intention-to-treat analyses (LMD 0.69, 95% CI 0.07 to 1.31; 3 studies, 212 participants), but lower COHb in per-protocol analyses (LMD -0.32, 95% CI -1.04 to 0.39; 2 studies, 170 participants). Evidence concerning additional biomarkers is reported in the main body of the review. Data from two time-series studies showed that the rate of decline in cigarette sales accelerated following the introduction of heated tobacco to market in Japan. This evidence was of very low-certainty as there was risk of bias, including possible confounding, and cigarette sales are an indirect measure of smoking prevalence. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: No studies reported on cigarette smoking cessation, so the effectiveness of heated tobacco for this purpose remains uncertain. There was insufficient evidence for differences in risk of adverse or serious adverse events between people randomised to switch to heated tobacco, smoke cigarettes, or attempt tobacco abstinence in the short-term. There was moderate-certainty evidence that heated tobacco users have lower exposure to toxicants/carcinogens than cigarette smokers and very low- to moderate-certainty evidence of higher exposure than those attempting abstinence from  all tobacco. Independently funded research on the effectiveness and safety of HTPs is needed.  The rate of decline in cigarette sales accelerated after the introduction of heated tobacco to market in Japan but, as data were observational, it is possible other factors caused these changes. Moreover, falls in cigarette sales may not translate to declining smoking prevalence, and changes in Japan may not generalise elsewhere. To clarify the impact of rising heated tobacco use on smoking prevalence, there is a need for time-series studies that examine this association.

The impact of COVID-19 on smoking cessation in pregnancy.

OBJECTIVES: A greater proportion of non-pregnant smokers attempted to stop smoking during compared to before the COVID-19 pandemic. The objective of this study was to determine if a greater proportion of pregnant women also attempted to stop smoking during the pandemic rather than before. METHODS: The use of antenatal smoking cessation services and nicotine replacement therapies (NRT) in pregnant women was audited before (2019-2020) and during the COVID pandemic (2020-2021). Anonymised data from January 2019 to March 2021 were analysed from the Lambeth and Southwark smoking cessation service. RESULTS: A total of 252 pregnant women who smoked were referred to their local antenatal smoking cessation service, of which 90 (35.7%) (median age: 31 years [19-52 years]) chose to attend smoking cessation clinics. The COVID-19 pandemic was not associated with an increase in the number of women attending smoking cessation clinics, (2020-2021 n=46 [40.8%] of 110); compared to (2019-2020 n=44 [30.9%] of 142 referred pregnant women pre-pandemic) p=0.061. Eighty-two women utilised NRT to help them stop smoking and the frequency of NRT use did not change during the pandemic (2019-2020 n=39, 2020-2021 n=43; p=0.420). No significant difference in smoking cessation rates between the two periods was observed at either the four-week (p=0.285) or twelve-week follow-up (p=0.829). CONCLUSIONS: Smoking cessation rates in pregnant women and the demand for antenatal smoking cessation services was unchanged during compared to before the COVID-19 pandemic.

Interventions for preventing weight gain after smoking cessation.

BACKGROUND: 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. OBJECTIVES: 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'). SEARCH METHODS: 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. SELECTION CRITERIA: 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. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: 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. MAIN RESULTS: 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%). AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: 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.

Effects of COVID-19-Related Disruptions on Service Use in a Large Smoking Cessation Program.

INTRODUCTION: The COVID-19 pandemic caused a rapid shift to virtual care, with largely unknown consequences for accessibility. The purpose of this study is to examine pandemic-related changes in use of care for smoking cessation. AIMS AND METHODS: We conducted a secondary analysis 65 565 enrollments in a large smoking cessation program in Ontario, Canada. We used piecewise mixed-effects regression to examine how weeks nicotine replacement therapy (NRT) received, as well as counseling provided and visits attended, varied with date of enrollment over three time periods: more than 6 months before the pandemic began; the 6 months before the pandemic; and the pandemic period itself. We then examined changes in the associations between use of care and participant characteristics by fitting a model including a set of interactions between time and other variables. Based on an omnibus test of these interactions, we then tested individual terms, using the Holm method to control the family-wise error rate. RESULTS: From the start of the pandemic in March 2020, the total weeks of NRT provided rose significantly and then declined, while the amount of counseling fell. Associations between NRT use and participant characteristics changed significantly after the pandemic onset. Individual models showed that people with lower income, living in areas of higher marginalization, unable to work, and reporting higher levels of depressive symptoms all received NRT for a longer time during the pandemic period. CONCLUSIONS: The pandemic led to small but significant changes in the amount of services used per enrollment. The transition to remote care appears to have reduced the effects of socioeconomic and health barriers. IMPLICATIONS: The amount of care used by participants in tobacco cessation treatment is known to be associated with health and sociodemographic characteristics. Most of these associations did not change markedly following the pandemic-related switch to virtual care in 2020; however, the effects of some economic and health barriers seem to have lessened, perhaps because of a likely reduction in transport and time requirements of treatment.

Offering mailed nicotine replacement therapy and Quitline support before elective surgery: a randomised controlled trial.

OBJECTIVE: To assess whether offering free mailed nicotine replacement therapy (NRT) and telephone counselling to smokers on elective surgery waiting lists increases quitting before surgery. DESIGN, SETTING: Randomised, controlled trial at Frankston Hospital, a public tertiary referral hospital in Melbourne. PARTICIPANTS: Adult smokers added to elective surgery waiting lists for operations at least ten days in the future, 1 April 2019 - 3 April 2020. INTERVENTION: In addition to normal care, intervention participants received a brochure on the risks of low frequency smoking, an offer of Quitline call-back registration, and an offer of mailed NRT according to reported daily smoking: 1-9 cigarettes/day, 2 mg lozenges; 10-15/day, 7-14 mg patches [three weeks] and 2 mg lozenges; > 15/day, 7-21 mg patches [five weeks] and 2 mg lozenges. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Primary outcome: quitting at least 24 hours before surgery, verified by exhaled carbon monoxide testing. SECONDARY OUTCOMES: quitting at least four weeks before surgery, adverse events, and (for those who had quit before surgery) abstinence three months after surgery. RESULTS: Of 748 eligible participants (control, 363; intervention, 385), 516 (69%) had undergone elective surgery when the trial was terminated early (for COVID-19-related reasons) (intervention group, 274; control group, 242). 122 of the 385 intervention participants (32%) had accepted the offer of cessation support. The proportions of intervention participants who quit at least 24 hours before surgery (18% v 9%; odds ratio [OR], 1.97; 95% CI, 1.22-3.15) or at least four weeks before surgery (9% v 4%; OR, 2.20; 95% CI, 1.08-4.50) were larger than for the control group. Three months after surgery, 27 of 58 intervention (47%) and 12 of 25 control participants (48%) who quit before surgery reported not smoking in the preceding seven days. No major adverse events were reported. CONCLUSION: Uptake of free mailed NRT and Quitline support by smokers on elective surgery waiting lists was good, and offering additional support was associated with higher proportions of smokers quitting before surgery. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry, ACTRN12619000032156 (prospective).

Can inpatient pharmacists move the needle on smoking cessation? Evaluating reach and representativeness of a pharmacist-led opt-out smoking cessation intervention protocol for hospital settings.

PURPOSE: Hospitalization affords an opportunity to reduce smoking, but fewer than half of patients who smoke receive evidence-based cessation treatment during inpatient stays. This study evaluated a pharmacist-led, electronic health record (EHR)-facilitated opt-out smoking cessation intervention designed to address this need. METHODS: Analyses of EHR records for adult patients who smoked in the past 30 days admitted to an academic medical center in the upper Midwest were conducted using the Reach Effectiveness Adoption Implementation Maintenance (RE-AIM) framework. The reach of a pharmacist-led, EHR-facilitated protocol for smoking cessation treatment was assessed by comparing patients' receipt of nicotine replacement therapy (NRT) and tobacco quitline referral before and after implementation. χ2 tests, t tests, and multiple logistic regression models were used to compare reach across patient demographic groups to assess treatment disparities and the representativeness of reach. Adoption of the program by hospital services was also assessed. RESULTS: Of the 70 hospital services invited to implement the program, 88.6% adopted it and 78.6% had eligible admissions. Treatment reach increased as rates of delivering NRT rose from 43.6% of eligible patients before implementation to 50.4% after implementation (P < 0.0001) and quitline referral rates rose from 0.9% to 11.9% (P < 0.0001). Representativeness of reach by sex and ethnicity improved after implementation, although disparities by race and age persisted after adjustment for demographics, insurance, and primary diagnosis. Pharmacists addressed tobacco use for eligible patients in 62.5% of cases after protocol implementation. CONCLUSION: Smoking cessation treatment reach and representativeness of reach improved after implementation of a proactive, pharmacist-led, EHR-facilitated opt-out smoking cessation treatment protocol in adult inpatient services.

An epidemic and a pandemic collide: Assessing the feasibility of tobacco treatment among vulnerable groups at COVID-19 protective lodging.

INTRODUCTION: Individuals experiencing homelessness have elevated smoking rates in addition to chronic and acute physical and mental health conditions, which may increase chances for complications associated with COVID-19 recovery. Unfortunately, there is underuse of tobacco cessation services in many agencies (e.g., substance use treatment centers, mental health treatment centers) providing care to these individuals. The purpose of the current study was to evaluate the feasibility of providing tobacco cessation treatment alongside local COVID-19 emergency response efforts. METHOD: Taking Texas Tobacco Free (TTTF) partnered with relevant emergency response teams at 5 isolation centers (repurposed hotels) in Austin, Texas, to address tobacco use among presumed or confirmed COVID-19 positive individuals who had nowhere else to seek care and shelter. TTTF trained staff on tobacco cessation treatment; specifically, the 5A's and use of nicotine replacement therapy. RESULTS: Over 5 months in 2020; 170 of 379 (44.9%) isolation center residents were reached and assessed for cigarette or vape use. Smoking/vaping prevalence was 70.6%, and 41.7% of tobacco users accepted cessation treatment. DISCUSSION: Results suggest the feasibility and potential acceptability of providing tobacco treatment services in similar care settings during local emergency response efforts, including but potentially not limited to the COVID-19 pandemic. Further, this initiates a call to action for health care providers to deliver tobacco use cessation services for typically hard-to-reach groups (e.g., individuals/families experiencing homelessness) who may have increased contact with service agencies and health providers during times of crisis. Limitations and suggestions for future implementation are also provided. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2022 APA, all rights reserved).

Perceived risk factors for severe Covid-19 symptoms and their association with health behaviours: Findings from the HEBECO study.

Risk perceptions are important influences on health behaviours. We used descriptive statistics and multivariable logistic regression models to assess cross-sectionally risk perceptions for severe Covid-19 symptoms and their health behaviour correlates among 2206 UK adults from the HEBECO study. The great majority (89-99%) classified age 70+, having comorbidities, being a key worker, overweight, and from an ethnic minority as increasing the risk. People were less sure about alcohol drinking, vaping, and nicotine replacement therapy use (17.4-29.5% responding 'don't know'). Relative to those who did not, those who engaged in the following behaviours had higher odds of classifying these behaviours as (i) decreasing the risk: smoking cigarettes (adjusted odds ratios, aORs, 95% CI = 2.26, 1.39-3.37), and using e-cigarettes (aORs = 5.80, 3.25-10.34); (ii) having no impact: smoking cigarettes (1.98; 1.42-2.76), using e-cigarettes (aORs = 2.63, 1.96-3.50), drinking alcohol (aORs = 1.75, 1.31-2.33); and lower odds of classifying these as increasing the risk: smoking cigarettes (aORs: 0.43, 0.32-0.56), using e-cigarettes (aORs = 0.25, 0.18-0.35). Similarly, eating more fruit and vegetables was associated with classifying unhealthy diet as 'increasing risk' (aOR = 1.37, 1.12-1.69), and exercising more with classifying regular physical activity as 'decreasing risk' (aOR = 2.42, 1.75-3.34). Risk perceptions for severe Covid-19 among UK adults were lower for their own health behaviours, evidencing optimism bias. These risk perceptions may form barriers to changing people's own unhealthy behaviours, make them less responsive to interventions that refer to the risk of Covid-19 as a motivating factor, and exacerbate inequalities in health behaviours and outcomes.

Prevalence and characteristics of ever regular use of non-combustible nicotine for 1 year or more: a population survey in England.

INTRODUCTION: Up-to-date monitoring of non-combustible nicotine products (e.g. e-cigarettes, nicotine replacement therapies (NRT), heated tobacco products (HTP); NNP) is important to assess their impact. To date, there is little evidence on the association between ever regular use (defined here as 1 year or more) of NNP and current smoking status. AIMS/METHODS: The purpose of this study was to examine the prevalence, and sociodemographic, alcohol and smoking status correlates, of ever regular use of NNP in England in 2020. A cross-sectional survey of adults in England was conducted between February and June 2020. RESULTS: A total of 8486 adults were surveyed; 94.9% (8055) were complete cases. The weighted prevalence of ever regular NNP use was 5.4% (n = 436; 95% CI 5.0-6.0), of which 82% (n = 360; 95% CI 78.7-85.8) was single and 18% (n = 79; 95% CI 14.8-22) multiple product use. Amongst ever regular NNP users, the prevalence of ever regular NRT, e-cigarette and HTP use was 64.7% (95% CI 60.1-69), 43.4% (95% CI 38.8-48) and 2.5% (95% CI 1.4-4.5), respectively. In adjusted analysis, ever regular NNP use was associated with smoking status, being significantly higher among current (22.3%; adjusted OR (aOR) 34.9, 95% CI 24.0-50.8) and ex-smokers (12.7%, aOR 19.8, 95% CI 11.1-14.4) than among never-smokers (0.6%). More advantaged occupational grade (aOR, 1.27 95% CI 1.02-1.57) and at least hazardous alcohol use (aOR, 1.38 95% CI 1.06-1.78) were associated with greater prevalence of ever regular NNP use. CONCLUSIONS: Ever regularly using NNP was highest among smokers and ex-smokers and rare among never-smokers. Among people who have ever regularly used NNP, NRT is the most popular.

Effectiveness of National Residential Smoking Cessation Program.

We aimed to investigate the effectiveness of the Korean national five-day residential smoking cessation program and the factors affecting the long-term smoking cessation of participants. The residential smoking cessation program (2017-2018) recruited smokers with a smoking duration ≥ 20 years and who have attempted to quit smoking more than twice and/or smokers with chronic morbidities. Participants underwent an intensive intervention, including individual psychological therapy, group therapy, medical counseling, and pharmacotherapy. The 6-month continuous abstinence rate (CAR) was assessed via self-reports, the urine cotinine levels, and/or expired-air carbon monoxide levels. Logistic regression was used to analyze the adjusted odds ratio (aOR) to assess factors related to smoking cessation. Overall, 484 participants who completed the residential program and questionnaire were evaluated. The 3- and 6-month CAR were 81.82% and 63.22%, respectively. The aOR of 6-month continuous abstinence was lower among participants with severe nicotine dependence (aOR: 0.46, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.26-0.81) and higher among participants with combination therapy of varenicline with short-term nicotine replacement therapy (NRT) (aOR: 1.64, 95% CI: 1.07-2.51), with higher self-efficacy (aOR: 1.97, 95% CI: 1.15-3.37). The residential smoking cessation program was effective. High self-efficacy, combination therapy of varenicline with short-term NRT, and low nicotine dependence were associated with a high 6-month CAR.

Effect of COVID-19 on smoking cessation outcomes in a large primary care treatment programme: an observational study.

OBJECTIVES: The COVID-19 pandemic has changed patterns of smoking, other substance use and other health-related behaviours, leading to a virtualisation of non-urgent medical care. In this study, we examine associated changes in outcomes of smoking-cessation treatment. DESIGN: Observational study. SETTING: Data are drawn from 221 physician-led primary care practices participating in a smoking cessation program in Ontario, Canada. PARTICIPANTS: 43 509 patients (53% female), comprising 35 385 historical controls, 6109 people enrolled before the pandemic and followed up during it, and 1815 people enrolled after the pandemic began. INTERVENTION: Nicotine-replacement therapy with counselling. PRIMARY OUTCOME MEASURE: 7-day self-reported abstinence from cigarettes at a follow-up survey 6 months after entry. RESULTS: For people followed up in the 6 months (6M) after the pandemic began, quit probability declined with date of enrolment. Predicted probabilities were 31.2% (95% CI 30.0% to 32.5%) for people enrolled in smoking cessation treatment 6 months prior to the emergency declaration and followed up immediately after the state of emergency was declared, and 24.1% (95% CI 22.1% to 26.2%) for those enrolled in treatment immediately before the emergency declaration and followed up 6M later (difference=-6.5%, 95% CI -9.0% to -3.9%). Seasonality and total treatment use did not explain this decline. CONCLUSION: The probability of successful smoking cessation following treatment fell during the pandemic, with the decline consistent with an effect of 'exposure' to the pandemic-era environment. As many changes happened simultaneously, specific causes cannot be identified; however, the possibility that virtual care has been less effective than in-person treatment should be explored.