Feasibility of a secondary school-based mental health intervention: Reprezents' On The Level.

AIMS: There is a need for innovative school-based mental health interventions to promote good mental health, healthy coping strategies, and engagement with support services. Consequently, Reprezent, a youth development organization, with mental health professionals and young people co-developed an online mental health intervention show, On The Level (OTL). This study assessed the acceptability and feasibility of delivering OTL to young people (aged 11-18 years) in 36 secondary schools across London and Essex, UK. METHODS: OTL was delivered online as part of the school curriculum, in classrooms at timepoint 1 (T1, 50 min). Follow-up data was collected at timepoint 2 (T2) 4-6 weeks later, during a 20-min OTL review show. For interactive OTL elements and data collection participants logged into an online survey. Measures of acceptability and engagement, mental health and well-being outcomes and intervention evaluation were taken at T1 and T2. We also assessed the feasibility of implementing the OTL intervention in secondary schools. RESULTS: 10,315 participants received the intervention (T1) and 3369 attended the follow-up session (T2), this high attrition, and potential selection bias, was due to only 30% of schools being able to take part in T2. Rates of acceptability were high among young people and school staff. At T1, 88% found OTL engaging, and 84% felt more confident they had the tools to help them better manage stress and anxiety. At T2, 66% viewed mental health in a more positive way, and 71% had better understanding of how to maintain good mental health. Rates of engagement with mental health tools and services were good, and significant reduction in levels of stress were found 4-6 weeks after the OTL show (T2). The low mental health and well-being indices reported by the school children at baseline strongly support the need and use for a mental health intervention such as OTL in secondary schools. CONCLUSION: These findings indicated good feasibility and acceptability of OTL intervention and support the delivery of the OTL mental health intervention at UK-based secondary schools to educate young people about mental health and well-being and give them the necessary tools to support their mental health.

A randomised controlled trial of the 5:2 diet.

OBJECTIVE: The 5:2 diet is a popular intermittent energy restriction method of weight management that awaits further evaluation. We compared the effects of one-off 5:2 instructions with the effects of one-off standard multicomponent weight-management advice; and also examined whether additional behavioural support enhances 5:2 adherence and efficacy compared to one-off instructions. METHODS: Three hundred adults with obesity were randomised to receive a Standard Brief Advice (SBA) covering diet and physical activity (N = 100); 5:2 self-help instructions (5:2SH) (N = 100); or 5:2SH plus six once-weekly group support sessions (N = 100). Participants were followed up for one year. RESULTS: Adherence to 5:2SH was initially high (74% at 6 weeks), but it declined over time (31% at 6 months and 22% at one year). 5:2SH and SBA achieved similar weight-loss at six months (-1.8kg (SD = 3.5) vs -1.7kg (SD = 4.4); b = 0.23, 95%CI:-0.79-1.27, p = 0.7) and at one year (-1.9kg (SD = 4.9) vs -1.8kg (SD = 5.7), b = 0.20, 95%CI:-1.21-1.60, p = 0.79), with 18% vs 15% participants losing ≥5% of their body weight with 5:2SH and SBA, respectively at one year (RR = 0.83, 95%CI:0.44-1.54, p = 0.55). Both interventions received positive ratings, but 5:2SH ratings were significantly higher. 5:2SH had no negative effect on fat and fiber intake and physical activity compared to SBA. Compared to 5:2SH, 5:2G generated a greater weight loss at 6 weeks (-2.3kg vs -1.5kg; b = 0.74, 95%CI:1.37-0.11, p = 0.02), but by one year, the difference was no longer significant (-2.6kg vs -1.9kg, p = 0.37; ≥5% body weight loss 28% vs 18%, p = 0.10). CONCLUSIONS: Simple 5:2 advice and multicomponent weight management advice generated similar modest results. The 5:2 diet did not undermine other health behaviours, and it received more favourable ratings. Adding initial group support enhanced 5:2 adherence and effects, but the impact diminished over time. Health professionals who provide brief weight management advice may consider including the 5:2 advice as an option. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ISRCTN registry (ISRCTN79408248).

Cost-effectiveness of e-cigarettes compared with nicotine replacement therapy in stop smoking services in England (TEC study): a randomized controlled trial.

AIM: To evaluate the cost-effectiveness of e-cigarettes as a smoking cessation aid used in routine stop smoking services in England. DESIGN: Cost-effectiveness analysis was performed from the National Health Service (NHS) and Personal Social Services (PSS) perspective for 12-month periods and life-time. Costs, including that of both treatments, other smoking cessation help and health-care services, and health benefits, estimated from EQ-5D-5L and measured in quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), for the 12-month analysis, came from a randomized controlled trial. Life-time analysis was model-based with input from both trial data and published secondary data sources. Cost-effectiveness was measured by an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER). SETTING: Three stop-smoking service sites in England. PARTICIPANTS: Adult smokers (n = 886) who sought help to quit in the participating sites. INTERVENTION AND COMPARATOR: An e-cigarette (EC) starter kit versus provision of nicotine replacement therapy (NRT) for up to 3 months, both with standard behavioural support. A total of 886 participants were randomized (439 in the EC arm, 447 in the NRT arm). Excluding one death in each arm, the 1-year quit rate was 18.0 and 9.9%, respectively. MEASUREMENTS: Cost of treatments was estimated from the treatment log. Costs of other smoking cessation help and health-care services and EQ-5D-5 L were collected at baseline, 6- and 12-month follow-ups. Incremental costs and incremental QALYs were estimated using regression adjusting for baseline covariates and their respective baseline values. FINDINGS: The ICER was £1100 per QALY gained at the 12 months after quit date (87% probability below £20 000/QALY). Markov model estimated the life-time ICER of EC to be £65 per QALY (85% probability below £20 000/QALY). CONCLUSION: Using e-cigarettes as a smoking cessation aid with standard behavioural support in stop-smoking services in England is likely to be more cost-effective than using nicotine replacement therapy in the same setting.

E-cigarettes compared with nicotine replacement therapy within the UK Stop Smoking Services: the TEC RCT.

BACKGROUND: Over the past few years, a large number of smokers in the UK have stopped smoking with the help of e-cigarettes. So far, UK Stop Smoking Services (SSSs) have been reluctant to include e-cigarettes among their treatment options because data on their efficacy compared with the licensed medications are lacking. OBJECTIVE: The objective was to compare the efficacy of refillable e-cigarettes and nicotine replacement therapy (NRT) products, when accompanied by weekly behavioural support. DESIGN: A randomised controlled trial comparing e-cigarettes and NRT. SETTING: Three sites that provide local SSSs. PARTICIPANTS: The participants were 886 smokers seeking help to quit smoking, aged ≥ 18 years, not pregnant or breastfeeding, with no strong preference to use or not to use NRT or e-cigarettes in their quit attempt, and currently not using NRT or e-cigarettes. A total of 886 participants were randomised but two died during the study (one in each study arm) and were not included in the analysis. INTERVENTIONS: The NRT arm (n = 446) received NRT of their choice (single or combination), provided for up to 12 weeks. The e-cigarette arm (n = 438) received an e-cigarette starter pack and were encouraged to buy addtional e-liquids and e-cigarette products of their choice. Both arms received the same standard behavioural support. Participants attended weekly sessions at their SSS and provided outcome data at 4 weeks. They were then followed up by telephone at 6 and 12 months. Participants reporting abstinence or at least 50% reduction in cigarette consumption at 12 months were invited to attend for carbon monoxide (CO) validation. Participants/researchers could not be blinded to the intervention. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary outcome was CO-validated sustained abstinence rates at 52 weeks. Participants lost to follow-up or not providing biochemical validation were included as non-abstainers. Secondary outcomes included abstinence at other time points, reduction in smoke intake, treatment adherence and ratings, elicited adverse reactions, and changes in self-reported respiratory health. A cost-efficacy analysis of the intervention was also conducted. RESULTS: The 1-year quit rate was 9.9% in the NRT arm and 18.0% in the e-cigarette arm (risk ratio 1.83, 95% confidence interval 1.30 to 2.58; p < 0.001). The e-cigarette arm had significantly higher validated quit rates at all time points. Participants in the e-cigarette arm showed significantly better adherence and experienced fewer urges to smoke throughout the initial 4 weeks of their quit attempt than those in the NRT arm, and gave their allocated product more favourable ratings. They were also more likely to be still using their allocated product at 1 year (39.5% vs. 4.3%, χ2 = 161.4; p < 0.001). Participants assigned to e-cigarettes reported significantly less coughing and phlegm at 1 year than those assigned to NRT (controlling for smoking status). A detailed economic analysis confirmed that, because e-cigarettes incur lower NHS costs than NRT and generate a higher quit rate, e-cigarette use is more cost-effective. LIMITATIONS: The results may not be generalisable to other types of smokers or settings, or to cartridge-based e-cigarettes. CONCLUSIONS: Within the context of multisession treatment for smokers seeking help, e-cigarettes were significantly more effective than NRT. If SSSs provide e-cigarette starter packs, it is likely to boost their success rates and improve their cost-efficacy. FUTURE WORK: The efficacy of e-cigarettes provided with different levels of support will show whether smokers should be encouraged to switch to vaping within support services or whether e-cigarettes can be recommended with less intensive or no support. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN60477608. FUNDING: This project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 23, No. 43. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information. The trial was supported by the Cancer Research UK Prevention Trials Unit (grant A16893).

Alarge number of smokers in the UK have stopped smoking with the help of e-cigarettes, but it is not known if e-cigarettes are as helpful as stop smoking medications that are provided by the UK Stop Smoking Services (SSSs). This information is needed to decide whether or not SSSs should include e-cigarettes among their treatment options. A total of 886 smokers who were seeking help with quitting and did not mind whether they would use nicotine replacement therapy (NRT), such as nicotine patches, or e-cigarettes were recruited at three SSSs. The smokers were randomly allocated (by chance) to receive weekly behavioural support and either a NRT of their choice (a single NRT product or product combinations) (n = 447) or a starter pack of e-cigarettes (n = 439). The trial ran from May 2015 to February 2018. The participants were followed up for 1 year to see how many stopped smoking in each group. Smokers using e-cigarettes suffered less cigarette withdrawal discomfort early on and had higher quit rates at all time points. At 1 year, 10% of participants in the NRT trial arm had been abstinent for the whole year, compared with 18% in the e-cigarette arm; regarding abstinence for at least 6 months, the figures were 12% in the NRT arm and 21% in the e-cigarette arm. Of interest, coughs and phlegm production also reduced more in people quitting with e-cigarettes than those quitting with NRT. This supports previous reports suggesting that an ingredient in e-cigarettes (i.e. propylene glycol) may protect vapers from airborne infections. E-cigarette starter packs cost much less than NRT and so, if SSSs provide them, their use is likely to boost the success rates and reduce the costs of SSSs.

A Randomized Trial of E-Cigarettes versus Nicotine-Replacement Therapy.

BACKGROUND: E-cigarettes are commonly used in attempts to stop smoking, but evidence is limited regarding their effectiveness as compared with that of nicotine products approved as smoking-cessation treatments. METHODS: We randomly assigned adults attending U.K. National Health Service stop-smoking services to either nicotine-replacement products of their choice, including product combinations, provided for up to 3 months, or an e-cigarette starter pack (a second-generation refillable e-cigarette with one bottle of nicotine e-liquid [18 mg per milliliter]), with a recommendation to purchase further e-liquids of the flavor and strength of their choice. Treatment included weekly behavioral support for at least 4 weeks. The primary outcome was sustained abstinence for 1 year, which was validated biochemically at the final visit. Participants who were lost to follow-up or did not provide biochemical validation were considered to not be abstinent. Secondary outcomes included participant-reported treatment usage and respiratory symptoms. RESULTS: A total of 886 participants underwent randomization. The 1-year abstinence rate was 18.0% in the e-cigarette group, as compared with 9.9% in the nicotine-replacement group (relative risk, 1.83; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.30 to 2.58; P<0.001). Among participants with 1-year abstinence, those in the e-cigarette group were more likely than those in the nicotine-replacement group to use their assigned product at 52 weeks (80% [63 of 79 participants] vs. 9% [4 of 44 participants]). Overall, throat or mouth irritation was reported more frequently in the e-cigarette group (65.3%, vs. 51.2% in the nicotine-replacement group) and nausea more frequently in the nicotine-replacement group (37.9%, vs. 31.3% in the e-cigarette group). The e-cigarette group reported greater declines in the incidence of cough and phlegm production from baseline to 52 weeks than did the nicotine-replacement group (relative risk for cough, 0.8; 95% CI, 0.6 to 0.9; relative risk for phlegm, 0.7; 95% CI, 0.6 to 0.9). There were no significant between-group differences in the incidence of wheezing or shortness of breath. CONCLUSIONS: E-cigarettes were more effective for smoking cessation than nicotine-replacement therapy, when both products were accompanied by behavioral support. (Funded by the National Institute for Health Research and Cancer Research UK; Current Controlled Trials number, ISRCTN60477608 .).

Nicotine preloading for smoking cessation: the Preloading RCT.

BACKGROUND: Nicotine preloading means using nicotine replacement therapy prior to a quit date while smoking normally. The aim is to reduce the drive to smoke, thereby reducing cravings for smoking after quit day, which are the main cause of early relapse. A prior systematic review showed inconclusive and heterogeneous evidence that preloading was effective and little evidence of the mechanism of action, with no cost-effectiveness data. OBJECTIVES: To assess (1) the effectiveness, safety and tolerability of nicotine preloading in a routine NHS setting relative to usual care, (2) the mechanisms of the action of preloading and (3) the cost-effectiveness of preloading. DESIGN: Open-label randomised controlled trial with examination of mediation and a cost-effectiveness analysis. SETTING: NHS smoking cessation clinics. PARTICIPANTS: People seeking help to stop smoking. INTERVENTIONS: Nicotine preloading comprised wearing a 21 mg/24 hour nicotine patch for 4 weeks prior to quit date. In addition, minimal behavioural support was provided to explain the intervention rationale and to support adherence. In the comparator group, participants received equivalent behavioural support. Randomisation was stratified by centre and concealed from investigators. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary outcome was 6-month prolonged abstinence assessed using the Russell Standard. The secondary outcomes were 4-week and 12-month abstinence. Adverse events (AEs) were assessed from baseline to 1 week after quit day. In a planned analysis, we adjusted for the use of varenicline (Champix®; Pfizer Inc., New York, NY, USA) as post-cessation medication. Cost-effectiveness analysis took a health-service perspective. The within-trial analysis assessed health-service costs during the 13 months of trial enrolment relative to the previous 6 months comparing trial arms. The base case was based on multiple imputation for missing cost data. We modelled long-term health outcomes of smoking-related diseases using the European-study on Quantifying Utility of Investment in Protection from Tobacco (EQUIPT) model. RESULTS: In total, 1792 people were eligible and were enrolled in the study, with 893 randomised to the control group and 899 randomised to the intervention group. In the intervention group, 49 (5.5%) people discontinued preloading prematurely and most others used it daily. The primary outcome, biochemically validated 6-month abstinence, was achieved by 157 (17.5%) people in the intervention group and 129 (14.4%) people in the control group, a difference of 3.02 percentage points [95% confidence interval (CI) -0.37 to 6.41 percentage points; odds ratio (OR) 1.25, 95% CI 0.97 to 1.62; p = 0.081]. Adjusted for use of post-quit day varenicline, the OR was 1.34 (95% CI 1.03 to 1.73; p = 0.028). Secondary abstinence outcomes were similar. The OR for the occurrence of serious AEs was 1.12 (95% CI 0.42 to 3.03). Moderate-severity nausea occurred in an additional 4% of the preloading group compared with the control group. There was evidence that reduced urges to smoke and reduced smoke inhalation mediated the effect of preloading on abstinence. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio at the 6-month follow-up for preloading relative to control was £710 (95% CI -£13,674 to £23,205), but preloading was dominant at 12 months and in the long term, with an 80% probability that it is cost saving. LIMITATIONS: The open-label design could partially account for the mediation results. Outcome assessment could not be blinded but was biochemically verified. CONCLUSIONS: Use of nicotine-patch preloading for 4 weeks prior to attempting to stop smoking can increase the proportion of people who stop successfully, but its benefit is undermined because it reduces the use of varenicline after preloading. If this latter effect could be overcome, then nicotine preloading appears to improve health and reduce health-service costs in the long term. Future work should determine how to ensure that people using nicotine preloading opt to use varenicline as cessation medication. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN33031001. FUNDING: This project was funded by the NIHR Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 22, No. 41. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.