Search

Background: Fetal alcohol spectrum disorder (FASD) is a common developmental disability that requires lifelong and ongoing support but is often difficult to find due to the lack of trained professionals, funding, and support available. Technology could provide cost-effective, accessible, and effective support to those living with FASD and their caregivers., Objective: In this review, we aimed to explore the use of technology available for supporting people living with FASD and their caregivers., Methods: We conducted a scoping review to identify studies that included technology for people with FASD or their caregivers; focused on FASD; used an empirical study design; were published since 2005; and used technology for assessment, diagnosis, monitoring, or support for people with FASD. We searched MEDLINE, Web of Science, Scopus, Embase, APA PsycINFO, ACM Digital Library, JMIR Publications journals, the Cochrane Library, EBSCOhost, IEEE, study references, and gray literature to find studies. Searches were conducted in November 2022 and updated in January 2024. Two reviewers (CZC and HW) independently completed study selection and data extraction., Results: In total, 17 studies exploring technology available for people with FASD showed that technology could be effective at teaching skills, supporting caregivers, and helping people with FASD develop skills., Conclusions: Technology could provide support for people affected by FASD; however, currently there is limited technology available, and the potential benefits are largely unexplored., (© Joanna Ting Wai Chu, Holly Wilson, Cynthia Zhiyin Cai, Jessica C McCormack, David Newcombe, Chris Bullen. Originally published in JMIR Mental Health (https://mental.jmir.org).)

Objective: To examine the association between vaping and health behaviors (physical activity, fruit and vegetable consumption, sleep, cigarette use, alcohol consumption) and mental health among college students. Methods: Socio-demographic characteristics, vaping, health behaviors, perceived stress, and depressive symptoms of undergraduates enrolled at a large university located in the Northeast of the United States were assessed via an online survey. Results: Of all participants (n = 1775), less than a fifth (n = 314, 17.7%) reported any vaping in the past month. More men reported vaping than women (23.2% vs. 14.5%). Those who vaped reported fewer nights of restful sleep and greater alcohol consumption. Those who smoked and binge drank were more likely to report vaping. Perceived stress was greater among women who vaped, and depressive symptoms were greater among those who vaped regardless of gender. Conclusions: Vaping was associated with smoking, alcohol consumption, and poorer mental health among young adults.

Introduction: Tobacco smoking is highly prevalent among alcohol and other drugs (AOD) service clients and, despite interest in quitting, abstinence is rarely sustained. Nicotine products may assist after discharge from residential treatment services, but little is known about client receptivity to them. This study examined AOD withdrawal service clients' experiences of two types of nicotine products for smoking cessation post-discharge, combination nicotine replacement therapy (cNRT) and nicotine vaping products (NVP)., Methods: We held semi-structured telephone interviews with 31 Australian AOD service clients in a clinical trial of a 12-week smoking cessation intervention using Quitline support plus cNRT or NVP delivered post-discharge from a smoke-free residential service. We asked about health and social factors, nicotine cravings, Quitline experience, and barriers and facilitators to cNRT or NVP, then thematically analysed data., Results: cNRT and NVP were described by participants as feasible and acceptable for smoking cessation. For most participants, cost limited cNRT access post study, as did difficulty navigating NVP prescription access. Quitline support was valued, but not consistently used, with participants noting low assistance with NVP-facilitated cessation. Participants considered both cessation methods acceptable and socially supported, and sought information on decreasing nicotine use via NVP., Discussion and Conclusions: AOD service clients highly valued receiving cNRT or NVP with behavioural support for smoking reduction or abstinence. Both interventions were acceptable to service clients. Findings suggest a potential need to examine both whether NVP use should be permitted in this context, and guidance on the individual suitability of cNRT or NVP., (© 2024 The Authors. Drug and Alcohol Review published by John Wiley & Sons Australia, Ltd on behalf of Australasian Professional Society on Alcohol and other Drugs.)

Objective: The study aimed to assess potential effects of vaping on individual taste and smell perception in a sample of young adult New Zealanders., Design: This cross-sectional study measured taste and smell perception using intensity and hedonic ratings to two olfactory (i.e., vanillin, methional) and two gustatory stimuli (i.e., sucrose, monosodium glutamate), representing sweet and savoury flavours. Detection sensitivities to sucrose and vanillin were also assessed using a forced choice detection paradigm aligned with the signal detection framework. MANCOVAs were employed to compare sensory perception between groups based on vaping use frequency. Additional regression analyses were conducted to identify potential predictors of intensity and hedonic sensory ratings., Setting: Participants were recruited from the University of Otago student population and surrounding neighbourhoods of Dunedin, New Zealand in 2023., Participants: The study included 213 university students (98 vapers and 115 non-vapers) RESULTS: We found a significant difference in hedonic ratings for vanillin, indicating a stronger preference among non-vapers. However, no other differences between the two groups were significant. Notably, the use of tobacco and mint flavours were emerged as significant predictors for hedonic responses to the savoury smell and sweet taste stimulus, respectively. No significant differences were observed between groups in the ability to detect weak stimuli., Conclusions: Our findings suggest that vape use, particularly with specific flavours, may be associated with alterations in hedonic responses to smells. This finding may have potential implications for how vaping affects on food preferences and dietary choices., Competing Interests: Declaration of competing interest The authors declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence the work reported in this paper., (Copyright © 2024 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Ltd.. All rights reserved.)

Aims: To examine the relationship between prenatal alcohol exposure (PAE) and children's behavioural and emotional development in a large generalizable sample of women and their children in Aotearoa New Zealand., Methods: Using data from the Growing Up in New Zealand longitudinal cohort, we investigated the relationship between maternal PAE and behavioural and emotional development in 8-year-old children. We explored secondary outcomes including measures of language, executive function, academic achievement, and adaptive behaviour., Results: We found no significant differences in the measures of behavioural and emotional development in children 8 years old based on alcohol consumption. No significant differences in behavioural and emotional development were found based on amount of PAE and when PAE occurred, despite controlling for a range of potential confounding factors, such as neighbourhood deprivation and maternal health measures. PAE was associated with significantly higher scores for parent-rated oral language indicating better oral language. In Māori mothers, PAE was significantly associated with an increased risk of higher scores on two of the Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire subscales., Conclusions: We did not find an association between PAE and behavioural and emotional development in children aged 8 years. PAE and behavioural and emotional development are difficult to measure accurately, and the moderating variables between them are complex. Future analyses will require larger cohorts of mothers and their children using precise measures of PAE and outcomes to enable more precise estimates of association., (© The Author(s) 2024. Medical Council on Alcohol and Oxford University Press.)

The World Health Organisation and many health experts have regarded vaccine nationalism, a "my country first" approach to vaccines procurement, as a critical pandemic response failure. However, few studies have considered public opinion in this regard. This study gauged public support for vaccine nationalism and vaccine internationalism in a representative survey in New Zealand (N = 1,135). Support for vaccine internationalism (M (mean rating) = 3.64 on 5-point scales) was significantly stronger than for vaccine nationalism (M = 3.24). Additionally, support for openly sharing COVID-19 vaccine manufacturing knowledge and technology (M = 4.17 on 5-point scales) was significantly stronger than support for safeguarding vaccine manufacturers' intellectual property (M = 2.66). The public also supported a utilitarian approach that would see distributions based on need (M = 3.76 on 5-point scales) over an equal proportional international distribution (M = 3.16). Akin to the few preceding studies, the present observations suggest that the public is likely to be more supportive of pandemic responses that are globally equitable and long-term orientated. Our findings have substantial implications for pandemic preparedness as the congruence or lack thereof of public vaccine-related values with government policies can affect public trust, which, in turn, can affect public cooperation. It may pay for governments to invest in proactive public engagement efforts before and during a pandemic to discuss critical ethical issues and inequities in global vaccine procurement and distributions., Competing Interests: Declaration of competing interest The authors declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence the work reported in this paper., (Copyright © 2024 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Ltd.. All rights reserved.)

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

Background: Combining short-acting nicotine replacement therapy with varenicline increases smoking cessation rates compared with varenicline alone, but not all people tolerate these medications or find them helpful. We aim to investigate the therapeutic potential of an analogous combination, by evaluating the effectiveness, safety, and acceptability of combining nicotine salt e-cigarettes with cytisine, compared to nicotine salt e-cigarettes or cytisine only, on smoking abstinence at six months., Methods: A pragmatic, community-based, investigator-blinded, randomised superiority trial design will be utilised. Eligible participants will be people who smoke daily (N = 800, 90% power) from throughout New Zealand, who are: aged ≥ 18 years, motivated to quit in the next two weeks, able to provide online consent, willing to use e-cigarettes and/or cytisine, and have daily access to a mobile phone. Recruitment will utilise multi-media advertising. Participants will be randomised (3:3:2 ratio) to 12 weeks of: 1) e-cigarettes (closed pod system, 3% nicotine salt, tobacco flavour) plus cytisine; 2) e-cigarettes alone, or 3) cytisine alone. All groups will receive a six-month, text-message-based behavioural support programme. The primary outcome is self-reported, biochemically verified, continuous abstinence at six months post-quit date. Secondary outcomes, measured at quit date, then one, three, six, and 12 months post-quit date, include self-reported continuous abstinence, 7-day point prevalence abstinence, cigarettes smoked per day, withdrawal and urge to smoke, time to (re)lapse, treatment use and compliance, treatment crossover, dual-use, use of other cessation products, change in e-cigarette products, continuation of product use, acceptability, change in health state, health-related quality of life, change in body mass index, adverse events, and cost per quitter., Discussion: Pragmatic trials are of particular value as they reflect the 'real world' impact of interventions. The trial will provide some of the first evidence on the effectiveness of combining nicotine salt e-cigarettes with cytisine for smoking cessation, in a country with strong tobacco control policy. Findings will be incorporated into relevant systematic reviews, informing practice and policy., Trial Registration: NCT05311085 ClinicalTrials.gov. Registered 5th April, 2022., (© 2023. BioMed Central Ltd., part of Springer Nature.)

Background: Fetal alcohol spectrum disorder (FASD) is a common form of developmental disability but may be poorly understood by professionals working with people with FASD. The aim of the research is to understand the FASD knowledge, attitudes, awareness, and practices among people employed by the education sector in Aotearoa New Zealand and identify gaps in knowledge. Methods: We conducted an online survey of New Zealand Education professionals. The survey focused on the following areas: Awareness of FASD; Knowledge and beliefs about FASD; Impact of FASD on professional practice; and Training needs. Results: Of the 419 participants, most had some knowledge of FASD and its effects on learning; however, there are still gaps that need to be addressed so educators can provide support to individuals living with FASD. Conclusion: There is a need to improve workforce capacity and develop guidelines that address the needs of front-of-line staff working with children with FASD in education settings.

Background: Nicotine replacement therapy (NRT) aims to replace nicotine from cigarettes. This helps to reduce cravings and withdrawal symptoms, and ease the transition from cigarette smoking to complete abstinence. Although there is high-certainty evidence that NRT is effective for achieving long-term smoking abstinence, it is unclear whether different forms, doses, durations of treatment or timing of use impacts its effects., Objectives: To determine the effectiveness and safety of different forms, deliveries, doses, durations and schedules of NRT, for achieving long-term smoking cessation., Search Methods: We searched the Cochrane Tobacco Addiction Group trials register for papers mentioning NRT in the title, abstract or keywords, most recently in April 2022., Selection Criteria: We included randomised trials in people motivated to quit, comparing one type of NRT use with another. We excluded studies that did not assess cessation as an outcome, with follow-up of fewer than six months, and with additional intervention components not matched between arms. Separate reviews cover studies comparing NRT to control, or to other pharmacotherapies., Data Collection and Analysis: We followed standard Cochrane methods. We measured smoking abstinence after at least six months, using the most rigorous definition available. We extracted data on cardiac adverse events (AEs), serious adverse events (SAEs) and study withdrawals due to treatment.  MAIN RESULTS: We identified 68 completed studies with 43,327 participants, five of which are new to this update. Most completed studies recruited adults either from the community or from healthcare clinics. We judged 28 of the 68 studies to be at high risk of bias. Restricting the analysis only to those studies at low or unclear risk of bias did not significantly alter results for any comparisons apart from the preloading comparison, which tested the effect of using NRT prior to quit day whilst still smoking.  There is high-certainty evidence that combination NRT (fast-acting form plus patch) results in higher long-term quit rates than single form (risk ratio (RR) 1.27, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.17 to 1.37; I 2 = 12%; 16 studies, 12,169 participants). Moderate-certainty evidence, limited by imprecision, indicates that 42/44 mg patches are as effective as 21/22 mg (24-hour) patches (RR 1.09, 95% CI 0.93 to 1.29; I 2 = 38%; 5 studies, 1655 participants), and that 21 mg patches are more effective than 14 mg (24-hour) patches (RR 1.48, 95% CI 1.06 to 2.08; 1 study, 537 participants). Moderate-certainty evidence, again limited by imprecision, also suggests a benefit of 25 mg over 15 mg (16-hour) patches, but the lower limit of the CI encompassed no difference (RR 1.19, 95% CI 1.00 to 1.41; I 2 = 0%; 3 studies, 3446 participants). Nine studies tested the effect of using NRT prior to quit day (preloading) in comparison to using it from quit day onward. There was moderate-certainty evidence, limited by risk of bias, of a favourable effect of preloading on abstinence (RR 1.25, 95% CI 1.08 to 1.44; I 2 = 0%; 9 studies, 4395 participants). High-certainty evidence from eight studies suggests that using either a form of fast-acting NRT or a nicotine patch results in similar long-term quit rates (RR 0.90, 95% CI 0.77 to 1.05; I 2 = 0%; 8 studies, 3319 participants). We found no clear evidence of an effect of duration of nicotine patch use (low-certainty evidence); duration of combination NRT use (low- and very low-certainty evidence); or fast-acting NRT type (very low-certainty evidence). Cardiac AEs, SAEs and withdrawals due to treatment were all measured variably and infrequently across studies, resulting in low- or very low-certainty evidence for all comparisons. Most comparisons found no clear evidence of an effect on these outcomes, and rates were low overall. More withdrawals due to treatment were reported in people using nasal spray compared to patches in one study (RR 3.47, 95% CI 1.15 to 10.46; 1 study, 922 participants; very low-certainty evidence) and in people using 42/44 mg patches in comparison to 21/22 mg patches across two studies (RR 4.99, 95% CI 1.60 to 15.50; I 2 = 0%; 2 studies, 544 participants; low-certainty evidence)., Authors' Conclusions: There is high-certainty evidence that using combination NRT versus single-form NRT and 4 mg versus 2 mg nicotine gum can result in an increase in the chances of successfully stopping smoking. Due to imprecision, evidence was of moderate certainty for patch dose comparisons. There is some indication that the lower-dose nicotine patches and gum may be less effective than higher-dose products. Using a fast-acting form of NRT, such as gum or lozenge, resulted in similar quit rates to nicotine patches. There is moderate-certainty evidence that using NRT before quitting may improve quit rates versus using it from quit date only; however, further research is needed to ensure the robustness of this finding. Evidence for the comparative safety and tolerability of different types of NRT use is limited. New studies should ensure that AEs, SAEs and withdrawals due to treatment are reported., (Copyright © 2023 The Authors. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews published by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. on behalf of The Cochrane Collaboration.)

This paper critically analyses a statement by Australia's National Health and Medical Research Council (NHMRC) on e-cigarettes in May 2022 that will be used to guide national policy. We reviewed the evidence and the conclusions drawn in the NHMRC Statement. In our view, the Statement is not a balanced reflection of the benefits and risks of vaping because it exaggerates the risks of vaping and fails to compare them to the far greater risks of smoking; it uncritically accepts evidence of harms from e-cigarettes while adopting a highly sceptical attitude towards evidence of their benefits; it incorrectly claims that the association between adolescent vaping and subsequent smoking is causal; and it understates the evidence of the benefits of e-cigarettes in assisting smokers to quit. The Statement dismisses the evidence that vaping is probably already having a positive net public health effect and misapplies the precautionary principle. Several sources of evidence supporting our assessment were published after the NHMRC Statement's publication and are also referenced. The NHMRC Statement on e-cigarettes does not present a balanced assessment of the available scientific literature and fails to meet the standard expected of a leading national scientific body., (© 2023 The Authors. Addiction published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of Society for the Study of Addiction.)

Background: Fetal Alcohol Spectrum Disorder (FASD) is a common neurodevelopmental disorder but may be underrecognized and misunderstood by people who provide health and social support services. The aim of the research is to understand the FASD knowledge, attitudes, and practices among people employed by the social and community sector in New Zealand. Methods: We conducted an online survey of people working in the New Zealand social and community sector (i.e., social workers, support workers). The survey focused on the following areas: awareness of FASD; knowledge and beliefs about FASD; the impact of FASD on professional practice; and training needs. Results: Most participants reported a basic understanding of FASD, however only 5% felt very well prepared to support someone with FASD. A large majority of participants believed that FASD diagnosis may be stigmatising for individuals or families. Conclusion: There is a need to improve training, professional development, and workplace support for social and community workers in New Zealand to support people with FASD.

Background and Objective: In smoking cessation clinical research and practice, objective validation of self-reported smoking status is crucial for ensuring the reliability of the primary outcome, that is, smoking abstinence. Speech signals convey important information about a speaker, such as age, gender, body size, emotional state, and health state. We investigated (1) if smoking could measurably alter voice features, (2) if smoking cessation could lead to changes in voice, and therefore (3) if the voice-based smoking status assessment has the potential to be used as an objective smoking cessation validation method., Methods: A systematic review of the scientific literature was conducted to compile studies on smoking status assessment based on voice features. We searched nine scientific databases for original studies involving the effects of smoking on voice features, the effects of smoking cessation on voice features., Results: A total of 34 studies were identified for review. We found that fundamental frequency, jitter, shimmer, harmonics to noise ratio, and other voice features are affected by smoking and could be used to assess smoking status., Conclusion: Speech assessment of smoking status based on voice features has potential as a smoking status validation method, as it is simple, reliable, and less time-consuming. Furthermore, this study provides recommendations for future research on the objective speech assessment of smoking status based on voice features., (Copyright © 2020 The Voice Foundation. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Aims: This study aims to compare biomarkers of potential harm between people switching from smoking combustible cigarettes (CC) completely to electronic cigarettes (EC), continuing to smoke CC, using both EC and CC (dual users) and using neither (abstainers), based on behaviour during EC intervention studies., Design: Secondary analysis following systematic review, incorporating inverse variance random-effects meta-analysis and effect direction plots., Setting: This study was conducted in Greece, Italy, Poland, the United Kingdom and the United States., Participants: A total of 1299 adults smoking CC (nine studies) and provided EC., Measurements: Measurements were conducted using carbon monoxide (CO) and 26 other biomarkers., Findings: In pooled analyses, exhaled CO (eCO) was lower in EC versus EC + CC [mean difference (MD) = -4.40 parts per million (p.p.m.), 95% confidence interval (CI) = -12.04 to 3.24, two studies] and CC (MD = -9.57 p.p.m., 95% CI = -17.30 to -1.83, three studies). eCO was lower in dual users versus CC only (MD = -1.91 p.p.m., 95% CI = -3.38 to -0.45, two studies). Magnitude rather than direction of effect drove substantial statistical heterogeneity. Effect direction plots were used for other biomarkers. Comparing EC with CC, 12 of 13 biomarkers were significantly lower in EC users, with no difference for the 13th. Comparing EC with dual users, 12 of the 25 biomarkers were lower for EC, and five were lower for dual use. For the remaining eight measures, single studies did not detect statistically significant differences, or the multiple studies contributing to the outcome had inconsistent results. Only one study provided data comparing dual use with CC; of the 13 biomarkers measured, 12 were significantly lower in the dual use group, with no statistically significant difference detected for the 13th. Only one study provided data on abstainers., Conclusions: Switching from smoking to vaping or dual use appears to reduce levels of biomarkers of potential harm significantly., (© 2022 The Authors. Addiction published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of Society for the Study of Addiction.)

Background and Aims: Fetal alcohol spectrum disorder (FASD) is one of the most common forms of developmental disability, and yet, anecdotally, is poorly understood by both the public and professionals across health, justice, education, and social services. This review aims to understand the knowledge, attitudes, and practices of professionals who work across a range of sectors - specifically health, education and justice - where they may encounter people with FASD, their families and caregivers., Method: We conducted a systematic search for research using surveys or questionnaires to address knowledge, and attitudes of professionals in health, education, and justice with regards to FASD between 1990 and 2021. Our search consisted of electronic databases (APA PsychInfo, CINAHL, EMBASE, Medline, PubMed, and PAIS Index) and grey literature sources., Results: Our search yielded 971 results, of which 58 were relevant. The studies surveyed professionals from health (n = 35), education (n = 10), justice (n = 8), social services (n = 1), and multiple settings (n = 4). Most studies were conducted in North America. The areas surveyed included knowledge of FASD, attitudes towards people with FASD, experience with FASD, practices towards people with FASD, and education and training needs., Conclusions: Knowledge, attitudes, and practices towards FASD have been surveyed extensively in healthcare professionals over the last 30 years, but less so with those working in justice and education sectors. Findings from surveys suggest that although most professionals had some knowledge of the effects of FASD, their knowledge of the specific criteria of Fetal Alcohol Syndrome (FAS) and FASD is poor across most professional groups, including most health professionals. Our review highlights the need to provide training and information across sectors ongoing surveillance to determine where gaps in knowledge are and what resources are needed., What This Paper Adds: This study is the first to systematically synthesize knowledge, attitudes, and practices toward FASD across different sectors. Poor knowledge and insufficient training were common. Knowledge, attitudes, and practices about FASD have been surveyed extensively in the healthcare setting, but surveys are more limited outside of this setting. Continuous surveillance is needed to identify and respond to knowledge gaps and changes in practice., Competing Interests: Declaration of interest None., (Copyright © 2022. Published by Elsevier Ltd.)

Moderate certainty evidence supports use of nicotine electronic cigarettes to quit smoking combustible cigarettes. However, there is less certainty regarding how long people continue to use e-cigarettes after smoking cessation attempts. We set out to synthesise data on the proportion of people still using e-cigarettes or other study products at 6 months or longer in studies of e-cigarettes for smoking cessation. We updated Cochrane searches (November 2021). For the first time, we meta-analysed prevalence of continued e-cigarette use among individuals allocated to e-cigarette conditions, and among those individuals who had successfully quit smoking. We updated meta-analyses comparing proportions continuing product use among individuals allocated to use nicotine e-cigarettes and other treatments. We included 19 studies (n = 7787). The pooled prevalence of continued e-cigarette use at 6 months or longer was 54% (95% CI: 46% to 61%, I 2 86%, N = 1482) in participants assigned to e-cigarette conditions. Of participants who had quit combustible cigarettes overall 70% were still using e-cigarettes at six months or longer (95% CI: 53% to 82%, I 2 73%, N = 215). Heterogeneity in direction of effect precluded meta-analysis comparing long-term use of nicotine e-cigarettes with NRT. More people were using nicotine e-cigarettes at longest follow-up compared to non-nicotine e-cigarettes, but CIs included no difference (risk ratio 1.15, 95% CI: 0.94 to 1.41, n = 601). The levels of continued e-cigarette use observed may reflect the success of e-cigarettes as a quitting tool. Further research is needed to establish drivers of variation in and implications of continued use of e-cigarettes., Competing Interests: Declaration of Competing Interest The authors declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence the work reported in this paper., (Copyright © 2022 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: Electronic cigarettes (ECs) are handheld electronic vaping devices which produce an aerosol by heating an e-liquid. Some people who smoke use ECs to stop or reduce smoking, although some organizations, advocacy groups and policymakers have discouraged this, citing lack of evidence of efficacy and safety. People who smoke, healthcare providers and regulators want to know if ECs can help people quit smoking, and if they are safe to use for this purpose. This is a review update conducted as part of a living systematic review., Objectives: To examine the effectiveness, tolerability, and safety of using electronic cigarettes (ECs) to help people who smoke tobacco achieve long-term smoking abstinence., Search Methods: We searched the Cochrane Tobacco Addiction Group's Specialized Register, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, Embase, and PsycINFO to 1 July 2022, and reference-checked and contacted study authors.  SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and randomized cross-over trials, in which people who smoke were randomized to an EC or control condition. We also included uncontrolled intervention studies in which all participants received an EC intervention. Studies had to report abstinence from cigarettes at six months or longer or data on safety markers at one week or longer, or both., Data Collection and Analysis: We followed standard Cochrane methods for screening and data extraction. Our primary outcome measures were abstinence from smoking after at least six months follow-up, adverse events (AEs), and serious adverse events (SAEs). Secondary outcomes included the proportion of people still using study product (EC or pharmacotherapy) at six or more months after randomization or starting EC use, changes in carbon monoxide (CO), blood pressure (BP), heart rate, arterial oxygen saturation, lung function, and levels of carcinogens or toxicants, or both. We used a fixed-effect Mantel-Haenszel model to calculate risk ratios (RRs) with a 95% confidence interval (CI) for dichotomous outcomes. For continuous outcomes, we calculated mean differences. Where appropriate, we pooled data in meta-analyses., Main Results: We included 78 completed studies, representing 22,052 participants, of which 40 were RCTs. Seventeen of the 78 included studies were new to this review update. Of the included studies, we rated ten (all but one contributing to our main comparisons) at low risk of bias overall, 50 at high risk overall (including all non-randomized studies), and the remainder at unclear risk. There was high certainty that quit rates were higher in people randomized to nicotine EC than in those randomized to nicotine replacement therapy (NRT) (RR 1.63, 95% CI 1.30 to 2.04; I 2 = 10%; 6 studies, 2378 participants). In absolute terms, this might translate to an additional four quitters per 100 (95% CI 2 to 6). There was moderate-certainty evidence (limited by imprecision) that the rate of occurrence of AEs was similar between groups (RR 1.02, 95% CI 0.88 to 1.19; I 2 = 0%; 4 studies, 1702 participants). SAEs were rare, but there was insufficient evidence to determine whether rates differed between groups due to very serious imprecision (RR 1.12, 95% CI 0.82 to 1.52; I 2 = 34%; 5 studies, 2411 participants). There was moderate-certainty evidence, limited by imprecision, that quit rates were higher in people randomized to nicotine EC than to non-nicotine EC (RR 1.94, 95% CI 1.21 to 3.13; I 2 = 0%; 5 studies, 1447 participants). In absolute terms, this might lead to an additional seven quitters per 100 (95% CI 2 to 16). There was moderate-certainty evidence of no difference in the rate of AEs between these groups (RR 1.01, 95% CI 0.91 to 1.11; I 2 = 0%; 5 studies, 1840 participants). There was insufficient evidence to determine whether rates of SAEs differed between groups, due to very serious imprecision (RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.56 to 1.79; I 2 = 0%; 8 studies, 1272 participants). Compared to behavioural support only/no support, quit rates were higher for participants randomized to nicotine EC (RR 2.66, 95% CI 1.52 to 4.65; I 2 = 0%; 7 studies, 3126 participants). In absolute terms, this represents an additional two quitters per 100 (95% CI 1 to 3). However, this finding was of very low certainty, due to issues with imprecision and risk of bias. There was some evidence that (non-serious) AEs were more common in people randomized to nicotine EC (RR 1.22, 95% CI 1.12 to 1.32; I 2 = 41%, low certainty; 4 studies, 765 participants) and, again, insufficient evidence to determine whether rates of SAEs differed between groups (RR 1.03, 95% CI 0.54 to 1.97; I 2 = 38%; 9 studies, 1993 participants).  Data from non-randomized studies were consistent with RCT data. The most commonly reported AEs were throat/mouth irritation, headache, cough, and nausea, which tended to dissipate with continued EC use. Very few studies reported data on other outcomes or comparisons, hence evidence for these is limited, with CIs often encompassing clinically significant harm and benefit., Authors' Conclusions: There is high-certainty evidence that ECs with nicotine increase quit rates compared to NRT and moderate-certainty evidence that they increase quit rates compared to ECs without nicotine. Evidence comparing nicotine EC with usual care/no treatment also suggests benefit, but is less certain. More studies are needed to confirm the effect size. Confidence intervals were for the most part wide for data on AEs, SAEs and other safety markers, with no difference in AEs between nicotine and non-nicotine ECs nor between nicotine ECs and NRT. Overall incidence of SAEs was low across all study arms. We did not detect evidence of serious harm from nicotine EC, but longest follow-up was two years and the number of studies was small. The main limitation of the evidence base remains imprecision due to the small number of RCTs, often with low event rates, but further RCTs are underway. To ensure the review continues to provide up-to-date information to decision-makers, this review is a living systematic review. We run searches monthly, with the review updated when relevant new evidence becomes available. Please refer to the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews for the review's current status., (Copyright © 2022 The Cochrane Collaboration. Published by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.)

Competing Interests: Declaration of interests SSAK declares grants paid to the Centre for the AIDS Programme of Research in South Africa from the National Institutes of Health (National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases), the South African Medical Research Council, the National Research Foundation, and the European and Developing Countries Clinical Trials Partnership. He is a vice-president of the International Science Council; a commissioner of the African Commission on COVID-19; and a member of the WHO Science Council, the Advisory Council of the Physicians for Human Rights, the Global Medical Advisory Board on COVID-19 for Sanofi Pasteur, and the Scientific Advisory Committee of the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation. CBa declares consulting fees from and is a member of the advisory board of the Sustainable Development Solutions Network. MEB and PJH are co-directors of a team of scientists at Texas Children's Hospital Center for Vaccine Development, who are co-inventors of a COVID-19 recombinant protein vaccine technology owned by Baylor College of Medicine (BCM) that was licensed by BCM, non-exclusively and with no patent restrictions, to several companies committed to advancing vaccines for low-income and middle-income countries. The co-inventors have no involvement in license negotiations conducted by BCM. Similar to other research universities, a long-standing BCM policy provides its faculty and staff, who make discoveries that result in a commercial license, a share of any royalty income. To date, BCM has not distributed any royalty income to the co-inventors of the COVID-19 recombinant protein vaccine technology. Any such distribution will be undertaken in accordance with BCM policy. CBu declares grants from the Health Research Council of New Zealand, the New Zealand Ministry of Health, and the New Zealand Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade; consulting fees from Johnson & Johnson Japan; payment from University of Malaya; and is the president of the Society for Research on Nicotine and Tobacco—Oceania. GCB is co-chair of the UHC2030 International Alliance. AH declares grants and consulting fees from the Wellcome Trust and the Oak Foundation. NJ declares support from the UN Sustainable Development Solutions Network and consulting fees from the University of California, San Francisco Department of Humanities and Social Sciences and the Foundation for Global Governance and Sustainability. ET declares consulting fees from the United Nations Development Programme. VV-F and IS are co-chairs of the Nizami Ganjavi International Centre. MAP declares grants from the Rockefeller Foundation to his institution and is a member of the Board of Directors for Management Sciences for Health, and non-executive Governing Board member of Sidra Medicine. JT declares funds from the Victorian Government to BehaviourWorks Australia for surveys and research on COVID-19 related behaviours, from Monash University and from Melbourne Water. AG was a member of the Open Society Global Drug Policy Program until February, 2022. MH declares funds from the Victorian Government, the New South Wales Government, the Australian Government, and the Macquarie Foundation to the Burnet Institute, Melbourne, VIC, Australia for research and modelling work related to COVID-19, and grants from AbbVie and Gilead Sciences that are unrelated to this work. JVL declares grants from AbbVie, Gilead Sciences, MSD, and Roche Diagnostics, and consulting fees from NovVax, all unrelated to this work. All other authors declare no conflicts of interest. This report does not represent the institutions nor the organisations for which the authors work.

Background: Prenatal exposure to alcohol (PAE) represents a significant public health concern. Previous research linking PAE to neurodevelopmental outcomes has been mixed and often has limited focus on residual confounding or moderating factors., Methods: A systematic review of prospective cohort studies ( n  = >1000) assessing the impact of PAE on neurodevelopmental outcomes was undertaken (neurophysiology, motor skills, cognition, language, academic achievement, memory, attention, executive function, affect regulation, and adaptive behaviour, social skills, or communication). Electronic searches of EMBASE, Medline, CINAHL, and Psychinfo were conducted in May 2021. A quality assessment was conducted using an adapted version of the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (NOS)., Results: Thirty longitudinal cohort studies met the inclusion criteria. Evidence of the impact of PAE was mixed across domains. We found no evidence that PAE affects executive function, but there were impacts on motor skills, cognition, language, academic achievement, attention, affect regulation, and adaptive behaviour. The most consistent adverse effect was on affect regulation (nine out of thirteen studies, six of which found an association between heavy alcohol consumption or binge drinking during pregnancy). We found no protective factors. Few studies controlled for variables in the postnatal environment., Discussion: This review was unable to conclude a safe level of alcohol consumption during pregnancy. Methodological improvements are needed to improve the quality and consistency in which PAE is studied. Further research into residual confounding variables is vital, including a greater focus on the postpartum environment., Competing Interests: No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s)., (© 2022 The Author(s). Published by Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis Group.)

Aims: To summarise the literature underpinning key recommendations made in the 2021 revision of the Ministry of Health's New Zealand Guidelines for Helping People to Stop Smoking., Methods: A comprehensive literature review of smoking cessation interventions was undertaken in July 2021. Recommendations were formulated from the findings of the literature review and expert advice., Results: Healthcare professionals should ask and briefly advise all people who smoke to stop smoking, regardless of whether they say they are ready to stop smoking or not. They should offer smoking cessation support, which includes both behavioural and pharmacological (e.g., nicotine replacement therapy, nortriptyline, bupropion or varenicline) interventions. The Guidelines also include advice around the use of vaping in smoking cessation. Recommendations are also formulated for priority populations of smokers: Māori, Pacific, pregnant women, and people with mental illness and other addictions., Conclusions: The guidelines will assist healthcare professionals in providing evidence-based smoking cessation support to people who smoke. To be effective and equitable, the ABC model requires organisational commitment, integration into routine practice, and increased attention to the upstream determinants of smoking and quitting., Competing Interests: Nil.

Introduction: Tobacco harm reduction has potential to improve individual and population health. However, little research exists on low-intensity interventions, such as encouraging longer-term NRT or e-cigarette use. We aimed to determine whether: (1) encouraging use of nicotine products as long-term tobacco substitutes is more effective for smoking abstinence than standard treatment, and (2) offering e-cigarettes is more effective than NRT., Methods: An open-label, parallel-group randomized trial was conducted in Australia between 2014 and 2015, with 1563 adult daily smokers, randomized to: (A) standard cessation advice and NRT: advice to use NRT short-term, (B) quit or substitute advice and NRT: advice to use NRT as a longer-term substitute for smoking if required to maintain smoking cessation, or (C) Quit or substitute advice and NRT and/or e-cigarettes. Participants were offered an initial supply of products they could then purchase for up to 7 months. The primary outcome was self-reported continuous smoking abstinence at 7 months. Point prevalence, dual use, and cigarette reduction were secondary outcomes., Results: At 7 months, 2.8% (N = 9) of group A (N = 324) were abstinent, compared with 1.8% (N = 11) in B (N = 620) and 1.3% (N = 8) in C (N = 619) (adjusted odds ratio [ORs]: B vs. A 0.66, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.27-1.63; C vs. A 0.46, 95% CI: 0.17-1.21; C vs. B 0.69, 95% CI 0.27-1.73). There were no suspected unexpected serious adverse reactions associated with trial products., Conclusion: A free trial of NRT and first generation e-cigarettes and advice on long-term substitution was no better for smoking abstinence than usual care., Clinical Trial Registration: The trial was registered with the Australian Therapeutic Goods Administration under their Clinical Trials Notification scheme and the Australian and New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry (ACTRN12612001210864)., Implications: This pragmatic trial allowed the comparison of existing and alternative policy options under semi-realistic conditions, such as product choice and financial cost. All trial arms had low rates of smoking cessation. The findings suggest that providing unflavored cigalike e-cigarettes without additional support may not increase quitting compared with advice to use standard NRT in a general population of Australians who smoke. More intensive support and education, and/or opportunity to try a range of e-cigarette products, may be required to motivate quit attempts using e-cigarettes., (© The Author(s) 2021. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the Society for Research on Nicotine and Tobacco. All rights reserved. For permissions, please e-mail: journals.permissions@oup.com.)

Background: Cannabis use is common, especially among young people, and is associated with risks for various health harms. Some jurisdictions have recently moved to legalization/regulation pursuing public health goals. Evidence-based 'Lower Risk Cannabis Use Guidelines' (LRCUG) and recommendations were previously developed to reduce modifiable risk factors of cannabis-related adverse health outcomes; related evidence has evolved substantially since. We aimed to review new scientific evidence and to develop comprehensively up-to-date LRCUG, including their recommendations, on this evidence basis., Methods: Targeted searches for literature (since 2016) on main risk factors for cannabis-related adverse health outcomes modifiable by the user-individual were conducted. Topical areas were informed by previous LRCUG content and expanded upon current evidence. Searches preferentially focused on systematic reviews, supplemented by key individual studies. The review results were evidence-graded, topically organized and narratively summarized; recommendations were developed through an iterative scientific expert consensus development process., Results: A substantial body of modifiable risk factors for cannabis use-related health harms were identified with varying evidence quality. Twelve substantive recommendation clusters and three precautionary statements were developed. In general, current evidence suggests that individuals can substantially reduce their risk for adverse health outcomes if they delay the onset of cannabis use until after adolescence, avoid the use of high-potency (THC) cannabis products and high-frequency/-intensity of use, and refrain from smoking-routes for administration. While young people are particularly vulnerable to cannabis-related harms, other sub-groups (e.g., pregnant women, drivers, older adults, those with co-morbidities) are advised to exercise particular caution with use-related risks. Legal/regulated cannabis products should be used where possible., Conclusions: Cannabis use can result in adverse health outcomes, mostly among sub-groups with higher-risk use. Reducing the risk factors identified can help to reduce health harms from use. The LRCUG offer one targeted intervention component within a comprehensive public health approach for cannabis use. They require effective audience-tailoring and dissemination, regular updating as new evidence become available, and should be evaluated for their impact., Competing Interests: Declarations of Interest The authors make the following declarations of relevant financial activities outside of the submitted work: Prof. B. Fischer has received general research support from the Hugh Green Foundation Chair in Addiction Research, held at the Faculty of Medical and Health Sciences, University of Auckland, New Zealand. In the past 3 years, he has held research grants and contracts in the areas of substance use, health and policy from public funding and government (i.e., public-only) organizations. Prof. C. Bullen has received research support from the Health Research Council of New Zealand, Heart Foundation of New Zealand, and Pfizer. In 2019 he provided consultancy on nicotine dependence for Johnson & Johnson (Japan). Prof. V. Curran declares general research support from the United Kingdom Medical Research Council and the United Kingdom Department of Health. In the past, she has consulted for Janssen Pharmaceuticals on the treatment of resistant depression. Prof. D. Jutras-Aswad has received investigational products (last in 2018) from Insys Therapeutics for a clinical trial funded by the Canadian Institutes of Health Research (CIHR). In the last 36 months, he has received grants/contracts support for substance use-related research from public and governmental agencies and has expert-consulted on related issues with public/government agencies. Prof. W. van den Brink has received financial support from Lundbeck, Novartis, Bioproject, Kinnov Therapeutics, Recordati, Mundipharma, Angelini, Opiant Pharmaceuticals, Indivior, Camurus, and Takeda., (Copyright © 2021 The Authors. Published by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.)

Background: Electronic cigarettes (ECs) are handheld electronic vaping devices which produce an aerosol formed by heating an e-liquid. Some people who smoke use ECs to stop or reduce smoking, but some organizations, advocacy groups and policymakers have discouraged this, citing lack of evidence of efficacy and safety. People who smoke, healthcare providers and regulators want to know if ECs can help people quit and if they are safe to use for this purpose. This is an update conducted as part of a living systematic review., Objectives: To examine the effectiveness, tolerability, and safety of using electronic cigarettes (ECs) to help people who smoke tobacco achieve long-term smoking abstinence., Search Methods: We searched the Cochrane Tobacco Addiction Group's Specialized Register, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, Embase, and PsycINFO to 1 May 2021, and reference-checked and contacted study authors. We screened abstracts from the Society for Research on Nicotine and Tobacco (SRNT) 2021 Annual Meeting.   SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and randomized cross-over trials, in which people who smoke were randomized to an EC or control condition. We also included uncontrolled intervention studies in which all participants received an EC intervention. Studies had to report abstinence from cigarettes at six months or longer or data on safety markers at one week or longer, or both., Data Collection and Analysis: We followed standard Cochrane methods for screening and data extraction. Our primary outcome measures were abstinence from smoking after at least six months follow-up, adverse events (AEs), and serious adverse events (SAEs). Secondary outcomes included the proportion of people still using study product (EC or pharmacotherapy) at six or more months after randomization or starting EC use, changes in carbon monoxide (CO), blood pressure (BP), heart rate, arterial oxygen saturation, lung function, and levels of carcinogens or toxicants or both. We used a fixed-effect Mantel-Haenszel model to calculate risk ratios (RRs) with a 95% confidence interval (CI) for dichotomous outcomes. For continuous outcomes, we calculated mean differences. Where appropriate, we pooled data in meta-analyses., Main Results: We included 61 completed studies, representing 16,759 participants, of which 34 were RCTs. Five of the 61 included studies were new to this review update. Of the included studies, we rated seven (all contributing to our main comparisons) at low risk of bias overall, 42 at high risk overall (including all non-randomized studies), and the remainder at unclear risk. There was moderate-certainty evidence, limited by imprecision, that quit rates were higher in people randomized to nicotine EC than in those randomized to nicotine replacement therapy (NRT) (risk ratio (RR) 1.53, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.21 to 1.93; I 2 = 0%; 4 studies, 1924 participants). In absolute terms, this might translate to an additional three quitters per 100 (95% CI 1 to 6). There was low-certainty evidence (limited by very serious imprecision) that the rate of occurrence of AEs was similar (RR 0.98, 95% CI 0.80 to 1.19; I 2 = 0%; 2 studies, 485 participants). SAEs were rare, but there was insufficient evidence to determine whether rates differed between groups due to very serious imprecision (RR 1.30, 95% CI 0.89 to 1.90: I 2 = 0; 4 studies, 1424 participants). There was moderate-certainty evidence, again limited by imprecision, that quit rates were higher in people randomized to nicotine EC than to non-nicotine EC (RR 1.94, 95% CI 1.21 to 3.13; I 2 = 0%; 5 studies, 1447 participants). In absolute terms, this might lead to an additional seven quitters per 100 (95% CI 2 to 16). There was moderate-certainty evidence of no difference in the rate of AEs between these groups (RR 1.01, 95% CI 0.91 to 1.11; I 2 = 0%; 3 studies, 601 participants). There was insufficient evidence to determine whether rates of SAEs differed between groups, due to very serious imprecision (RR 1.06, 95% CI 0.47 to 2.38; I 2 = 0; 5 studies, 792 participants). Compared to behavioural support only/no support, quit rates were higher for participants randomized to nicotine EC (RR 2.61, 95% CI 1.44 to 4.74; I 2 = 0%; 6 studies, 2886 participants). In absolute terms this represents an additional six quitters per 100 (95% CI 2 to 15). However, this finding was of very low certainty, due to issues with imprecision and risk of bias. There was some evidence that non-serious AEs were more common in people randomized to nicotine EC (RR 1.22, 95% CI 1.12 to 1.32; I 2 = 41%, low certainty; 4 studies, 765 participants), and again, insufficient evidence to determine whether rates of SAEs differed between groups (RR 1.51, 95% CI 0.70 to 3.24; I 2 = 0%; 7 studies, 1303 participants).  Data from non-randomized studies were consistent with RCT data. The most commonly reported AEs were throat/mouth irritation, headache, cough, and nausea, which tended to dissipate with continued use. Very few studies reported data on other outcomes or comparisons, hence evidence for these is limited, with CIs often encompassing clinically significant harm and benefit., Authors' Conclusions: There is moderate-certainty evidence that ECs with nicotine increase quit rates compared to NRT and compared to ECs without nicotine. Evidence comparing nicotine EC with usual care/no treatment also suggests benefit, but is less certain. More studies are needed to confirm the effect size. Confidence intervals were for the most part wide for data on AEs, SAEs and other safety markers, with no difference in AEs between nicotine and non-nicotine ECs. Overall incidence of SAEs was low across all study arms. We did not detect  evidence of harm from nicotine EC, but longest follow-up was two years and the  number of studies was small. The main limitation of the evidence base remains imprecision due to the small number of RCTs, often with low event rates, but further RCTs are underway. To ensure the review continues to provide up-to-date information to decision-makers, this review is now a living systematic review. We run searches monthly, with the review updated when relevant new evidence becomes available. Please refer to the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews for the review's current status., (Copyright © 2021 The Cochrane Collaboration. Published by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.)

The Lancet COVID-19 Commission Task Force for Public Health Measures to Suppress the Pandemic was launched to identify critical points for consideration by governments on public health interventions to control coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). Drawing on our review of published studies of data analytics and modelling, evidence synthesis and contextualisation, and behavioural science evidence and theory on public health interventions from a range of sources, we outline evidence for a range of institutional measures and behaviour-change measures. We cite examples of measures adopted by a range of countries, but especially jurisdictions that have, thus far, achieved low numbers of COVID-19 deaths and limited community transmission of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2. Finally, we highlight gaps in knowledge where research should be undertaken. As countries consider long-term measures, there is an opportunity to learn, improve the response and prepare for future pandemics., (© The Author(s) 2021. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of Royal Society of Tropical Medicine and Hygiene.)

New Zealand has a strategy of eliminating SARS-CoV-2 that has resulted in a low incidence of reported coronavirus-19 disease (COVID-19). The aim of this study was to describe the spread of SARS-CoV-2 in New Zealand via a nationwide serosurvey of blood donors. Samples (n = 9806) were collected over a month-long period (3 December 2020-6 January 2021) from donors aged 16-88 years. The sample population was geographically spread, covering 16 of 20 district health board regions. A series of Spike-based immunoassays were utilised, and the serological testing algorithm was optimised for specificity given New Zealand is a low prevalence setting. Eighteen samples were seropositive for SARS-CoV-2 antibodies, six of which were retrospectively matched to previously confirmed COVID-19 cases. A further four were from donors that travelled to settings with a high risk of SARS-CoV-2 exposure, suggesting likely infection outside New Zealand. The remaining eight seropositive samples were from seven different district health regions for a true seroprevalence estimate, adjusted for test sensitivity and specificity, of 0.103% (95% confidence interval, 0.09-0.12%). The very low seroprevalence is consistent with limited undetected community transmission and provides robust, serological evidence to support New Zealand's successful elimination strategy for COVID-19.

We sought to gain insights into the impacts of COVID-19 and associated control measures on health and health care of patients from low- and middle-income countries with cardiovascular disease, diabetes, and mental health conditions, using an online survey during the COVID-19 pandemic. The most common concern for the 1487 patients who took part was contracting COVID-19 when they accessed health care. Of those infected with COVID-19, half said that their health had been worse since being infected. Collectively, most people reported an increase in feelings of stress and loneliness. The COVID-19 pandemic has led to a range of health care impacts on patients with noncommunicable diseases, including constraints on access to care and health effects, particularly mental well-being., Competing Interests: Declaration of Conflicting Interests: The author(s) declared the following potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: K.S., A.M., and P-.H.H. are employees of Viatris., (© The Author(s) 2021.)

Introduction: Physiologically based pharmacokinetic (PBPK) models for the absorption, disposition, metabolism and excretion (ADME) of nicotine and its major metabolite cotinine in pregnant women (p-PBPK) are rare. The aim of this short research report is to present a p-PBPK model and its simulations for nicotine and cotinine clearance. Methods: The maternal-placental-fetal compartments of the p-PBPK model contain a total of 16 compartments representing major maternal and fetal organs and tissue groups. Qualitative and quantitative data of nicotine and cotinine disposition and clearance have been incorporated into pharmacokinetic parameters. Results: The p-PBPK model reproduced the higher clearance rates of nicotine and cotinine in pregnant women than non-pregnant women. Temporal profiles for their disposition in organs such as the brain were also simulated. Nicotine concentration reaches its maximum value within 2 min after an intravenous injection. Conclusion: The proposed p-PBPK model produces results consistent with available data sources. Further pharmacokinetic experiments are required to calibrate clearance parameters for individual organs, and for the fetus., Competing Interests: The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest., (Copyright © 2021 Amice, Ho, Zhang and Bullen.)

Most countries have implemented restrictions on mobility to prevent the spread of Coronavirus disease-19 (COVID-19), entailing considerable societal costs but, at least initially, based on limited evidence of effectiveness. We asked whether mobility restrictions were associated with changes in the occurrence of COVID-19 in 34 OECD countries plus Singapore and Taiwan. Our data sources were the Google Global Mobility Data Source, which reports different types of mobility, and COVID-19 cases retrieved from the dataset curated by Our World in Data. Beginning at each country's 100th case, and incorporating a 14-day lag to account for the delay between exposure and illness, we examined the association between changes in mobility (with January 3 to February 6, 2020 as baseline) and the ratio of the number of newly confirmed cases on a given day to the total number of cases over the past 14 days from the index day (the potentially infective 'pool' in that population), per million population, using LOESS regression and logit regression. In two-thirds of examined countries, reductions of up to 40% in commuting mobility (to workplaces, transit stations, retailers, and recreation) were associated with decreased cases, especially early in the pandemic. Once both mobility and incidence had been brought down, further restrictions provided little additional benefit. These findings point to the importance of acting early and decisively in a pandemic.

Background: The global COVID-19 pandemic has disrupted healthcare worldwide. In low- and middle-income countries (LMICs), where people may have limited access to affordable quality care, the COVID-19 pandemic has the potential to have a particularly adverse impact on the health and healthcare of individuals with noncommunicable diseases (NCDs). A World Health Organization survey found that disruption of delivery of healthcare for NCDs was more significant in LMICs than in high-income countries. However, the study did not elicit insights into the day-to-day impacts of COVID-19 on healthcare by front-line healthcare workers (FLHCWs)., Aim: To gain insights directly from FLHCWs working in countries with a high NCD burden, and thereby identify opportunities to improve the provision of healthcare during the current pandemic and in future healthcare emergencies., Methods: We recruited selected frontline healthcare workers (general practitioners, pharmacists, and other medical specialists) from nine countries to complete an online survey (n = 1347). Survey questions focused on the impact of COVID-19 pandemic on clinical practice and NCDs; barriers to clinical care during the pandemic; and innovative responses to the many challenges presented by the pandemic., Findings: The majority of FLHCWs responding to our survey reported that their care of patients had been impacted both adversely and positively by the public health measures imposed. Most FLHCs (95%) reported a deterioration in the mental health of their patients., Conclusions: Continuity of care for NCDs as part of pandemic preparedness is needed so that chronic conditions are not exacerbated by public health measures and the direct impacts of the pandemic.

Introduction: Health authorities are advising smokers to quit to reduce their COVID-related risk. The types of messages that may be effective in alerting smokers to this risk and encouraging a quit attempt are unknown. The aim of this study was to test a series of messages to identify potentially effective communication approaches., Methods: An online survey was completed by 1509 smokers across three countries (Australia: n = 604; New Zealand: n = 304; United Kingdom: n = 601) in April-May 2020. Respondents were randomly assigned to view just one of four quit messages, two of which explicitly referred to the coronavirus, one referred to risk of chest infection, and one encouraged cessation for financial reasons. Outcome variables included quit intentions, further information seeking, message perceptions, and health and financial concerns., Results: All four messages were associated with significant differences in the proportions of respondents intending to quit within the following 2 wk (increase range: 11%-34%) and with substantial proportions of respondents electing to access additional information (range: 37%-50%). The differences in intentions were significantly larger for the two health-related messages that specifically mentioned the coronavirus. All messages were perceived favorably in terms of acceptability, believability, effectiveness, and personal relevance. Negligible differences in health and financial concerns were observed., Conclusions: Smokers in Australia, New Zealand, and the United Kingdom appear likely to be receptive to messages about their COVID-related risk. Such messages have the potential to increase quit intentions and prompt information-seeking behaviors., Implications: The COVID-19 pandemic represents an opportunity to encourage smokers to quit to reduce both their COVID-related risks and their risks of a broad range of noncommunicable diseases., (© The Author(s) 2021. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the Society for Research on Nicotine and Tobacco. All rights reserved.For permissions, please e-mail: journals.permissions@oup.com.)

Background: Electronic cigarettes (ECs) are handheld electronic vaping devices which produce an aerosol formed by heating an e-liquid. Some people who smoke use ECs to stop or reduce smoking, but some organizations, advocacy groups and policymakers have discouraged this, citing lack of evidence of efficacy and safety. People who smoke, healthcare providers and regulators want to know if ECs can help people quit and if they are safe to use for this purpose. This is an update of a review first published in 2014., Objectives: To examine the effectiveness, tolerability, and safety of using electronic cigarettes (ECs) to help people who smoke achieve long-term smoking abstinence., Search Methods: We searched the Cochrane Tobacco Addiction Group's Specialized Register, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, Embase, and PsycINFO to 1 February 2021, together with reference-checking and contact with study authors., Selection Criteria: We included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and randomized cross-over trials in which people who smoke were randomized to an EC or control condition. We also included uncontrolled intervention studies in which all participants received an EC intervention. To be included, studies had to report abstinence from cigarettes at six months or longer and/or data on adverse events (AEs) or other markers of safety at one week or longer., Data Collection and Analysis: We followed standard Cochrane methods for screening and data extraction. Our primary outcome measures were abstinence from smoking after at least six months follow-up, adverse events (AEs), and serious adverse events (SAEs). Secondary outcomes included changes in carbon monoxide, blood pressure, heart rate, blood oxygen saturation, lung function, and levels of known carcinogens/toxicants. We used a fixed-effect Mantel-Haenszel model to calculate the risk ratio (RR) with a 95% confidence interval (CI) for dichotomous outcomes. For continuous outcomes, we calculated mean differences. Where appropriate, we pooled data from these studies in meta-analyses., Main Results: We included 56 completed studies, representing 12,804 participants, of which 29 were RCTs. Six of the 56 included studies were new to this review update. Of the included studies, we rated five (all contributing to our main comparisons) at low risk of bias overall, 41 at high risk overall (including the 25 non-randomized studies), and the remainder at unclear risk. There was moderate-certainty evidence, limited by imprecision, that quit rates were higher in people randomized to nicotine EC than in those randomized to nicotine replacement therapy (NRT) (risk ratio (RR) 1.69, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.25 to 2.27; I 2 = 0%; 3 studies, 1498 participants). In absolute terms, this might translate to an additional four successful quitters per 100 (95% CI 2 to 8). There was low-certainty evidence (limited by very serious imprecision) that the rate of occurrence of AEs was similar) (RR 0.98, 95% CI 0.80 to 1.19; I 2 = 0%; 2 studies, 485 participants). SAEs occurred rarely, with no evidence that their frequency differed between nicotine EC and NRT, but very serious imprecision led to low certainty in this finding (RR 1.37, 95% CI 0.77 to 2.41: I 2 = n/a; 2 studies, 727 participants). There was moderate-certainty evidence, again limited by imprecision, that quit rates were higher in people randomized to nicotine EC than to non-nicotine EC (RR 1.70, 95% CI 1.03 to 2.81; I 2 = 0%; 4 studies, 1057 participants). In absolute terms, this might again lead to an additional four successful quitters per 100 (95% CI 0 to 11). These trials mainly used older EC with relatively low nicotine delivery. There was moderate-certainty evidence of no difference in the rate of AEs between these groups (RR 1.01, 95% CI 0.91 to 1.11; I 2 = 0%; 3 studies, 601 participants). There was insufficient evidence to determine whether rates of SAEs differed between groups, due to very serious imprecision (RR 0.60, 95% CI 0.15 to 2.44; I 2 = n/a; 4 studies, 494 participants). Compared to behavioral support only/no support, quit rates were higher for participants randomized to nicotine EC (RR 2.70, 95% CI 1.39 to 5.26; I 2 = 0%; 5 studies, 2561 participants). In absolute terms this represents an increase of seven per 100 (95% CI 2 to 17). However, this finding was of very low certainty, due to issues with imprecision and risk of bias. There was no evidence that the rate of SAEs differed, but some evidence that non-serious AEs were more common in people randomized to nicotine EC (AEs: RR 1.22, 95% CI 1.12 to 1.32; I 2 = 41%, low certainty; 4 studies, 765 participants; SAEs: RR 1.17, 95% CI 0.33 to 4.09; I 2 = 5%; 6 studies, 1011 participants, very low certainty). Data from non-randomized studies were consistent with RCT data. The most commonly reported AEs were throat/mouth irritation, headache, cough, and nausea, which tended to dissipate with continued use. Very few studies reported data on other outcomes or comparisons and hence evidence for these is limited, with confidence intervals often encompassing clinically significant harm and benefit., Authors' Conclusions: There is moderate-certainty evidence that ECs with nicotine increase quit rates compared to ECs without nicotine and compared to NRT. Evidence comparing nicotine EC with usual care/no treatment also suggests benefit, but is less certain. More studies are needed to confirm the size of effect, particularly when using modern EC products. Confidence intervals were for the most part wide for data on AEs, SAEs and other safety markers, though evidence indicated no difference in AEs between nicotine and non-nicotine ECs. Overall incidence of SAEs was low across all study arms. We did not detect any clear evidence of harm from nicotine EC, but longest follow-up was two years and the overall number of studies was small. The evidence is limited mainly by imprecision due to the small number of RCTs, often with low event rates. Further RCTs are underway. To ensure the review continues to provide up-to-date information, this review is now a living systematic review. We run searches monthly, with the review updated when relevant new evidence becomes available. Please refer to the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews for the review's current status., (Copyright © 2021 The Cochrane Collaboration. Published by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.)

Background: Mobile devices provide new opportunities for the prevention of overweight and obesity in children. We aimed to co-create and test an app that offered comprehensible feedback to parents on their child's growth and delivered a suite of age-specific information about nutrition and activity., Methods: A two-phased approach was used to co-create the digital growth tool-See How They Grow-and test its feasibility. Phase one used focus groups (parents and professionals such as paediatricians and midwives) and a national on-line survey to gather requirements and build the app. Phase two involved testing the app over 12-weeks, with parents or carers of children aged ≤ 2-years. All research activities were undertaken exclusively through the app, and participants were recruited using social media and hard copy materials given to patents at a child health visit., Findings: Four focus groups and 101 responses to the national survey informed the features and functions to include in the final app. Two hundred and twenty-five participants downloaded the app, resulting in 208 eligible participants. Non-Māori/Non-Pacific (78%) and Māori (14%) had the highest downloads. Fifty-four per cent of participants were parents of children under 6-months. These participants were more likely to regularly use the app than those with children older than 6-months (64% vs 36%, P = 0.011). Over half of the participants entered three measures (n = 101, 48%). Of those that completed the follow-up survey (n = 101, 48%), 72 reported that the app helped them better understand how to interpret growth charts., Conclusion: The app was acceptable and with minor modifications, has the potential to be an effective tool to support parents understanding of growth trajectories for their children. A larger trial is needed to evaluate if the app can have a measurable impact on increasing knowledge and behaviour, and therefore on preventing childhood overweight and obesity., Competing Interests: This study was funded through a contestable funding round by Cure Kids (https://curekids.org.nz/), the National Science Challenge: a Better Start (https://www.abetterstart.nz/) and Precision Driven Health (PDH) (https://precisiondrivenhealth.com/), grant reference 7006. PDH is a commercial entity. The funders including PDH, had no influence on the design, implementation, interpretation or reporting of the study findings. The involvement of PDH, does not alter our adherence to PLOS ONE policies on sharing data and materials.

Introduction: Compression is the mainstay of treatment for venous leg ulcers (VLUs) and there are few effective adjuvant treatments. There is only observational evidence supporting the use of hypochlorous acid (HOCl) as a topical wound solution on VLU and some limited randomised evidence for the effect of a prescribed regimen of exercise., Methods and Analysis: The Factorial4VLU trial is a pragmatic, blinded, factorial randomised controlled trial, with 380 participants receiving either a prescribed exercise regimen compared with usual care and either active HOCl wound solution or placebo wound solution at each dressing change for up to 24 weeks. All participants will receive compression therapy. The primary outcome is the proportion of participants with healed VLU at 12 weeks after randomisation as adjudicated by blinded review of ulcer photographs. Secondary outcomes are proportion healed at 24 weeks, time to healing, estimated change in ulcer area, change in 2-Minute Walk Test, change in health-related quality of life, incidence of infection and incidence of all-cause adverse events. If either of the interventions shows a statistically significant positive difference on healing outcomes, cost-effectiveness will be modelled using a health service perspective., Ethics and Dissemination: The Factorial4VLU trial received ethical approval from the Northern B Health and Disability Ethics Committee. We plan to publish the results within 1 year of trial completion and will include the results on the trial registration page., Trial Registration Numbers: Australia and New Zealand Clinical Trials Register (http://www.anzctr.org.au) (ACTRN12620000116921); Universal Trial Number (WHO) (U1111-1236-2997)., Competing Interests: Competing interests: None declared., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2021. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.)

Background: Traditional combustible cigarette (TCC) smoking remains a major cause of preventable cardiovascular morbidity and mortality. Modified risk products (MRP) such as electronic vaping cigarettes (EVC) and heat-not-burn cigarettes (HNBC) may be safer than TCC but may still have detrimental oxidative, platelet and vascular effects of particular importance to people with symptomatic coronary artery disease (CAD)., Methods: We aimed to compare the acute coronary, systemic and environmental effects of two leading MRP in 20 TCC smokers admitted for invasive coronary assessment of CAD and willing to quit or after prior failed quitting attempts. After confirmation at angiography of an intermediate coronary stenosis, coronary flow reserve (CFR) will be appraised. Patients will then be randomized 1:1 to use a single EVC or a single HNBC in the catheterization laboratory, followed by repeat CFR measurement. The primary endpoint will be the change in CFR before and after product use. Quantitative coronary angiography, fractional flow reserve (FFR), and instantaneous wave-free ratio (iFR) will also be measured., Results: We expected to accrue results able to: 1) test whether MRP have in general a detrimental impact on coronary vascular function in TCC smokers; 2) test whether EVC have a different impact than HNBC on coronary function; 3) provide ancillary pathophysiologic and translational insights on the acute risk and safety profile of MRP in TCC smokers with established cardiovascular disease, including complex correlations between coronary, cardiac, systemic and environmental effects. In addition, by directly informing participants of their individual results, they will be further empowered to quit TCC., Conclusions: The Sapienza University of Rome-Vascular Assessment of Proatherosclerotic Effects of Smoking (SUR-VAPES) 3 trial will provide important insights into the pathophysiologic cardiovascular impact of EVC and HNBC, also suitable to inform patients and individualize their smoking cessation strategy.

Objective: To identify how best to provide smoking cessation advice and support during the Covid-19 pandemic. Preferences were assessed in relation to: (i) specific forms of tobacco cessation support (eg, nicotine replacement therapy (NRT) and various counseling formats); (ii) information sources (eg, government officials, doctors); and (iii) channels via which to receive relevant information (eg, television, social media)., Methods: An online survey was administered to adults who smoke tobacco in Australia (n = 604) and the UK (n = 600). Descriptive analyses were conducted to identify levels of interest in cessation support and information provision. Differences in responses according to demographic characteristics and smoking history were assessed., Results: Around half of the respondents were interested in receiving personal counseling and/or participating in a text support program over the next month. By far the most popular delivery mechanism for personal counseling was email. Three-quarters of the sample expressed an interest in receiving free, home-delivered NRT. The most popular information sources nominated by respondents seeking more information about smokers' Covid-related risks were government departments and their doctor/general practitioner. Television and online news sources were the most preferred information dissemination channels., Conclusions: The substantial levels of interest expressed in accessing various forms of cessation assistance within the next month suggest that Covid-19 may be increasing receptiveness to quitting. The strong interest in free, home-delivered NRT indicates that this may be a useful mechanism for facilitating quit attempts during the pandemic.

Cannabis use is common, especially among young people, and associated with risks for select acute and chronic adverse health and social outcomes. New Zealand features overall high cannabis use levels, yet may soon follow other jurisdictions and implement legalization of non-medical cannabis use and supply towards public health objectives. While existing cannabis-oriented interventions mainly focus on primary prevention and treatment (e.g., for dependence), key harms from use are crucially influenced by risk factors that can be modified by the user. On this basis, and similar to other health behavior-oriented interventions, 'Lower-Risk Cannabis Use Guidelines' (LRCUG), consisting of 10 recommendation clusters for lower-risk use, were systematically developed in Canada as an evidence-based, targeted prevention tool towards reducing adverse outcomes among cannabis users. We briefly summarize the concept of and experiences with implementation of the LRCUG elsewhere, and describe how their adoption as a population health intervention may serve public health goals of possible cannabis legalization in New Zealand and elsewhere., (© 2020 The Author(s).)

Background: Electronic cigarettes (ECs) are handheld electronic vaping devices which produce an aerosol formed by heating an e-liquid. People who smoke report using ECs to stop or reduce smoking, but some organisations, advocacy groups and policymakers have discouraged this, citing lack of evidence of efficacy and safety. People who smoke, healthcare providers and regulators want to know if ECs can help people quit and if they are safe to use for this purpose. This review is an update of a review first published in 2014., Objectives: To evaluate the effect and safety of using electronic cigarettes (ECs) to help people who smoke achieve long-term smoking abstinence., Search Methods: We searched the Cochrane Tobacco Addiction Group's Specialized Register, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, Embase, and PsycINFO for relevant records to January 2020, together with reference-checking and contact with study authors., Selection Criteria: We included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and randomized cross-over trials in which people who smoke were randomized to an EC or control condition. We also included uncontrolled intervention studies in which all participants received an EC intervention. To be included, studies had to report abstinence from cigarettes at six months or longer and/or data on adverse events (AEs) or other markers of safety at one week or longer., Data Collection and Analysis: We followed standard Cochrane methods for screening and data extraction. Our primary outcome measures were abstinence from smoking after at least six months follow-up, AEs, and serious adverse events (SAEs). Secondary outcomes included changes in carbon monoxide, blood pressure, heart rate, blood oxygen saturation, lung function, and levels of known carcinogens/toxicants. We used a fixed-effect Mantel-Haenszel model to calculate the risk ratio (RR) with a 95% confidence interval (CI) for dichotomous outcomes. For continuous outcomes, we calculated mean differences. Where appropriate, we pooled data from these studies in meta-analyses., Main Results: We include 50 completed studies, representing 12,430 participants, of which 26 are RCTs. Thirty-five of the 50 included studies are new to this review update. Of the included studies, we rated four (all which contribute to our main comparisons) at low risk of bias overall, 37 at high risk overall (including the 24 non-randomized studies), and the remainder at unclear risk. There was moderate-certainty evidence, limited by imprecision, that quit rates were higher in people randomized to nicotine EC than in those randomized to nicotine replacement therapy (NRT) (risk ratio (RR) 1.69, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.25 to 2.27; I 2 = 0%; 3 studies, 1498 participants). In absolute terms, this might translate to an additional four successful quitters per 100 (95% CI 2 to 8). There was low-certainty evidence (limited by very serious imprecision) of no difference in the rate of adverse events (AEs) (RR 0.98, 95% CI 0.80 to 1.19; I 2 = 0%; 2 studies, 485 participants). SAEs occurred rarely, with no evidence that their frequency differed between nicotine EC and NRT, but very serious imprecision led to low certainty in this finding (RR 1.37, 95% CI 0.77 to 2.41: I 2 = n/a; 2 studies, 727 participants). There was moderate-certainty evidence, again limited by imprecision, that quit rates were higher in people randomized to nicotine EC than to non-nicotine EC (RR 1.71, 95% CI 1.00 to 2.92; I 2 = 0%; 3 studies, 802 participants). In absolute terms, this might again lead to an additional four successful quitters per 100 (95% CI 0 to 12). These trials used EC with relatively low nicotine delivery. There was low-certainty evidence, limited by very serious imprecision, that there was no difference in the rate of AEs between these groups (RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.73 to 1.36; I 2 = 0%; 2 studies, 346 participants). There was insufficient evidence to determine whether rates of SAEs differed between groups, due to very serious imprecision (RR 0.25, 95% CI 0.03 to 2.19; I 2 = n/a; 4 studies, 494 participants). Compared to behavioural support only/no support, quit rates were higher for participants randomized to nicotine EC (RR 2.50, 95% CI 1.24 to 5.04; I 2 = 0%; 4 studies, 2312 participants). In absolute terms this represents an increase of six per 100 (95% CI 1 to 14). However, this finding was very low-certainty, due to issues with imprecision and risk of bias. There was no evidence that the rate of SAEs varied, but some evidence that non-serious AEs were more common in people randomized to nicotine EC (AEs: RR 1.17, 95% CI 1.04 to 1.31; I 2 = 28%; 3 studies, 516 participants; SAEs: RR 1.33, 95% CI 0.25 to 6.96; I 2 = 17%; 5 studies, 842 participants). Data from non-randomized studies were consistent with RCT data. The most commonly reported AEs were throat/mouth irritation, headache, cough, and nausea, which tended to dissipate over time with continued use. Very few studies reported data on other outcomes or comparisons and hence evidence for these is limited, with confidence intervals often encompassing clinically significant harm and benefit., Authors' Conclusions: There is moderate-certainty evidence that ECs with nicotine increase quit rates compared to ECs without nicotine and compared to NRT. Evidence comparing nicotine EC with usual care/no treatment also suggests benefit, but is less certain. More studies are needed to confirm the degree of effect, particularly when using modern EC products. Confidence intervals were wide for data on AEs, SAEs and other safety markers. Overall incidence of SAEs was low across all study arms. We did not detect any clear evidence of harm from nicotine EC, but longest follow-up was two years and the overall number of studies was small. The main limitation of the evidence base remains imprecision due to the small number of RCTs, often with low event rates. Further RCTs are underway. To ensure the review continues to provide up-to-date information for decision-makers, this review is now a living systematic review. We will run searches monthly from December 2020, with the review updated as relevant new evidence becomes available. Please refer to the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews for the review's current status., (Copyright © 2020 The Cochrane Collaboration. Published by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.)

INTRODUCTION The prevalence of cancer in the community is likely to be increasing due to an ageing population, implementation of cancer screening programmes and advances in cancer treatment. AIM To determine the prevalence of primary invasive cancers in a large general practice patient population in New Zealand and to characterise the health-care status of these cancer patients. METHODS Data were sourced from the patient management system of a large general practice (n=11,374 patients) in a medium-sized Waikato town and from the New Zealand Cancer Registry dataset to identify patients diagnosed with cancer between January 2009 and December 2018. RESULTS There were 206 cancer diagnoses in 201 patients; 35 cancers were diagnosed in 1887 Māori patients (1.9%) and 171 in 9487 non-Māori patients (1.8%). The age-standardised prevalence was 3092/100,000 in Māori patients and 1971/100,000 in non-Māori patients. The most prevalent cancers were breast, male genital organ, digestive organ and skin cancers. In May 2019, 81 of 201 (40.8%) patients with cancer were receiving only usual care from their general practitioner, whereas 66 (32.8%) were having their cancer managed in secondary care. Comorbidities were common, including hypertension (38.8%), gastrointestinal disorders (29.9%) and mood disorders (24.4%). DISCUSSION Results suggest that there may be disparities in cancer prevalence between Māori and non-Māori patients, although this needs to be confirmed in other general practices. Furthermore, primary care appears to be responsible for most of the care in this patient cohort and workloads should be planned accordingly, particularly with the high incidence of comorbidities.