Search

Background and aims: Varenicline is one of the most effective smoking cessation treatments. Its supply in England was disrupted in July 2021 due to nitrosamine impurities found by its supplier, Pfizer. This study measured the impact of this disruption on smoking cessation in England. Design, setting and participants: The study used repeated cross‐sectional surveys conducted monthly, from June 2018 to December 2022. Set in England, it comprised a total of 3024 adults who reported smoking during the past year and had made at least one serious attempt to quit in the past 6 months. Measurements: Generalized additive models analyzed the association of the varenicline supply disruption with the trend in self‐reported varenicline use in the most recent quit attempt. We used these results to estimate the population‐level impact of the disruption on smoking cessation. Findings Before July 2021, the proportion of past 6‐month quit attempts using varenicline was stable at approximately 3.9% [risk ratio (RR)trend = 1.034, 95% confidence interval (CI) = 0.823–1.298]. The trend in varenicline use has changed sharply since the supply disruption (RRΔtrend = 0.297, 95% CI = 0.120–0.738), with prevalence falling by 69.3% per year since; from 4.1% in June 2021 to 0.8% in December 2022. Convergently, National Health Service general practitioner prescribing data reported that just 0.1% of prescriptions for smoking cessation treatments in December 2022 were for varenicline. Assuming that varenicline does not return to the market, we estimate that this could result in ~8400 fewer people stopping smoking for at least 6 months, ~4200 fewer long‐term ex‐smokers and ~1890 more avoidable deaths each year. Conclusions: In England, the disruption in supply of varenicline since 2021 has coincided with a substantial fall in the use of varenicline in attempts to quit smoking. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Introduction: The last 3 years have seen substantial changes in Great Britain (GB) including the COVID‐19 pandemic, cost‐of‐living crisis and policy changes such as minimum unit pricing. We examined changes in purchasing cross‐border, illicit and home‐brewed alcohol among risky drinkers over this period. Methods: Data were used from 22,086 adult (≥18 years) increasing/higher‐risk drinkers (AUDIT‐C ≥5) participating in a monthly cross‐sectional survey between October 2020 and August 2023. We estimated time trends in the proportion reporting obtaining alcohol from: (i) cross‐border (any/within‐GB/international); (ii) illicit; and (iii) home‐brewed sources in the past 6 months. Results: Between October 2020 and August 2023, the proportion reporting cross‐border alcohol purchases increased (from 8.5% to 12.5% overall; prevalence ratio [PR] = 1.47 [95% CI 1.17–1.86]). This was largely driven by an increase in cross‐border purchases abroad (PR = 1.52 [1.13–2.05]), with a smaller, uncertain increase in cross‐border purchases within GB (PR = 1.37 [0.96–1.95]). The prevalence of cross‐border alcohol purchasing was higher in Wales (13.8% [12.3–15.4%]) and Scotland (6.1% [5.4–6.8%]) than England (3.6% [3.3–3.9%]). There was little change in illicit alcohol purchasing in England or Wales (4.1% [3.7–4.4%]; 4.2% [3.2–5.1%]), but in Scotland it fell from 5.7% to 2.4% (PR = 0.42 [0.19–0.81]). Home‐brewed alcohol was rare (GB: 3.1% [2.9–3.4]) and stable. Discussion and Conclusions: The proportion of increasing/higher‐risk drinkers in GB purchasing cross‐border alcohol increased between October 2020 and August 2023, due to an increase in people buying alcohol abroad. Cross‐border alcohol purchases within GB were more commonly reported in Wales and Scotland. The small proportion purchasing illicit alcohol did not change substantially in England or Wales, but fell by half in Scotland. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background and aims Design Setting Participants Measurements Findings Conclusions In March 2024, the UK government announced plans to introduce a Vaping Products Duty that will tax e‐liquids based on their nicotine strength. This study examined trends in the nicotine strength of e‐liquids used by adult vapers and differences in those currently used across relevant subgroups.Nationally‐representative, cross‐sectional household survey, July 2016 to January 2024.Great Britain.7981 adult vapers.Participants were asked whether the e‐cigarette they mainly use contains nicotine (yes/no) and the e‐liquid strength (no nicotine, >0–≤ 6, 7–11, 12–19 or ≥20 mg/ml). We also collected information on the main device type used (disposable/refillable/pod), age, gender, occupational social grade, history of ≥1 mental health conditions, smoking status and (among past‐year smokers) level of cigarette addiction.The proportion of vapers in England using high‐strength (≥20 mg/ml) e‐liquids increased from an average of 3.8% (95% confidence interval [CI] = 2.9–5.0) up to June 2021 to 32.5% (CI = 27.9–37.4) in January 2024 (the vast majority of whom [93.3% in January 2024] reported using exactly 20 mg/ml; the legal limit). This rise was most pronounced among those using disposable e‐cigarettes, those aged 18‐24 years and all smoking statuses (including never smokers) except long‐term (≥1y) ex‐smokers. Of those surveyed in 2022–2024 in Great Britain, overall, 89.5% (CI = 88.1–90.8) said they usually used e‐cigarettes containing nicotine, 8.7% (CI = 7.5–10.0) used nicotine‐free e‐cigarettes, and 1.8% (CI = 1.2–2.4) were unsure. The proportion using ≥20 mg/ml was higher among those mainly using disposable (47.9%) compared with pod (16.3%) or refillable (11.5%) devices; never smokers (36.0%), current smokers (28.8%) or recent (<1y) ex‐smokers (27.4%), compared with long‐term ex‐smokers (13.9%); and younger (16–24y; 44.2%) compared with older (≥25y; range 9.4–25.1%) age groups. There were no notable differences across other subgroups of interest.Use of high‐strength nicotine e‐liquids in England appears to have increased sharply in recent years. Most adult vapers in Great Britain appear to use e‐cigarettes that contain nicotine but different subgroups use different strengths: nicotine strengths tend to be higher among those who mainly use disposable devices and those aged 16–24y, and lower among long‐term ex‐smokers. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Aims, Design and Setting: The aim of this study was to determine which combination(s) of five e-cigarette-orientated intervention components, delivered on-line, affect smoking cessation. An on-line (UK) balanced five-factor (2 x 2 x 2 x 2 x 2 = 32 intervention combinations) randomized factorial design guided by the multi-phase optimization strategy (MOST) was used. Participants: A total of 1214 eligible participants (61% female; 97% white) were recruited via social media. Interventions: The five on-line intervention components designed to help smokers switch to exclusive e-cigarette use were: (1) tailored device selection advice; (2) tailored e-liquid nicotine strength advice; (3): tailored e-liquid flavour advice; (4) brief information on relative harms; and (5) text message (SMS) support. Measurements: The primary outcome was 4-week self-reported complete abstinence at 12 weeks post-randomization. Primary analyses were intention-to-treat (loss to follow-up recorded as smoking). Logistic regressions modelled the three- and two-way interactions and main effects, explored in that order. Findings: In the adjusted model the only significant interaction was a two-way interaction, advice on flavour combined with text message support, which increased the odds of abstinence (odds ratio = 1.55, 95% confidence interval = 1.13-2.14, P = 0.007, Bayes factor = 7.25). There were no main effects of the intervention components. Conclusions: Text-message support with tailored advice on flavour is a promising intervention combination for smokers using an e-cigarette in a quit attempt. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective: The purpose of this systematic review is to assess the efficacy and safety of hydroxyzine for insomnia in adults. Methods: A comprehensive literature search of PubMed, Embase, and CENTRAL databases was conducted to identify relevant published studies through October 2022 using the search terms: hydroxyzine and sleep, insomnia, sleep disorder or sleep initiation and maintenance disorders. Studies identified for review included prospective, interventional designs or cohort trials that reported impact of hydroxyzine on sleep in adults. Animal studies, case reports, non‐English articles, letters to the editor, case studies, and conference abstracts were excluded. Data were extracted using a standardized systematic process. Results: Five articles were identified for inclusion, including 1 open‐label and 4 randomized controlled trials, evaluating a total of 207 patients receiving hydroxyzine 25 mg, 50 mg, or 100 mg at bedtime. Mixed efficacy was demonstrated in the sleep measures of sleep onset, sleep maintenance, and sleep quality. The most common adverse drug effect was dry mouth, although 4 of the 5 studies did not report safety outcomes. Conclusions: The studies in this review suggest hydroxyzine could be considered as a short‐term treatment option for adults with insomnia for whom previous therapy was ineffective, not tolerated, or contraindicated. Additional long‐term studies with an active comparator are needed to further establish its role in insomnia treatment. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Aim: To examine the association of self‐reported COVID‐19 disease status with cutting down, past‐month and past‐year quit attempts and motivation to stop smoking. Design and setting: Repeat cross‐sectional survey, representative of the adult population in England. Participants: Past‐year smokers, n = 3338 (aged ≥ 18 years) responding between May 2020 and April 2021. Measurements: Outcomes were (i) currently cutting down, (ii) having made a quit attempt in the past month, (iii) having made a quit attempt in the past year and (iv) motivation to stop smoking. The explanatory variable was self‐reported COVID‐19 disease status (belief in never versus ever had COVID‐19). Covariates included age, sex, occupational grade, region, children in the household, alcohol use and survey month. Findings Of past‐year smokers, 720 (21.6%) reported past‐COVID‐19 infection and 48 (1.4%) reported current COVID‐19 infection. In adjusted analyses, rates of currently cutting down [adjusted odds ratio (aOR) = 1.12, 95% confidence interval (CI) = 0.93–1.34], past‐year quit attempts (aOR = 0.99, 95% CI = 0.82–1.19) and motivation to stop smoking (aOR = 1.04, 95% CI = 0.89–1.23) were comparable in those who did and did not report ever having had COVID‐19. People who reported ever having had COVID‐19 had 39% higher odds than those without of attempting to quit in the past month, but the confidence interval contained the possibility of no difference (aOR = 1.39, 95% CI = 0.94–2.06) and for some the quit attempt may have occurred before they had COVID‐19. Conclusion: During the first year of the COVID‐19 pandemic in England, rates of reducing smoking and attempting to quit in the past year were similar in smokers who did or did not self‐report ever having had COVID‐19. There was also little difference in motivation to stop smoking between groups. However, causal interpretation is limited by the study design, and there is potential misclassification of the temporal sequence of infection and changes to smoking behaviour. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Aims: To estimate recent trends in the prevalence of disposable e‐cigarette vaping in Great Britain, overall and across ages, and to measure these trends in the context of changes in smoking and vaping prevalence. Design: The Smoking Toolkit Study, a monthly representative cross‐sectional survey. Setting: Great Britain. Participants: A total of 36 876 adults (≥ 18 years) completed telephone interviews between January 2021 and April 2022. Measurements Current e‐cigarette vapers were asked which type of device they mainly use. We estimated age‐specific monthly time trends in the prevalence of current disposable e‐cigarette use among vapers and inhaled nicotine use (vaping/smoking), smoking and vaping among adults. Findings From January 2021 to April 2022, there was an 18‐fold increase in the percentage of vapers who used disposables, rising from 1.2 to 22.2% [prevalence ratio (PR) = 18.0; 95% compatibility interval (CI) = 9.18–49.0]. Growth in disposable e‐cigarette vaping was most pronounced in younger adults (interaction P‐value = 0.013): for example, the percentage of 18‐year‐old vapers using disposables rose from 0.4 to 54.8% (PR = 129; 95% CI = 28.5–4520), while it rose from 2.1 to 10.0% (PR = 4.73; 95% CI = 2.06–23.6) among 45‐year‐old vapers. However, the overall percentage of people currently using any inhaled nicotine remained stable over time both among all adults (20.0 versus 21.2%; PR = 1.06; 95% CI = 0.92–1.22) and among 18‐year‐olds (30.2 versus 29.7%; PR = 0.99; 95% CI = 0.80–1.22). In 18‐year‐olds, vaping prevalence grew (11.3 versus 17.7%; PR = 1.57; 95% CI = 1.12–2.29), and there was imprecise evidence for a decline in smoking (24.5 versus 19.5%; PR = 0.80; 95% CI = 0.63–1.04). In 45‐year‐olds, there was relatively little change in vaping (PR = 1.08; 95% CI = 0.88–1.33) or smoking prevalence (PR = 1.01; 95% CI = 0.88–1.16). Conclusions: Use of disposable e‐cigarettes in Great Britain grew rapidly between 2021 and 2022, especially among younger adults, but the overall prevalence of inhaled nicotine use was stable over time. Most young adult vapers in Great Britain now use disposable products. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article revisits the question of the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on addictive disorders. Topics covered include consumption of opioid, alcohol and cannabis, levels of gambling problem, and mortality rate. It also discusses the need for studies on harms among people who use stimulant drugs and have underlying respiratory or cardiovascular disease, particularly during the pandemic.

Aims: This study aimed to evaluate the impact of announcement of tax increases on factory‐made (FM) and roll‐your own (RYO) cigarettes in England. Design, Setting and Participants: Autoregressive integrated moving average with exogeneous input (ARIMAX) time–series modelling in England, UK. Data were aggregated monthly on 274 890 participants between 2007 and 2019 taking part in the Smoking Toolkit Study (STS). Measurements: The association of sustained step level changes for tax rises for FM cigarettes and temporary pulse effects for tax rises for RYO cigarettes with smoking, quit attempt and quit success prevalence as well as per‐capita self‐reported cigarette consumption and cost per cigarette was assessed. Findings A 10% rise in tax on RYO cigarettes was associated with a temporary 21.1% decline [95% confidence interval (CI) = –30.4 to −10.7] in smoking prevalence, and 20.7% decline (95% CI = –32.4 to −7.0) in per‐capita self‐reported cigarette consumption; while a 3% rise of tax on RYO cigarettes was associated with a temporary 20.7% decline (95% CI = –33.3 to −5.8) in the amount paid per RYO cigarette. For tax increases on FM cigarettes, a 5% above inflation tax rise was associated with a step‐level increase of 33.1% (95% CI = 18.4–49.5) in quit success rates. However, some of the findings were sensitive to model specification and temporally specific. Conclusion: The announcements of tax increases for cigarettes in England between 2010 and 2019 were inconsistently associated with temporary reductions in smoking prevalence, per‐capita self‐reported cigarette consumption and improved quit success. Paradoxically, reductions in the cost for roll‐your‐own cigarettes were also found. The results were not robust in all sensitivity analyses. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

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

Aims: To assess how changes in the prevalence of e‐cigarette use among young adults have been associated with changes in the uptake of smoking in England between 2007 and 2018. Design Time–series analysis of population trends with autoregressive integrated moving average with exogeneous input (ARIMAX models). Setting: England. Participants: Data were aggregated quarterly on young adults aged 16–24 years (n = 37 105) taking part in the Smoking Toolkit Study. Measures: In the primary analysis, prevalence of e‐cigarette use was used to predict prevalence of ever regular smoking among those aged 16–24. Sensitivity analyses stratified the sample into those aged 16–17 and 18–24. Bayes' factors and robustness regions were calculated for non‐significant findings [effect size beta coefficient (B) = 3.1]. Findings There was evidence for no association between the prevalence of e‐cigarette use and ever regular smoking among those aged 16–24 [B = –0.015, 95% confidence interval (CI) = –0.046 to 0.016; P = 0.341; Bayes factor (BF) = 0.002]. Evidence for no association was also found in the stratified analysis among those aged 16–17 (B = 0.070, 95% CI –0.014 to 0.155, P = 0.102; BF = 0.015) and 18–24 (B = –0.021, 95% CI –0.053 to 0.011; P = 0.205; BF = 0.003). These findings were able to rule out percentage point increases or decreases in ever regular smoking prevalence greater than 0.31% or less than −0.03% for 16–17‐year‐olds and 0.01 or −0.08% for 18–24‐year‐olds for every 1%‐point increase in e‐cigarette prevalence. Conclusion: Prevalence of e‐cigarette use among the youth population in England does not appear to be associated with substantial increases or decreases in the prevalence of smoking uptake. Small associations cannot be ruled out. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Introduction: The UK low‐risk drinking guidelines were revised in 2016. Drinkers were primarily informed about the guidelines via news media, but little is known about this coverage. This study investigated the scale and content of print and online textual news media coverage of drinking guidelines in England from February 2014 to October 2017. Methods: We searched the Nexis database and two leading broadcasters' websites (BBC and Sky) for articles mentioning the guidelines. We randomly selected 500 articles to code for reporting date, accuracy, tone, context and purpose of mentioning the guidelines, and among these, thematically analysed 200 randomly selected articles. Results: Articles mentioned the guidelines regularly. Reporting peaked when the guidelines revision was announced (7.4% of articles). The most common type of mention was within health‐ or alcohol‐related articles and neutral in tone (70.8%). The second most common was in articles discussing the guidelines' strengths and weaknesses, which were typically negative (14.8%). Critics discredited the guidelines' scientific basis by highlighting conflicting evidence and arguing that guideline developers acted politically. They also questioned the ethics of limiting personal autonomy to improve public health. Criticisms were partially facilitated by announcing the guidelines alongside a 'no safe level of drinking' message, and wider discourse misrepresenting the guidelines as rules, and highlighting apparent inconsistencies with standalone scientific papers and international guidelines. Discussion and Conclusions: News media generally covered drinking guidelines in a neutral and accurate manner, but in‐depth coverage was often negative and sought to discredit the guidelines using scientific and ethical arguments. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: The lack of an agreed international minimum approach to measuring cannabis use hinders the integration of multidisciplinary evidence on the psychosocial, neurocognitive, clinical and public health consequences of cannabis use. Methods: A group of 25 international expert cannabis researchers convened to discuss a multidisciplinary framework for minimum standards to measure cannabis use globally in diverse settings. Results: The expert‐based consensus agreed upon a three‐layered hierarchical framework. Each layer—universal measures, detailed self‐report and biological measures—reflected different research priorities and minimum standards, costs and ease of implementation. Additional work is needed to develop valid and precise assessments. Conclusions: Consistent use of the proposed framework across research, public health, clinical practice and medical settings would facilitate harmonisation of international evidence on cannabis consumption, related harms and approaches to their mitigation. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background and Aims: Lapse risk when trying to stop or reduce harmful substance use is idiosyncratic, dynamic and multi‐factorial. Just‐in‐time adaptive interventions (JITAIs) aim to deliver tailored support at moments of need or opportunity. We aimed to synthesize evidence on decision points, tailoring variables, intervention options, decision rules, study designs, user engagement and effectiveness of technology‐mediated JITAIs for reducing harmful substance use. Methods: Systematic review of empirical studies of any design with a narrative synthesis. We searched Ovid MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO, Web of Science, the ACM Digital Library, the IEEE Digital Library, ClinicalTrials.gov, the ISRCTN register and dblp using terms related to substance use/mHealth/JITAIs. Outcomes were user engagement and intervention effectiveness. Study quality was assessed with the mHealth Evidence Reporting and Assessment checklist. Findings We included 17 reports of 14 unique studies, including two randomized controlled trials. JITAIs targeted alcohol (S = 7, n = 120 520), tobacco (S = 4, n = 187), cannabis (S = 2, n = 97) and a combination of alcohol and illicit substance use (S = 1, n = 63), and primarily relied on active measurement and static (i.e. time‐invariant) decision rules to deliver support tailored to micro‐scale changes in mood or urges. Two studies used data from prior participants and four drew upon theory to devise decision rules. Engagement with available JITAIs was moderate‐to‐high and evidence of effectiveness was mixed. Due to substantial heterogeneity in study designs and outcome variables assessed, no meta‐analysis was performed. Many studies reported insufficient detail on JITAI infrastructure, content, development costs and data security. Conclusions: Current implementations of just‐in‐time adaptive interventions (JITAIs) for reducing harmful substance use rely on active measurement and static decision rules to deliver support tailored to micro‐scale changes in mood or urges. Studies on JITAI effectiveness are lacking. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background and Aims: The three-question Alcohol Use Disorders Identification Test (AUDIT-C) is frequently used in healthcare for screening and brief advice about levels of alcohol consumption. AUDIT-C scores (0-12) provide feedback as categories of risk rather than estimates of actual alcohol intake, an important metric for behaviour change. The study aimed to (i) develop a continuous metric from the Extended AUDIT-C expressed in United Kingdom (UK) units (8 g pure ethanol), offering equivalent accuracy, and providing a direct estimator of weekly alcohol consumption (EWAC) and (ii) evaluate the EWAC's bias and error using the graduated-frequency (GF) questionnaire as a reference standard of alcohol consumption. Design: Cross-sectional diagnostic study based on a nationally-representative survey. Settings: Community dwelling households in England. Participants: A total of 22 404 household residents aged =16 years reporting drinking alcohol at least occasionally. Measurements: Computer-assisted personal interviews consisting of (i) AUDIT questionnaire with extended response items (the 'Extended AUDIT') and (ii) GF. Primary outcomes were: mean deviation <1 UK unit (metric of bias); root-mean-square deviation <2 UK units (metric of total error) between EWAC and GF. The secondary outcome was the receiver operating characteristic area under the curve for predicting alcohol consumption in excess of 14 and 35 UK units. Findings: EWAC had a positive bias of 0.2 UK units (95% CI = 0.08, 0.4) compared with GF. Deviations were skewed: whereas the mean error was 11 UK units/week [9.5, 11.9], in half of participants the deviation between EWAC and GF was between 0 and 2.1 UK units/week. EWAC predicted consumption in excess of 14 UK units/week with a significantly greater area under the curve (0.918 [0.914, 0.923]) than AUDIT-C (0.870 [0.864, 0.876]) or the full AUDIT (0.854 [0.847, 0.860]). Conclusions: A new estimator of weekly alcohol consumption, which uses answers to the Extended AUDIT-C, meets the targeted bias tolerance. It is superior in accuracy to AUDIT-C and the full 10-item AUDIT when predicting consumption thresholds, making it a reliable complement to the Extended AUDIT-C for health promotion interventions. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Aim: To estimate changes in smoking, drinking and quitting behaviour from before to during the first COVID-19 lockdown in England, and whether changes differed by age, sex or social grade. Design: Representative cross-sectional surveys of adults, collected monthly between August 2018 and July 2020. Setting: England. Participants: A total of 36 980 adults (= 18 years). Measurements: Independent variables were survey month (pre-lockdown: August-February versus lockdown months: April-July) and year (pandemic: 2019/20 versus comparator: 2018/19). Smoking outcomes were smoking prevalence, cessation, quit attempts, quit success and use of evidence-based or remote cessation support. Drinking outcomes were high-risk drinking prevalence, alcohol reduction attempts and use of evidence-based or remote support. Moderators were age, sex and occupational social grade (ABC1 = more advantaged/C2DE = less advantaged). Findings: Relative to changes during the same time period in 2018/19, lockdown was associated with significant increases in smoking prevalence [+24.7% in 2019/20 versus 0.0% in 2018/19, adjusted odds ratio (aOR) = 1.35, 95% confidence interval (CI) = 1.12-1.63] and quit attempts (+39.9 versus -22.2%, aOR = 2.48, 95% CI = 1.76-3.50) among 18-34-year-olds, but not older groups. Increases in cessation (+156.4 versus -12.5%, aOR = 3.08, 95% CI = 1.86-5.09) and the success rate of quit attempts (+99.2 versus +0.8%, aOR = 2.29, 95% CI = 1.31-3.98) were also observed, and did not differ significantly by age, sex or social grade. Lockdown was associated with a significant increase in high-risk drinking prevalence among all socio-demographic groups (+39.5 versus -7.8%, aOR = 1.80, 95% CI = 1.64-1.98), with particularly high increases among women (aOR = 2.17, 95% CI = 1.87-2.53) and social grades C2DE (aOR = 2.34, 95% CI = 2.00-2.74). Alcohol reduction attempts increased significantly among high-risk drinkers from social grades ABC1 (aOR = 2.31, 95% CI = 1.78-3.00) but not C2DE (aOR = 1.25, 95% CI = 0.83-1.88). There were few significant changes in use of support for smoking cessation or alcohol reduction, although samples were small. Conclusions: In England, the first COVID-19 lockdown was associated with increased smoking prevalence among younger adults and increased high-risk drinking prevalence among all adults. Smoking cessation activity also increased: more younger smokers made quit attempts during lockdown and more smokers quit successfully. Socio-economic disparities in drinking behaviour were evident: high-risk drinking increased by more among women and those from less advantaged social grades (C2DE), but the rate of reduction attempts increased only among the more advantaged social grades (ABC1). [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Aims: To estimate the associations between regular exposure to smoking by other people and motivation and attempts to quit among current smokers. To examine whether socio‐demographic and other factors moderate these associations. Design A repeat nationally representative cross‐sectional survey. Data were collected monthly between November 2014 and February 2019. Setting: England. Participants: Current smokers ≥16 years of age from the Smoking Toolkit Study (n = 15 136). Measurements Participants were asked whether other people regularly smoke in their presence, how motivated they were to quit and whether they had made a quit attempt in the past year. Moderators assessed were occupation‐based social grade, housing tenure, urges to smoke, high‐risk alcohol consumption, and disability. Adjusted analyses included moderators, socio‐demographic (age/sex/ethnicity/sexual orientation/marital status/children in household) and seasonal (quarter/year) confounders. Findings Current smokers who were regularly exposed to other people smoking in their presence were less likely to be highly motivated to quit (OR = 0.88 [95% CI 0.80–0.97]), but were no less likely to have made a quit attempt in the past year (OR 1.04 [0.97–1.13], Bayes Factor (BF) = 0.05). The inverse relationship between regular smoking exposure and motivation to quit was moderated by urges to smoke, such that exposure was only associated with a reduction in motivation among those without strong urges to smoke (OR 0.83 [0.75–0.93] versus OR 1.04 [0.86–1.26]; P = 0.048). None of the other factors significantly moderated the association with motivation to quit, and none moderated the relationship between regular smoking exposure and quit attempts. All non‐significant interactions, except social grade (BF = 1.44) with quit attempts, had Bayes Factors that supported the hypothesis of no moderation (BF range: 0.12–0.21). Conclusions: Among current smokers in England, regular exposure to other smokers appears to be associated with lower motivation to quit in people without strong urges to smoke, yet there appears to be no association with quit attempts in the previous year. Social grade, housing tenure, high‐risk alcohol consumption and disability do not moderate these associations. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background and aims: The National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) has called for research into tobacco harm reduction across ethnicities, genders and socio‐economic status. Although there is increasing research focused on the latter two, relatively few studies have considered ethnic variations. Therefore this study aimed to assess (i) the association between ethnicity and use of e‐cigarettes and nicotine replacement therapy (NRT) for temporary abstinence and cutting down, and (ii) trends in prevalence of these over time. Design Repeated cross‐sectional household survey. Setting: England. Participants: Between April 2013 and September 2019, data were collected on 24 114 smokers, 16+ of age, taking part in the Smoking Toolkit Study (STS). Measurements Ethnicity coding included: White, mixed/multiple ethnic group, Asian, Black and Arab/other ethnic group. Smokers reported whether they were currently using e‐cigarettes and/or NRT for cutting down or during periods of temporary abstinence. Findings Odds of e‐cigarette use for cutting down and temporary abstinence were significantly lower among those of Asian ethnicity (OR = 0.79, 95% CI = 0.66–0.93) and Arab/other ethnicity (OR = 0.58, 95% CI = 0.40–0.83) compared with White ethnicity. Those of mixed/multiple ethnicity had higher odds for NRT us (OR = 1.42, 95% CI = 1.04–1.94) compared with those of White ethnicity. Trend analysis indicated that for White ethnicity, e‐cigarette use by smokers for cutting down and temporary abstinence followed an 'inverse S' shaped cubic curve indicating an overall rise, whereas NRT use followed an 'S' shaped cubic curve, indicating an overall decline. For mixed/multiple ethnicity a similar trend was found for NRT use only, with other ethnicities showing no statistically significant trends (suggesting relative stability over time). Conclusions: In England, e‐cigarette use by smokers for cutting down and temporary abstinence is less common among Asian and Arab/other ethnicity smokers compared with White smokers. Smokers of mixed/multiple ethnicity are the most likely to be using NRT compared with other ethnic groups for cutting down and temporary abstinence. E‐cigarette use by smokers for cutting down and temporary abstinence has increased over time among White smokers, whereas prevalence in other ethnic groups has remained stable. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Introduction: To examine changes in drinking patterns and to assess factors associated with reported increases in frequency of drinking, units consumed and frequency of heavy episodic drinking (HED) during the UK lockdown. Methods: Online cross‐sectional survey of 2777 self‐selected UK adults. Results: Thirty percent of participants reported drinking more frequently in lockdown, 16% reported drinking more units per drinking occasion and 14% reported more frequent HED. For men and women, increased frequency of drinking was associated with being less likely to believe alcohol drinking would lead to greater chance of catching COVID‐19 (men: OR = 0.99, 95% CI = 0.98, 1.00; women: OR = 0.99, 95% CI = 0.99, 1.00) and deterioration in psychological wellbeing (OR = 1.27, 95% CI = 1.04, 1.54; OR = 1.29, 95% CI = 1.11, 1.51); increased unit consumption was associated with deterioration in financial situation (OR = 1.50, 95% CI = 1.21, 1.86; OR = 1.31, 95% CI = 1.05, 1.64) and physical health (OR = 1.31, 95% CI = 1.03, 1.67; OR = 1.66, 95% CI = 1.31, 2.10). Finally, increases in the frequency of HED were associated with deterioration in psychological wellbeing (OR = 1.65, 95% CI = 1.25, 2.18; OR = 1.46, 95% CI = 1.17, 1.82) and being furloughed (OR = 3.25, 95% CI = 1.80, 5.86; OR = 2.06, 95% CI = 1.19, 3.56). Other gender differences were detected, for example, living with children was associated with an increase in units consumed (OR = 1.72, 95% CI = 1.09, 2.73) and the frequency of HED (OR = 2.40, 95% CI = 1.44, 3.99) for men, but not women. Discussion and Conclusions: In this self‐selected UK sample, a significant proportion of individuals reported drinking more frequently in lockdown, drinking more units per drinking occasion and more frequent HED. There were consistent predictors of increased consumption across men and women, but other gender differences were detected. This study identifies groups that may require targeted support in future lockdowns. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objectives: Geriatric depression is common and is often associated with coexisting medical illnesses, cognitive dysfunction, or both. Treatment with pharmacotherapy is usually required, and many patients may not respond to initial therapy. Thus, there is a need for adjunctive treatment options. The objective of this systematic review is to assess the efficacy and safety of methylphenidate (MPH) in the treatment of geriatric depression. Methods: PubMed (1946–December 2020) and Embase (1947–December 2020) were queried using the following search terms: geriatrics, aged, geriatric patient, or elderly and depressive disorder, depression, major depression or late‐life depression, and MPH. Studies were included if they were a randomized‐controlled trial or open‐label trial that investigated use of MPH for treatment of depression in adults aged 60 years and older. Results: After screening per the inclusion criteria, five prospective trials were included. All studies found improvement in depressive symptoms with use of MPH or MPH combined with citalopram. Study durations ranged from 8 to 16 weeks and MPH dosing ranged from 5 to 90 mg per day. Conclusions: Based on the reviewed literature, MPH appears to be most effective when combined with citalopram and used short‐term. MPH should be initiated at a low dose and titrated up to 10 or 20 mg per day based on response. Larger, long‐term trials are needed to further define the role of MPH in this population. Key points: Adjunctive treatment for geriatric depression is often requiredMethylphenidate (MPH) has been used for treatment of geriatric depression, but available evidence is limitedMPH appears to be most effective combined with citalopram and used short‐term [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective: The purpose of this systematic review is to assess the efficacy and safety of memantine for the prophylactic treatment of episodic migraine. Background: Migraine is a prevalent chronic disease with significant costs to the health care system. Although various prophylactic treatment options are available, these medications have limitations based on efficacy, potential side effects, and patient preference. Memantine is an N‐methyl‐d‐aspartate receptor antagonist used in dementia treatment that may have potential benefit for migraine prophylaxis. Methods: A systematic search of PubMed, Embase, and CENTRAL databases was conducted to identify relevant published studies through December 2020 using the search terms: migraine disorders, migraine, headache disorders, or headache and memantine. Studies selected for the systematic review included prospective, interventional designs and evaluated memantine for prophylaxis of migraine. Animal studies, case reports, abstracts, review articles, protocols without results, and studies not written in English were excluded. Data were extracted using a standardized systematic process and included author, publication date, study design, sample size, patient characteristics, treatment regimen, clinical efficacy outcomes, and adverse drug effects. Results: Four articles were identified for inclusion representing two prospective open‐label studies and two randomized, double‐blind trials, evaluating 183 patients on memantine overall. A reduction in number of migraine days and headache severity were shown in all four studies in the participants treated with memantine. The most common adverse effects included somnolence, sedation, and nausea, none of which were severe. Conclusion: The studies in this review establish that memantine has the potential for use as a treatment option for episodic migraine. Additional long‐term studies using an active comparator would be useful to further elucidate its role. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Aims: To establish the number of smokers in England who would be targeted by increasing the age of sale of cigarettes from 18 to 21 years and to assess the smoking and socio‐demographic profile of those smokers. Design and setting: Nationally representative cross‐sectional survey of adults in England conducted between January 2009 and July 2019. Participants: A total of 219 720 adults. Measurements All participants reported their current smoking status and socio‐demographic characteristics (i.e. age, gender, home ownership, social grade and ethnicity). Smokers reported motivation to quit, urges to smoke and the Heaviness of Smoking Index (HIS). Weighted prevalence statistics were calculated. Multinomial regression and logistic regression were used to assess differences in smoking characteristics among smokers and socio‐demographic characteristics relative to non‐smokers. Findings The prevalence of smoking between January 2009 and July 2019 was highest among those aged 21–30. In 2019, 15.6% [95% confidence interval (CI) = 12.8–18.8%] of 18–20‐year‐olds reported smoking, which is estimated to represent 364 000 individuals in England. Relative to smokers aged 18–20, older smokers (aged 21+) had a higher motivation to quit smoking [odds ratios (ORs) = 1.40–1.45 range] and higher nicotine dependency as measured by urges to smoke (ORs = 1.06–1.24 range) and HSI (ORs = 1.05–2.85 range). Compared with non‐smokers aged 18–20, smokers in this age group had lower odds of being female (OR = 0.89) and higher odds of being of white ethnicity (OR = 2.78) and from social grades C1–E (lower social grades) compared with AB (higher social grades) (OR = 1.19–1.83 range). Conclusion: Increasing the age of sale of cigarettes to 21 years in England would currently target approximately 364 000 lower dependent smokers from more disadvantaged backgrounds aged 18–20, who have less motivation to quit. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background and Aims: There are concerns that national population‐based estimates of illicit drug use are underestimated. We investigated this by comparing estimates of illicit substance use at age 24 from the Crime Survey for England and Wales (CSEW) with a birth cohort (Avon Longitudinal Study of Parents and Children, ALSPAC) and by comparing the Smoking and Alcohol Toolkit Studies (STS/ATS) to ALSPAC. Design Cross‐sectional household survey and cross‐sectional data from one wave of a longitudinal birth cohort. Setting: England and Wales. Participants: Young adults aged 23–25 reporting on substance use in 2017 to CSEW (n = 1165), ALSPAC (n = 3389) and STS/ATS (n = 950). Measurements Lifetime and past‐year illicit drug use, smoking status and hazardous drinking at age 24. Findings The 2017 CSEW estimate of lifetime illicit drug use was 40.6%, compared with 62.8% in ALSPAC (risk difference % [RD%] = 22.2%; 95% CI = 18.9–25.5%; P ≤ 0.001). The RD in lifetime use between ALSPAC and the CSEW was 23.2% (95% CI = 20.0–26.4%) for cannabis, 16.9% (95% CI = 14.4–19.4%) for powder cocaine and 24.8% (95% CI = 22.6–27.0%) for amphetamine. Past‐year drug use was 16.4% in CSEW, compared with 36.7% in ALSPAC (RD% = 20.3%; 95% CI = 17.6–23.0%; P ≤ 0.001). For past‐year substance use, the RD between ALSPAC and the CSEW was 15.4% (95% CI = 12.9–17.9%) for cannabis, 14.8% (95% CI = 13.0%–16.6%) for powder cocaine and 15.9% (95% CI = 14.5–17.4%) for amphetamine. Levels of current smoking were similar between STS (27.4%) and ALSPAC (29.4%). Hazardous drinking was substantially higher in ALSPAC (60.3%) than the ATS (32.1%; RD% = 28.2%; 95% CI = 24.8–31.6%; P ≤ 0.001). Conclusions: The Avon Longitudinal Study of Parents and Children provides one source of validation for measurements of drug use in government household surveys and indicates that illicit drug use may be underestimated in the Crime Survey for England and Wales. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background and Aim: There have been substantial recent changes in youth tobacco product use in the United States—including, notably, a rapid increase in use of e‐cigarettes. It is not known whether, and if so how far, these changes are reflected in levels of nicotine dependence. This study used data from a large, nationally representative sample of US adolescents to (i) estimate the annual prevalence of nicotine dependence in relation to current use of tobacco products, (ii) describe trends in dependence over time and (iii) evaluate whether the increase in youth use of tobacco products has been paralleled by a similar increase in the population burden of nicotine dependence. Design Secondary analysis of National Youth Tobacco Surveys conducted annually, 2012–19. Setting: United States. Participants: A total of 86 902 high school students. Measurements Prevalence of (i) strong cravings to use tobacco in the past 30 days and (ii) wanting to use nicotine products within 30 minutes of waking, in relation to type of product used (cigarettes, other combustible tobacco, smokeless tobacco, e‐cigarettes). Findings Between 2012 and 2019 there was a marked decline in past 30‐day cigarette smoking and a surge in use of e‐cigarettes. Different products were associated with differing levels of nicotine dependence, with cigarettes characterized by highest dependence (strong craving 42.3%; wanting to use within 30 minutes 16.8% among exclusive users in 2019) and e‐cigarettes in otherwise tobacco‐naive students by low dependence (16.1 and 8.8% respectively in 2019). The overall 33.8% increase in population use of nicotine products between 2012 and 2019 (from 23.2 to 31.2%) was not accompanied by an equivalent increase in overall population burden of dependence {percentage reporting craving 10.9% [95% confidence interval (CI) = 9.8–12.2%] in 2012 and 9.5% (95% CI = 7.5–12.0%) in 2019; wanting to use within 30 minutes 4.7% (95% CI = 4.0–5.5%) in 2012, 5.4% (95% CI = 4.0–7.2%) in 2019}. Conclusions: Among US high school students, increases in the prevalence of nicotine product use from 2012 to 2019 do not appear to have been accompanied by a similar increase in the population burden of nicotine dependence. This may be at least partly attributable to a shift in the most common product of choice from cigarettes (on which users are most dependent) to e‐cigarettes (on which users are least dependent). [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Introduction Method Results Discussion and Conclusions The impact of alcohol‐free and low‐alcohol (no/lo) drinks on public health and health inequalities depends on who consumes them and how they are consumed. This study aimed to estimate: (i) the proportions of adults in Great Britain who consume no/lo drinks at different frequencies and in different settings; and (ii) the associations between no/lo drink consumption and individual characteristics.Pooled data (N = 7691) from four waves of a repeat cross‐sectional survey on alcohol use completed in 2022–2023 by adults (16+) resident in Great Britain were analysed using descriptive statistics and logistic regression models.In all, 31.3% of adults reported ever consuming no/lo drinks and 9.8% reported drinking them weekly. Ever consumption of no/lo drinks was associated with: being an increasing risk drinker of alcohol relative to not drinking (ORadj: 3.96, 95% CI 3.27–4.80), being aged 16–24 compared with 65+ (ORadj:1.29, 95% CI 1.07–1.57), having previously smoked compared with having never smoked (ORadj:1.19, 95% CI 1.05–1.34) and living in a rural rather than urban area (ORadj:1.14, 95% CI 1.00–1.29). It was less likely among those in lower social grades or with lower educational qualifications; those living in Yorkshire and the Humber, and Scotland, compared with the South‐East of England; and those using nicotine products.A third of adults in Great Britain have consumed no/lo drinks and approximately one in 10 do so weekly. Consumption is more common among riskier drinkers of alcohol and among more advantaged social groups, which may contribute to the sustaining or widening of health inequalities. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background and aims: E‐cigarettes may potentially help young adult smokers to quit smoking, yet little is known about differences among socio‐economic groups. We examined associations between key socio‐economic characteristics and e‐cigarette use among recent former smokers and current smokers in a sample of young adults in England. Design, setting, participants and measurements: We used data on 346 recent former regular (daily for 12+ months) smokers and 1913 current smokers from the ages 25–26 wave of the Next Steps cohort study (2015–2016). In multinomial logistic regression, we estimated relative risk ratios (RRR) of e‐cigarette use (never, former, non‐daily, daily) by educational attainment, social class [using the National Statistics Socio‐economic classification (NS‐SEC)] and employment status [full‐time, part‐time, unemployed and other 'inactivity' (e.g. stay‐at‐home parents and permanantly disabled)], adjusting for sex. Findings Among recent former regular smokers, there were no patterns of association between socio‐economic characteristics and e‐cigarette use. Among current smokers: (1) compared with higher occupation (NS‐SEC I/II), intermediate occupation (NS‐SEC III/IV) was positively associated with non‐daily e‐cigarette use [RRR = 1.77, 95% confidence interval (CI) = 1.03–3.03]; (2) compared with full‐time employment, unemployment was negatively associated with non‐daily and daily e‐cigarette use (RRR = 0.38, 95% CI = 0.18–0.81; RRR = 0.12, 95% CI = 0.02–0.56) and other economic inactivity was negatively associated with daily e‐cigarette use (RRR = 0.39, 95% CI = 0.16–0.93). Conclusions: Among young adult smokers in England, lower‐status occupational groups were more likely to use e‐cigarettes on a non‐daily basis than to have never used compared with higher status occupational groups. Compared with people in full‐time employment, those without employment were less likely to use e‐cigarettes daily than to have never used. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background and aim: National social marketing campaigns have been shown to promote smoking cessation in England. There is reason to believe that regional and city‐wide campaigns can play a valuable role in reducing smoking prevalence over and above any national tobacco control activity. This study aimed to assess the impact of the London Smoking Cessation Transformation Programme, a multi‐component citywide smoking cessation programme, on quit attempts and quit success rates. Design and Setting: Interrupted time–series analyses, using Autoregressive Integrated Moving Average (ARIMA) and generalized additive models (GAM) of population trends in the difference between monthly quit attempts and quit success rates among smokers who made a quit attempt in London versus the rest of England before and during the first year of the programme. Participants: A total of 55 528 past‐year adult smokers who participated in a monthly series of nationally representative cross‐sectional surveys in England between November 2006 and August 2018. Twelve and a half per cent of smokers lived in London (intervention region) and 87.5% lived in the rest of England (control region). Measurements Monthly prevalence of quit attempts and quit success rates among smokers who made a quit attempt. Findings The monthly difference in prevalence of quit attempts in London compared with the rest of England increased by 9.59% [95% confidence interval (CI) = 4.35–14.83, P < 0.001] from a mean of 0.04% pre‐intervention to 9.63% post‐intervention. The observed increase in success rates among those who tried was not statistically significant (B = 4.72; 95% CI = –2.68 to 12.11, P = 0.21); Bayes factors indicated that these data were insensitive. GAM analyses confirmed these results. Conclusion: The promotion of the London Smoking Cessation Transformation Programme during September 2017 was associated with a significant increase in quit attempts compared with the rest of England. The results were inconclusive regarding an effect on quit success among those who tried. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Aims: To estimate the association of smoking status with rates of (i) infection, (ii) hospitalization, (iii) disease severity and (iv) mortality from SARS‐CoV‐2/COVID‐19 disease. Design Living rapid review of observational and experimental studies with random‐effects hierarchical Bayesian meta‐analyses. Published articles and pre‐prints were identified via MEDLINE and medRxiv. Setting: Community or hospital, no restrictions on location. Participants: Adults who received a SARS‐CoV‐2 test or a COVID‐19 diagnosis. Measurements Outcomes were SARS‐CoV‐2 infection, hospitalization, disease severity and mortality stratified by smoking status. Study quality was assessed (i.e. 'good', 'fair' and 'poor'). Findings Version 7 (searches up to 25 August 2020) included 233 studies with 32 'good' and 'fair' quality studies included in meta‐analyses. Fifty‐seven studies (24.5%) reported current, former and never smoking status. Recorded smoking prevalence among people with COVID‐19 was generally lower than national prevalence. Current compared with never smokers were at reduced risk of SARS‐CoV‐2 infection [relative risk (RR) = 0.74, 95% credible interval (CrI) = 0.58–0.93, τ = 0.41]. Data for former smokers were inconclusive (RR = 1.05, 95% CrI = 0.95–1.17, τ = 0.17), but favoured there being no important association (21% probability of RR ≥ 1.1). Former compared with never smokers were at somewhat increased risk of hospitalization (RR = 1.20, CrI = 1.03–1.44, τ = 0.17), greater disease severity (RR = 1.52, CrI = 1.13–2.07, τ = 0.29) and mortality (RR = 1.39, 95% CrI = 1.09–1.87, τ = 0.27). Data for current smokers were inconclusive (RR = 1.06, CrI = 0.82–1.35, τ = 0.27; RR = 1.25, CrI = 0.85–1.93, τ = 0.34; RR = 1.22, 95% CrI = 0.78–1.94, τ = 0.49, respectively), but favoured there being no important associations with hospitalization and mortality (35% and 70% probability of RR ≥ 1.1, respectively) and a small but important association with disease severity (79% probability of RR ≥ 1.1). Conclusions: Compared with never smokers, current smokers appear to be at reduced risk of SARS‐CoV‐2 infection, while former smokers appear to be at increased risk of hospitalization, increased disease severity and mortality from COVID‐19. However, it is uncertain whether these associations are causal. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Aim: To examine changes in smoking, drinking and quitting/reduction behaviour following the COVID‐19 lockdown in England. Design/setting Monthly cross‐sectional surveys representative of the adult population in England, aggregated before (April 2019–February 2020) versus after (April 2020) lockdown. Participants: A total of 20 558 adults (≥ 16 years). Measurements The independent variable was the timing of the COVID‐19 lockdown (before versus after March 2020). Dependent variables were: prevalence of smoking and high‐risk drinking, past‐year cessation and quit attempts (among past‐year smokers), past‐year attempts to reduce alcohol consumption (among high‐risk drinkers) and use of evidence‐based (e.g. prescription medication/face‐to‐face behavioural support) and remote support [telephone support/websites/applications (apps)] for smoking cessation and alcohol reduction (among smokers/high‐risk drinkers who made a quit/reduction attempt). Covariates included age, sex, social grade, region and level of nicotine and alcohol dependence (as relevant). Findings The COVID‐19 lockdown was not associated with a significant change in smoking prevalence [17.0% (after) versus 15.9% (before), odds ratio (OR) = 1.09, 95% CI = 0.95–1.24], but was associated with increases in quit attempts [39.6 versus 29.1%, adjusted odds ratio (ORadj) = 1.56, 95% CI = 1.23–1.98], quit success (21.3 versus 13.9%, ORadj = 2.01, 95% CI = 1.22–3.33) and cessation (8.8 versus 4.1%, ORadj = 2.63, 95% CI = 1.69–4.09) among past‐year smokers. Among smokers who tried to quit, there was no significant change in use of evidence‐based support (50.0 versus 51.5%, ORadj = 1.10, 95% CI = 0.72–1.68) but use of remote support increased (10.9 versus 2.7%, ORadj = 3.59, 95% CI = 1.56–8.23). Lockdown was associated with increases in high‐risk drinking (38.3 versus 25.1%, OR = 1.85, CI = 1.67–2.06), but also alcohol reduction attempts by high‐risk drinkers (28.5 versus 15.3%, ORadj = 2.16, 95% CI = 1.77–2.64). Among high‐risk drinkers who made a reduction attempt, use of evidence‐based support decreased (1.2 versus 4.0%, ORadj = 0.23, 95% CI = 0.05–0.97) and there was no significant change in use of remote support (6.9 versus 6.1%, ORadj = 1.32, 95% CI = 0.64–2.75). Conclusions: Following the March 2020 COVID‐19 lockdown, smokers and high‐risk drinkers in England were more likely than before lockdown to report trying to quit smoking or reduce alcohol consumption and rates of smoking cessation and use of remote cessation support were higher. However, high‐risk drinking prevalence increased post‐lockdown and use of evidence‐based support for alcohol reduction by high‐risk drinkers decreased with no compensatory increase in use of remote support. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background and Aims: Whereas the use of nicotine vaping products (NVPs) is widespread, their impact on smoking prevalence is controversial. This study considered the potential impact of NVPs on smoking prevalence in England. Design Indirect simulation model. The England SimSmoke model is validated through 2012, before NVP use became more widely used by smokers. Because information on NVP‐related transitions is limited, an indirect method is used; the difference in observed smoking prevalence (reflecting NVPs) is compared with a 2012–2019 counterfactual No‐NVP scenario (without NVPs) to estimate the impact of NVPs on smoking and smoking‐attributable deaths. Setting: England, 2000–2019. Participants: Nationally representative sample of population. Measurements England's population, mortality rates and smoking prevalence estimates from three national surveys and tobacco control policies. Findings Between 2000 and 2012, SimSmoke projected a decline in age 18+ smoking prevalence of 23.5% in men and 27.0% in women. These projections, as well as those by specific age groups, were generally consistent with findings from the three national surveys. Comparing 2012–2019 relative reduction in age 18+ prevalence from the Annual Population Survey (males, 27.5%) with the model‐predicted No‐NVP reduction (males, 7.3%), the implied NVP‐attributable relative reduction in adult smoking prevalence was 20.2% (95% CI, 18.8%–22.0%) for males and 20.4% (18.7%–22.2%) for females. The NVP‐attributable reduction was 27.2% (22.8%–31.6%) for males and 31.7% (27.4%–36.5%) for females ages 18–24 and 18.6% (15.2%–21.8%) for males and 15.0% (11.1%–18.8%) for females ages 25–34, with similar reductions for ages 35+. The implied reduction in smoking prevalence between 2012 and 2019 equates to 165 660 (132 453–199 501) averted deaths by 2052. Other surveys yielded smaller, but relatively consistent results. Conclusions: An indirect method of simulation modelling indicates that substantial reductions in smoking prevalence occurred in England from 2012–2019 coinciding with the growth in nicotine vaping product use. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Aims: To estimate (1) associations between self‐reported COVID‐19, hand‐washing, smoking status, e‐cigarette use and nicotine replacement therapy (NRT) use and (2) the extent to which COVID‐19 has prompted smoking and vaping quit attempts and more smoking inside the home. Design Cross‐sectional household surveys. Setting and participants: A representative sample of the population in England from April to May 2020. The sample included 3179 adults aged ≥ 18 years. Measurements Participants who reported that they definitely or thought they had coronavirus were classified as having self‐reported COVID‐19. Participants were asked how often they wash their hands after returning home, before preparing foods, before eating or before touching their face. They were also asked whether, due to COVID‐19, they had (i) attempted to quit smoking, (ii) attempted to quit vaping and (iii) changed the amount they smoke inside the home. Findings Odds of self‐reported COVID‐19 were significantly greater among current smokers [20.9%, adjusted odds ratio (aOR) = 1.34, 95% confidence interval (CI) = 1.04–1.73] and long‐term (> 1‐year) ex‐smokers (16.1%, aOR = 1.33, 95% CI = 1.05–1.68) compared with never smokers (14.5%). Recent (< 1‐year) ex‐smokers had non‐significantly greater odds of self‐reported COVID‐19 (22.2%, aOR = 1.50, 95% CI = 0.85–2.53). Bayes factors indicated there was sufficient evidence to rule out large differences in self‐reported COVID‐19 by NRT use and medium differences by e‐cigarette use. With the exception of hand‐washing before face‐touching, engagement in hand‐washing behaviours was high (> 85%), regardless of nicotine use. A minority (12.2%) of quit attempts in the past 3 months were reportedly triggered by COVID‐19, and approximately one in 10 current e‐cigarette users reported attempting to quit vaping because of COVID‐19. Conclusions: In England, current smokers and long‐term ex‐smokers appear to have higher odds of self‐reported COVID‐19 compared with never smokers in adjusted analyses, but there were no large differences between people who used nicotine replacement therapy or e‐cigarettes. Engagement in hand‐washing appears to be high, regardless of nicotine or tobacco use. A minority of past‐year smokers and current e‐cigarette users, respectively, report attempting to quit smoking/vaping due to COVID‐19. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The iCannToolkit is a first important step to systematically gather evidence regarding the health effects of contemporary medical and non-medical cannabis use—over time, among licit and illicit settings, cultures and age groups—in order to inform policy development and to raise awareness concerning cannabis use-related risks and benefits. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Introduction and Aims: We aimed to explore UK‐based Punjabi‐Sikh men's views on: (i) alcohol consumption within the community; (ii) available support for alcohol reduction; and (iii) an evidence‐informed alcohol reduction app. Design and Methods: Semi‐structured interviews and a think aloud method were employed. Participants (n = 15) were male, aged 18–27 years, identified as Punjabi‐Sikh, were hazardous or harmful drinkers (i.e. had an Alcohol Use Disorders Identification Test‐Consumption score of ≥5) and interested in using an app to reduce drinking. Interviews were audio‐recorded, transcribed verbatim and analysed with inductive thematic analysis. Results: Six themes were developed: (i) fear of drinking to cope; (ii) clash between religious and cultural norms (i.e. an internal conflict between important values); (iii) stigmatisation of mental health issues and lack of knowledge as barriers to help seeking; (iv) perceived usefulness of goal setting, monitoring and feedback (i.e. beliefs about the utility of the app's components for reducing drinking); (v) concerns about accessibility of the app within the Punjabi‐Sikh community; and (vi) desire for human support for continued app engagement. Discussion and Conclusions: Among UK‐based, Punjabi‐Sikh men, clashing religious and cultural norms give rise to internal conflict about drinking. Stigmatisation of mental health issues and lack of knowledge of available support leads to reduced help seeking. Respondents believed an evidence‐informed alcohol reduction app could be useful, but were concerned about accessibility within the wider community and wanted an element of human support. The potential for a combination of digital and face‐to‐face support should be explored. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background and Aims: Digital interventions are effective for reducing alcohol consumption but evidence is limited regarding smartphone apps. Drink Less is a theory‐ and evidence‐informed app to help people reduce their alcohol consumption that has been refined in terms of its content and design for usability across the sociodemographic spectrum. We aim to evaluate the effectiveness and cost‐effectiveness of recommending Drink Less at reducing alcohol consumption compared with usual digital care. Design Two‐arm individually randomised controlled trial. Setting: Online trial in the United Kingdom (UK). Participants: Hazardous or harmful drinkers (Alcohol Use Disorders Identification Test [AUDIT] score ≥8) aged 18+ who want to drink less alcohol (n = 5562). Participants will be recruited from July 2020 to May 2022 using multiple strategies with a focus on remote digital methods. Intervention and comparator: Participants will be randomised to receive either an email recommending that they use Drink Less (intervention) or view the National Health Service (NHS) webpage on alcohol advice (comparator). Measurements The primary outcome is change in self‐reported weekly alcohol consumption, assessed using the extended AUDIT‐Consumption, between baseline and 6‐month follow‐up. Secondary outcomes include change in self‐reported weekly alcohol consumption assessed at 1‐ and 3‐month follow‐ups, and the proportion of hazardous drinkers; alcohol‐related problems and injury; health‐related quality of life; and use of health services assessed at 6‐month follow‐up. Effectiveness will be examined with adjusted regression models, adjusting for baseline alcohol consumption and using an intention‐to‐treat approach. A mixed‐methods process evaluation will assess engagement, acceptability and mechanism of action. Economic evaluations will be conducted using both a short‐ and longer‐term time horizon. Comments This study will establish the effectiveness and cost‐effectiveness of the Drink Less app at reducing alcohol consumption among hazardous and harmful adult drinkers and will be the first randomised controlled trial of an alcohol reduction app for the general population in the United Kingdom. This study will inform the decision on whether it is worth investing resources in large‐scale implementation. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background and Aims: Advice from a general practitioner (GP) can encourage smokers to quit. This study aimed to estimate the prevalence and correlates of receipt of GP advice on smoking, what type of advice and support was offered and characteristics and quitting activity associated with different types of advice. Design/setting Data were collected between 2016 and 2019 in a series of monthly cross‐sectional surveys of representative samples of the adult population in England. Participants: A total of 11 588 past‐year smokers. Measurements Participants reported whether they had received advice or offer of support for smoking cessation from their GP in the last year. Socio‐demographic and behavioural characteristics and past‐year quit attempts and cessation were also recorded. Findings One in two [47.2%, 95% confidence interval (CI) = 46.1–48.3%] past‐year smokers who reported visiting their GP in the last year recalled receiving advice on smoking, and one in three (30.1%, 95% CI = 29.1–31.1%) reported being offered cessation support. The most common form of support offered was stop smoking services (16.5%, 95% CI = 15.7–17.3%) followed by prescription medication (8.1%, 95% CI = 7.5–8.7%); 3.7% (95% CI = 3.3–4.1%) reported having been recommended to use e‐cigarettes. Smokers who were older, non‐white, more addicted, and smoked five or more cigarettes/day had consistently higher odds of receiving advice or support. There were some differences by region, housing tenure, presence of children in the home and high‐risk drinking in the types of advice/support received. There were no significant differences by sex, occupational social grade, disability, type of cigarettes smoked, or survey year. Advice with any offer of support was associated with higher odds of attempting to quit than advice alone [adjusted odds ratio (ORadj) = 1.52, 95% CI = 1.30–1.76]. Advice alone was associated with higher odds of quit attempts than no advice in smokers with higher (ORadj = 1.34, 95% CI = 1.10–1.64) but not lower occupational social grade (ORadj = 0.90, 95% CI = 0.75–1.08). Conclusions: In England, a minority of smokers receive support from their GP to stop smoking. Those who do are more likely to be older, non‐white and more addicted to cigarettes. Advice plus offer of support appears to be associated with increased odds of making a quit attempt, while advice without offer of support appears only to be associated with increased odds of making a quit attempt in higher occupational social grade smokers. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background and Aims: Given the costs of alcohol to society, it is important to evaluate whether local alcohol licensing decisions can mitigate the effects of alcohol misuse. Robust natural experiment evaluations of the impact of individual licensing decisions could potentially inform and improve local decision‐making. We aimed to assess whether alcohol licensing decisions could be evaluated at small spatial scale by using a causal inference framework. Design Three natural experiments. Setting and participants: Three English local areas of 1000–15 000 people each. Intervention and comparator: The case study interventions were (i) the closure of a nightclub following reviews; (ii) closure of a restaurant/nightclub following reviews and (iii) implementation of new local licensing guidance (LLG). Trends in outcomes were compared with synthetic counterfactuals created using Bayesian structural time–series. Measurements Time–series data were obtained on emergency department admissions, ambulance call‐outs and alcohol‐related crime at the Lower or Middle Super Output geographical aggregation level. Findings Closure of the nightclub led to temporary 4‐month reductions in antisocial behaviour (−18%; 95% credible interval − 37%, −4%), with no change in other outcomes. Closure of the restaurant/nightclub did not lead to measurable changes in outcomes. The new licensing guidance led to small reductions in drunk and disorderly behaviour (nine of a predicted 21 events averted), and the unplanned end of the LLG coincided with an increase in domestic violence of two incidents per month. Conclusions: The impact of local alcohol policy, even at the level of individual premises, can be evaluated using a causal inference framework. Local government actions such as closure or restriction of alcohol venues and alcohol licensing may have a positive impact on health and crime in the immediate surrounding area. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Aims: To provide up‐to‐date estimates of how changes in the prevalence of electronic cigarette (e‐cigarette) use in England have been associated with changes in smoking cessation activities and daily cigarette consumption among smokers in England. Design Time–series analysis of population trends. Setting: England. Participants: Participants came from the Smoking Toolkit Study, which involves repeated, cross‐sectional household surveys of individuals aged 16 years and older in England. Data were aggregated on approximately 1200 past‐year smokers each quarter (total n = 50 498) between 2007 and 2017. Measurements Prevalence of e‐cigarette use in current smokers was used to predict (a) prevalence of quit attempts among last‐year smokers, (b) overall quit rates among last‐year smokers and (c) mean cigarette consumption per day among current smokers. Prevalence of e‐cigarette use during a quit attempt among last‐year smokers was used to predict (a) quit success rate among last‐year smokers and (b) overall quit rates among last‐year smokers. Findings Overall quit rates increased by 0.054% [95% confidence interval (CI) = 0.032–0.076, P < 0.001] and 0.050% (95% CI = 0.031–0.069, P < 0.001) respectively for every 1% increase in the prevalence of e‐cigarette use by smokers and e‐cigarette use during a quit attempt. Quit success rates increased by 0.060% (95% CI = 0.043–0.078, P < 0.001) for every 1% increase in the prevalence of e‐cigarette use during a quit attempt. No clear evidence was found for an association between e‐cigarette use and either prevalence of quit attempt (BAdj = 0.011, 95% CI = −0.046 to 0.069, P = 0.698) or cigarette consumption (BAdj = 0.019, 95% CI = −0.043 to 0.082, P = 0.542). Conclusion: Changes in prevalence of e‐cigarette use in England have been positively associated with the overall quit rates and quit success rates but not clearly associated with the prevalence of quit attempts and mean cigarette consumption. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Aims: At a time of declining smoking prevalence in England, it is useful to document any changes in the characteristics of smokers. This has implications for targeting tobacco control policies and interventions. This study compared the characteristics of smokers from 2008 to 2017 to assess changes in smoking and quitting patterns and socio‐demographic profile. Design and setting Analysis of annual trends in results from repeated cross‐sectional surveys of representative samples of the population in England from 2008 to 2017. Participants: The study included 208 813 adults aged 16+. Measurements Information was gathered on age, sex, social grade and region, cigarette consumption, cigarette dependence as measured by time to first cigarette of the day, daily smoking, smoking roll‐your‐own cigarettes, attempts to cut down, use of an e‐cigarette or nicotine replacement therapy, attempts to cut down or quit, use of support in quit attempts and whether the quit attempt was abrupt. Findings During the period, mean daily cigarette consumption [B = –0.30, 95% confidence interval (CI) = –0.33 to −0.27] and the time to first cigarette score decreased (B = –0.03, 95% CI = –0.03 to −0.02). The proportion of smokers attempting to cut down or quit decreased (odds ratio (OR) range = 0.96–0.97, 95% CI range = 0.95–0.97). Use of behavioural support [odds ratio (OR) = 0.89, 95% CI = 0.86–0.92] or no support decreased (OR = 0.98, 95% CI = 0.96–0.99), while use of pharmacological support, including e‐cigarettes, increased (OR = 1.04, 95% CI = 1.02–1.05). There was no significant change in the difference in social grade between smokers and non‐smokers comparing 2008 with 2017. Changes in smoking and quitting behaviour were independent of changes in socio‐demographic characteristics. Conclusions: Between 2008 and 2017 in England, smokers appear to have become less dependent on cigarettes but less likely to try to quit or cut down. Of those who tried to quit, fewer used behavioural support and more used pharmacological support. The proportion from more disadvantaged backgrounds did not change significantly. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Introduction: Drug information, medical, and other resources, in the form of textbooks, online databases, and mobile applications (apps), are commonly consulted by health care professionals when providing answers to drug information questions or researching information prior to making recommendations for patient care. Thus, there is a need to train health care professionals on how to identify high‐quality resources to ensure patient safety and improve patient care. Given the variety of different resource types available in contemporary health care settings, a framework that can be universally applied to a variety of different resources is needed. Objective: The primary objective of this paper is to introduce health care professionals to a unified framework for evaluating all types of tertiary health care resources that takes into account practical and contemporary considerations. The A2C2QUIRE framework centers around three main tenets: quality, functionality, and practical considerations, and specifically addresses the following components: Authorship and publisher, Accessibility, Currency of information, Cost and value of materials, Quality of content, Usability and resource design, Intent of the resource, Review process, and Endorsements. Conclusion: The foundational concepts reviewed in this paper provide health care professionals with a unified framework for assessing the quality of various types of resources, while also incorporating practical and contemporary considerations. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Aims: To quantify associations between the success of smoking quit attempts and factors that have varied throughout 2007–2018 at a population level. Design time series analysis using Autoregressive Integrated Moving Average with Exogeneous Input (ARIMAX) modelling. Setting and Participants: Data were aggregated from 54 847 past‐year smokers taking part in the Smoking Toolkit Study which involves monthly repeated cross‐sectional household surveys of individuals aged 16+ in England. Measurements The input series were: (1) attempts at smoking reduction using (a) e‐cigarettes and (b) nicotine replacement therapy (NRT); (2) use during a quit attempt of (a) e‐cigarettes, (b) NRT over‐the‐counter, (c) medication on prescription and (d) face‐to‐face behavioural support; (3) use of roll‐your‐own tobacco; (4) prevalence of (a) smoking and (b) non‐daily smoking; (5) tobacco control mass media expenditure; (6) expenditure on smoking; (7) smoker characteristics in the form of (a) high motivation to quit, (b) average age, (c) socio‐economic status and (d) cigarette consumption; (8) implementation of tobacco control policies; and (9) quit attempt rate. Findings The licensing of NRT for harm reduction was associated with a 0.641% [95% confidence interval (CI) = 0.073–1.209, P = 0.027] increase in the mean point prevalence of the success rate of quit attempts. For every 1% increase in the mean point prevalence of e‐cigarette use and use of prescription medication during a quit attempt, the mean point prevalence of successful quit attempts increased by 0.106% (95% CI = 0.011–0.201, P = 0.029) and 0.143% (95% CI = 0.009–0.279, P = 0.038), respectively. For every 1% increase in the mean expenditure on tobacco control mass media, the mean point prevalence of successful quit attempts increased by 0.046% (95% CI = 0.001–0.092, P = 0.046). Other associations were not statistically significant. Conclusion: In England between 2007 and 2018, licensing of nicotine replacement therapy for use in harm reduction, greater use of e‐cigarettes and prescription medications during a quit attempt and higher expenditure on tobacco control mass media were all associated with higher success rates of quit attempts. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background and Aims: The expense associated with using non‐combustible nicotine products as an alternative to smoking may deter smoking reduction or cessation. This study aimed to estimate (i) how much adults in England spend each week on smoking and alternative nicotine products and (ii) the potential cost saving that could be achieved by switching from smoking to using an alternative nicotine delivery product. Design and Setting: Data came from September to November 2018 waves of the Smoking Toolkit Study, a series of national household surveys of the adult population in England. Participants: A total of 859 adults (aged ≥ 16 years) who reported current smoking or current use of an alternative nicotine product. Measurements Participants reported their average weekly expenditure on smoking and alternative nicotine products [nicotine replacement therapy (NRT) or e‐cigarettes]. Findings Current smokers who did not use any alternative nicotine delivery products (n = 602) reported spending on average £23.09 [95% confidence interval (CI) = £21.64–24.54] on smoking each week. Ex‐smokers who used alternative nicotine products (n = 91) reported spending on average £8.59 (95% CI = £6.80–10.39) on these products each week; £8.03 (95% CI = £6.03–10.03) on e‐cigarettes and £10.05 (95% CI = £5.62–14.47) on NRT. People who both smoked and used alternative nicotine products (dual users, n = 166) spent on average £24.54 (95% CI = £21.78–27.29) on smoking and £7.49 (95% CI = £6.00–8.99) on alternative nicotine products each week. Expenditure on smoking was higher among heavier, more addicted smokers and lower among those with routine/manual occupations, non‐daily smokers and roll‐your‐own tobacco users. Expenditure on e‐cigarettes was higher among men, users from central and southern versus northern England and smokers who had tried to quit in the past year, and lower among current smokers. Expenditure on NRT was lower among roll‐your‐own tobacco users. Conclusions: In England, expenditure among e‐cigarette and nicotine replacement therapy users is approximately one‐third of the expenditure of smokers. The average smoker may save an estimated £15.06 per week by switching completely to e‐cigarettes or £13.04 per week by switching to nicotine replacement therapy, although this is likely to differ according to individual usage patterns. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background and aims: Smartphone applications (apps) hold promise for delivering tobacco smoking cessation support to large numbers of people at low unit cost. Smoke Free is an evidence‐informed, widely used app that is highly rated by users. This study aims to assess its effectiveness compared with no support. Design Two‐arm individually randomized controlled effectiveness trial. Setting: Online trial with no restrictions on location. Participants: English‐speaking smokers aged ≥ 18 years willing to make a quit attempt within 4 weeks from initial contact (n = 4990). Measurements The primary outcome measure is self‐reported 26‐week continuous smoking abstinence. Secondary outcome measures include quit attempts in the first 4 weeks post‐randomization, 12‐week continuous smoking abstinence and 26‐week continuous smoking abstinence among those who made a quit attempt. Comments If it is effective, the Smoke Free smartphone app is an affordable and widely implementable intervention to help smokers to quit. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Time series analyses are statistical methods used to assess trends in repeated measurements taken at regular intervals and their associations with other trends or events, taking account of the temporal structure of such data. Addiction research often involves assessing associations between trends in target variables (e.g. population cigarette smoking prevalence) and predictor variables (e.g. average price of a cigarette), known as a multiple time series design, or interventions or events (e.g. introduction of an indoor smoking ban), known as an interrupted time series design. There are many analytical tools available, each with its own strengths and limitations. This paper provides addiction researchers with an overview of many of the methods available (GLM, GLMM, GLS, GAMM, ARIMA, ARIMAX, VAR, SVAR, VECM) and guidance on when and how they should be used, sample size det ermination, reporting and interpretation. The aim is to provide increased clarity for researchers proposing to undertake these analyses concerning what is likely to be acceptable for publication in journals such as Addiction. Given the large number of choices that need to be made when setting up time series models, the guidance emphasizes the importance of pre‐registering hypotheses and analysis plans before the analyses are undertaken. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background and Aims: Understanding whether and how far smokers' characteristics influence the effectiveness of treatment may be important for tailoring recommendations on cessation aids to those most likely to help the user achieve abstinence. This study aimed to estimate the effectiveness of commonly used smoking cessation aids and test whether their effectiveness differs according to cigarette addiction, socio‐economic status, age or sex. Design Correlational design using cross‐sectional survey data collected monthly between 2006 and 2018. Setting: England. Participants: A total of 18 929 adults (aged ≥ 16 years, 52.0% female) who had smoked within the previous 12 months and had made at least one quit attempt during that period. Measurements The outcome was self‐reported abstinence from quit date to survey. Independent variables were self‐reported use during the most recent quit attempt of: prescription nicotine replacement therapy (NRT), NRT over‐the‐counter, varenicline, bupropion, e‐cigarettes, face‐to‐face behavioural support, telephone support, written self‐help materials, websites and hypnotherapy. Moderators were cigarette addiction, social grade, age and sex. Findings After adjustment for covariates and use of other cessation aids, users of e‐cigarettes [odds ratio (OR) = 1.95, 95% confidence interval (CI) = 1.69–2.24] and varenicline (OR = 1.82, 95% CI = 1.51–2.21) had significantly higher odds of reporting abstinence than those who did not report use of these cessation aids. Use of prescription NRT was associated with increased abstinence in older (≥ 45 years) (OR = 1.58, 95% CI = 1.25–2.00) but not younger (< 45 years) smokers (OR = 1.09, 95% CI = 0.85–1.42). Use of websites was associated with increased abstinence in smokers from lower (OR = 2.20, 95% CI = 1.22–3.98) but not higher social grades (OR = 0.74, 95% CI = 0.40–1.38). There was little evidence of benefits of using other cessation aids. Conclusions: Use of e‐cigarettes and varenicline are associated with higher abstinence rates following a quit attempt in England. Use of prescription of nicotine replacement therapy is also associated with higher abstinence rates, but only in older smokers, and use of websites only in smokers from lower socio‐economic status. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background and aim: It is useful, for theoretical and practical reasons, to be able to specify functions for continuous abstinence over time in smoking cessation attempts. This study aimed to find the best‐fitting models of mean proportion abstinent with different smoking cessation pharmacotherapies up to 52 weeks from the quit date. Methods: We searched the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews to identify randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of pharmacological treatments to aid smoking cessation. For comparability, we selected trials that provided 12 weeks of treatment. Continuous abstinence rates for each treatment at each follow‐up point in trials were extracted along with methodological details of the trial. Data points for each pharmacotherapy at each follow‐up point were aggregated where the total across contributing studies included at least 1000 participants per data point. Continuous abstinence curves were modelled using a range of different functions from the quit date to 52‐week follow‐up. Models were compared for fit using R2 and Bayesian information criterion (BIC). Results: Studies meeting our selection criteria covered three pharmacotherapies [varenicline, nicotine replacement therapy (NRT) and bupropion] and placebo. Power functions provided the best fit (R2 > 0.99, BIC < 17.0) to continuous abstinence curves from the target quit date in all cases except for varenicline, where a logarithmic function described the curve best (R2 = 0.99, BIC = 21.2). At 52 weeks, abstinence rates were 22.5% (23.0% modelled) for varenicline, 16.7% (16.0% modelled) for bupropion, 13.0% (12.4% modelled) for NRT and 8.3% (8.9% modelled) for placebo. For varenicline, bupropion, NRT and placebo, respectively, 55.9, 65.0, 62.3 and 56.5% of participants who were abstinent at the end of treatment were still abstinent at 52 weeks. Conclusions: Mean continuous abstinence rates up to 52 weeks from initiation of smoking cessation attempts in clinical trials can be modelled using simple power functions for placebo, nicotine replacement therapy and bupropion and a logarithmic function for varenicline. This allows accurate prediction of abstinence rates from any time point to any other time point up to 52 weeks. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Aims: To examine smoking prevalence, motivation and attempts to stop smoking, markers of cigarette addiction and success in quit attempts of people living in social housing in England compared with other housing tenures. Design and setting: A large cross‐sectional survey of a representative sample of the English population conducted between January 2015 and October 2017. Participants: A total of 57 522 adults (aged ≥ 16 years). Measurements Main outcomes were smoking status, number of cigarettes per day, time to first cigarette, exposure to smoking by others, motivation to stop smoking, past‐year quit attempts and use of cessation support. Covariates were age, sex, social grade, region and survey year. Findings Adults in social housing had twice the odds of being smokers than those living in other housing types [odds ratio (OR) = 2.09, 95% confidence interval (CI) = 1.98–2.22, P < 0.001]. Smokers in social housing consumed more cigarettes daily (adjusted mean difference = 1.09 cigarettes, 95% CI = 0.72–1.46, P < 0.001) and were more likely to smoke within 30 minutes of waking (OR = 1.63, 95% CI = 1.48–1.79, P < 0.001) than smokers living in other housing types. Prevalence of high motivation to stop smoking was similar across housing types (OR = 1.04, 95% CI = 0.91–1.19, P = 0.553). The prevalence of quit attempts and use of cessation support within the past year were greater in social compared with other housing (OR = 1.14, 95% CI = 1.03–1.26, P = 0.011; OR = 1.30, 95% CI = 1.09–1.54, P = 0.003), but success in quitting was much lower (OR = 0.57, 95% CI = 0.45–0.72, P < 0.001). Conclusions: In England, living in social housing is a major independent risk factor for smoking. These easily identifiable hot‐spots consist of smokers who are at least as motivated to stop as other smokers, but find it more difficult. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background and Aims: E‐cigarettes have the potential either to decrease or increase health inequalities, depending on socio‐economic differences in their use and effectiveness. This paper estimated the associations between socio‐economic status (SES) and e‐cigarette use and examined whether these associations changed between 2014 and 2017. Design A monthly repeat cross‐sectional household survey of adults (16+) between January 2014 and December 2017. This time‐period was chosen given that the prevalence of e‐cigarette use stabilized in England in late 2013. Setting: England. Participants: Participants in the Smoking Toolkit Study, a monthly household survey of smoking and smoking cessation among adults (n = 81 063; mean age = 48.4 years, 49% were women) in England. Subsets included past year smokers (n = 16 232; mean age = 42.8, 46% women), smokers during a quit attempt (n = 5305, mean age = 40.6, 49% women) and long‐term ex‐smokers (n = 13 562, mean age = 59.3, 44% women). Measurements: The outcome measure for the analyses was current e‐cigarette use. We also included smokers during a quit attempt where use of an e‐cigarette during the most recent quit attempt was the outcome measure. Social grade based on occupation was the SES explanatory variable, using the National Readership Survey classification system of AB (higher and intermediate managerial, administrative and professional), C1 (supervisory, clerical and junior managerial, administrative and professional), C2 (skilled manual workers), D (semi‐skilled and unskilled manual workers) and E (state pensioners, casual and lowest‐grade workers, unemployed with state benefits only). The analyses were stratified by year to assess the changes in these associations over time. Findings: Among past‐year smokers, lower SES groups had lower overall odds of e‐cigarette use compared with the highest SES group AB (D: odds ratio = 0.53, 95% confidence interval = 0.40–0.71; E: 0.67, 0.50–0.89). These differences in e‐cigarette use reduced over time. The use of e‐cigarettes during a quit attempt showed no clear temporal or socio‐economic patterns. Among long‐term ex‐smokers, use of e‐cigarettes increased from 2014 to 2017 among all groups and use was more likely in SES groups C2 (2.03, 1.08–3.96) and D (2.29, 1.13–4.70) compared with AB. Conclusions: From 2014 to 2017 in England, e‐cigarette use was greater among smokers from higher compared with lower socio‐economic status (SES) groups, but this difference attenuated over time. Use during a quit attempt was similar throughout SES groups. Use by long‐term ex‐smokers increased over time among all groups and was consistently more common in lower SES groups. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Abstract: Aims: To compare the proportion of people in England with probable alcohol dependence [Alcohol Use Disorders Identification Test (AUDIT) score ≥ 20] with those with other drinking patterns (categorized by AUDIT scores) in terms of motivation to reduce drinking and use of alcohol support resources. Design: A combination of random probability and simple quota sampling to conduct monthly cross‐sectional household computer‐assisted interviews between March 2014 and August 2017. Setting: The general population in all nine regions of England. Participants: Participants in the Alcohol Toolkit Study (ATS), a monthly household survey of alcohol consumption among people aged 16 years and over in England (n = 69 826). The mean age was 47 years [standard deviation (SD) = 18.78; 95% confidence interval (CI) = 46.8–47] and 51% (n = 35 560) were female. Measurements: χ2 tests were used to investigate associations with demographic variables, motivation to quit drinking, attempts to quit drinking, general practitioner (GP) engagement and types of support accessed in the last 12 months across AUDIT risk zones. Findings: A total of 0.6% were classified as people with probable alcohol dependence (95% CI = 0.5–0.7). Motivation to quit (χ2 = 1692.27, P < 0.001), current attempts (χ2 = 473.94, P < 0.001) and past‐year attempts (χ2 = 593.67, P < 0.001) differed by AUDIT risk zone. People with probable dependence were more likely than other ATS participants to have a past‐year attempt to cut down or quit (51.8%) and have received a specialist referral from their GP about drinking (13.7%), and less likely to report no motivation to reduce their drinking (26.2%). Those with probable dependence had higher use of self‐help books and mobile applications (apps) than other ATS participants; however, 27.7% did not access any resources during their most recent attempt to cut down. Conclusions: Adults in England with probable alcohol dependence, measured through the Alcohol Use Disorders Identification Test, demonstrate higher motivation to quit drinking and greater use of both specialist treatment and self‐driven support compared with those in other Alcohol Use Disorders Identification Test zones, but most do not access treatment resources to support their attempts. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]