Search

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

Background: Electronic nicotine delivery systems (ENDSs) are used by some smokers to reduce cigarette consumption, but their effectiveness is uncertain. We aimed to examine the extent to which ENDSs or a non-nicotine cigarette substitute influence tobacco-related toxicant exposure and cigarette consumption in smokers interested in smoking reduction., Methods: We did a four-arm, parallel-group, randomised controlled trial at two sites in the USA (Penn State University, Hershey, PA, and Virginia Commonwealth University, Richmond, VA). We enrolled adults aged 21-65 years who smoked more than nine cigarettes per day (for at least the past year), with exhaled CO of more than 9 parts per million at screening, who were not currently using an ENDS, and who were interested in reducing smoking but not quitting. Participants were randomised (site-specific with allocation concealment; 1:1:1:1) to receive either a cartomiser-based, pen-style ENDS (eGo-style) paired with 0, 8, or 36 mg/mL liquid nicotine (participants and researchers masked to concentration) or a non-ENDS cigarette-shaped plastic tube that delivered no nicotine or aerosol (cigarette substitute; unmasked) for 24 weeks. Conditions were chosen to reflect a range of nicotine delivery including none (cigarette substitute and 0 mg/mL ENDS), low (8 mg/mL), and cigarette-like (36 mg/mL), and all conditions were paired with smoking reduction instructions. The primary outcome was concentration of the tobacco-specific carcinogen metabolite 4-(methylnitrosamino)-1-(3-pyridyl)-1-butanol (NNAL; urinary total) collected at randomisation and at 4, 12, and 24 weeks. Multiple imputation with and without covariate adjustment was used in addition to sensitivity analyses. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02342795., Findings: Between July 22, 2015, and Nov 16, 2017, 684 individuals were screened and 520 (76%) were enrolled and randomised. 188 (36%) of 520 participants were lost to follow-up by week 24; attrition did not differ by study group (39 [30%] of 130 in the cigarette substitute group, 56 [43%] of 130 in the ENDS with 0 mg/mL nicotine group, 49 [38%] of 130 in the ENDS 8 mg/mL group, and 44 [34%] of 130 in the ENDS 36 mg/mL group). Urinary total NNAL at 24 weeks in the ENDS with 36 mg/mL nicotine group was 210·80 pg/mg creatinine (95% CI 163·03-274·42) compared with 346·09 pg/mg creatinine (265·00-455·32) in the cigarette substitute group (p=0·0061). No other significant differences between groups were observed for any time point for urinary total NNAL. Serious adverse event frequency was similar across groups (12 events in 12 participants [9%] in the ENDS with 36 mg/mL nicotine group, seven events in six participants [5%] in the 8 mg/mL group, 11 events in ten participants [8%] in the 0 mg/mL group, and 13 events in 13 participants [10%] in the cigarette substitute group), and all of these were deemed unrelated or unlikely to be related to study product use. There was one death between randomisation and 24 weeks (suicide; in the ENDS with 0 mg/mL nicotine group)., Interpretation: Use of an ENDS with cigarette-like nicotine delivery can reduce exposure to a major pulmonary carcinogen, NNAL, even with concurrent smoking. Future ENDS trials should involve products with well characterised nicotine delivery, including those with nicotine delivery approaching that of a cigarette., Funding: National Institutes of Health, US Food and Drug Administration., Competing Interests: Declaration of interests COC reports grants from National Institute on Drug Abuse and US Food and Drug Administration, during the conduct of the study. JF reports grants from National Institute on Drug Abuse and US Food and Drug Administration, during the conduct of the study, and grants, personal fees, and non-financial support from Pfizer, outside of the submitted work. AAL reports grants from National Institute on Drug Abuse and US Food and Drug Administration, during the conduct of the study. JMY reports grants from National Institute on Drug Abuse and US Food and Drug Administration, during the conduct of the study. LK reports grants from National Institute on Drug Abuse and US Food and Drug Administration, during the conduct of the study. SV reports grants from National Institute on Drug Abuse and US Food and Drug Administration, during the conduct of the study. CB has previously undertaken trials of electronic cigarettes for smoking cessation (with electronic cigarettes purchased from an online retailer [NZVAPOR], electronic cigarette liquid for one trial purchased from Nicopharm, Australia, and nicotine patches supplied by the New Zealand Government via their contract with Novartis [Sydney, Australia]). Neither NZVAPOR nor Nicopharm have links with the tobacco industry. None of these parties had any role in the design, conduct, analysis, or interpretation of the trial findings, or writing of this publication. TE reports grants from National Institute on Drug Abuse and US Food and Drug Administration, during the conduct of the study, and is a paid consultant in litigation against the tobacco industry and also the electronic cigarette industry and is named on one patent for a device that measures the puffing behavior of electronic cigarette users and on another patent for a smartphone application that determines electronic cigarette device and liquid characteristics. M-SY reports grants from the National Institute on Drug Abuse and the US Food and Drug Administration, during the conduct of the study., (Copyright © 2021 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

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

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

Subcutaneous delivery of nicotine was performed using a novel electrically-operated needle-free jet injector, and compared to hypodermic needle delivery in a porcine model. Nicotine was delivered as a single, one-milligram dose into the abdominal skin, formulated as a 50 microliter aqueous solution. Plasma levels of nicotine and cotinine, its main metabolite, were then monitored over 2 h, following which the injection site was excised for histological examination. No irritation or tissue damage were found at the injection sites, and the jet-injected nicotine exhibited comparable absorption into the systemic circulation to that injected using a conventional needle and syringe. The needle-free jet injection of nicotine is a promising and well tolerated method. The data presented from this porcine model will support a first in human trial towards a new promising nicotine replacement therapy., (Copyright © 2019 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.)

Introduction: E-cigarettes have potential to support tobacco cessation or reduction, but how nicotine content affects smokers' subjective perceptions and use of e-cigarettes, rather than tobacco, is unclear., Method: Thirty-five adult daily smokers who had not previously tried e-cigarettes were recruited from two cities in New Zealand in 2016-2017. Smokers were given four e-cigarette cartridges (0, 6, 12, and 18 mg nicotine) in a randomized, blinded order over four 2-week periods. Daily cigarette smoking and e-cigarette use was monitored using ecological momentary analysis and participants completed the modified Cigarette Evaluation Questionnaire after each 2-week period., Results: Mean cigarettes per day decreased by 37% (9.69 to 6.09) when e-cigarettes were available relative to baseline (p = .008). Nicotine-containing cartridges (>0 mg) were associated with greater use (p = .023) and craving reduction (p = .026) than 0 mg. Alleviation of withdrawal symptoms (p = .048) and taste and enjoyment factors (p = .039) predicted e-cigarette use., Conclusion: Availability of e-cigarettes reduced cigarette smoking behavior regardless of nicotine content, and e-cigarette use was greater with nicotine-containing cartridges. First-time users' e-cigarette use can be predicted using subjective ratings and more research is required to clarify the effect of nicotine content on subjective perceptions and use., Implications: For low-moderate dependence smokers, availability of e-cigarettes may reduce cigarette smoking behavior regardless of nicotine content, but the availability of nicotine-containing cartridges may promote greater e-cigarette use. First response to trialing e-cigarettes is an important factor in determining subsequent experimental and possibly longer-term use.

(1) Background: Despite the growing use of e-cigarettes, in most countries, there is no regulation covering manufacturing standards of the solution ('e-liquid'), leading to concerns over the accuracy of labelling and stability of the products under a range of conditions. Following the United States (US) Food and Drug Administration (FDA) requirements for manufacture of e-liquids, we aimed to develop a simple high-performance liquid chromatography (HPLC) method to determine nicotine content in nicotine-containing e-liquids, even in the presence of degradation products; (2) Methods: We developed an HPLC method to quantify nicotine in the presence of the two major constituents of all e-liquids, glycerine and propylene glycol, and in the presence of degradation products; (3) Results: Our HPLC method performed strongly and was validated it according to international guidelines. For the e-liquids tested, nicotine content levels were all higher than labelled (up to 117.9 ± 1.87% of the labelled content). While nicotine was shown to be unstable at 60 °C, it was stabilized at this temperature in the e-liquid formulations for up to 10 days; and (4) Conclusions: The HPLC method is suitable for adoption by laboratories to determine the actual content and stability of nicotine-containing products. The higher than labelled nicotine levels in e-liquids raises clinical and public health concerns.

Context: Use of electronic cigarettes (ECs) is on the rise in most high-income countries. Smoking conventional cigarettes is a known risk factor for urologic malignancy incidence, progression, and mortality, as well as for other urologic health indicators. The potential impact of EC use on urologic health is therefore of clinical interest to the urology community., Objective: To review the available data on current EC use, including potential benefits in urologic patients, potential issues linked to toxicology of EC constituents, and how this might translate into urologic health risks., Evidence Acquisition: A Medline search was carried out in August 2016 for studies reporting urologic health outcomes and EC use. Snowballing techniques were also used to identify relevant studies from recent systematic reviews. A narrative synthesis of data around EC health outcomes, toxicology, and potential use in smoking cessation and health policy was carried out., Evidence Synthesis: We found no studies to date that have been specifically designed to prospectively assess urologic health risks, even in an observational setting. Generating such data would be an important contribution to the debate on the role of ECs in public health and clinical practice. There is evidence from a recent Cochrane review of RCTs that ECs can support smoking cessation. There are emerging data indicating that potentially harmful components of ECs such as tobacco-specific nitrosamines, polyaromatic hydrocarbons, and heavy metals could be linked to possible urologic health risks., Conclusions: ECs might be a useful tool to encourage cessation of conventional cigarette smoking. However, data collection around the specific impact of ECs on urologic health is needed to clarify the possible patient benefits, outcomes, and adverse events., Patient Summary: While electronic cigarettes might help some people to stop smoking, their overall impact on urologic health is not clear., (Copyright © 2017 European Association of Urology. All rights reserved.)

Large reductions in nicotine content could dramatically reduce reinforcement from and dependence on cigarettes. In this article, we summarise the potential benefits of reducing nicotine in combusted tobacco and address some of the common concerns. We focus specifically on New Zealand because it may be ideally situated to implement such a policy. The available data suggest that, in current smokers, very low nicotine content (VLNC) cigarettes decrease nicotine exposure, decrease cigarette dependence, reduce the number of cigarettes smoked per day and increase the likelihood of contemplating, making and succeeding at a quit attempt. New smokers would almost certainly be exposed to far less nicotine as a result of smoking VLNC cigarettes and, consequently, would probably be less likely to become chronic, dependent, smokers. Many of the concerns about reducing nicotine including compensatory smoking, an exacerbation of psychiatric symptoms, the perception that VLNC cigarettes are less harmful, and the potential for a black market are either not supported by the available data, likely mitigated by other factors including the availability of nicotine-containing e-cigarettes, or unlikely to offset the potential benefit to public health. Although not all concerns have been addressed or can be a priori, the magnitude of the potential benefits and the growing evidence of relatively few potential harms should make nicotine reduction one of the centrepieces for discussion of how to rapidly advance tobacco control. Policies that aim to render the most toxic tobacco products less addictive could help New Zealand attain their goal of becoming smokefree by 2025., (Published by the BMJ Publishing Group Limited. For permission to use (where not already granted under a licence) please go to http://www.bmj.com/company/products-services/rights-and-licensing/.)

Background: Placebo-controlled trials indicate that cytisine, a partial agonist that binds the nicotinic acetylcholine receptor and is used for smoking cessation, almost doubles the chances of quitting at 6 months. We investigated whether cytisine was at least as effective as nicotine-replacement therapy in helping smokers to quit., Methods: We conducted a pragmatic, open-label, noninferiority trial in New Zealand in which 1310 adult daily smokers who were motivated to quit and called the national quitline were randomly assigned in a 1:1 ratio to receive cytisine for 25 days or nicotine-replacement therapy for 8 weeks. Cytisine was provided by mail, free of charge, and nicotine-replacement therapy was provided through vouchers for low-cost patches along with gum or lozenges. Low-intensity, telephone-delivered behavioral support was provided to both groups through the quitline. The primary outcome was self-reported continuous abstinence at 1 month., Results: At 1 month, continuous abstinence from smoking was reported for 40% of participants receiving cytisine (264 of 655) and 31% of participants receiving nicotine-replacement therapy (203 of 655), for a difference of 9.3 percentage points (95% confidence interval, 4.2 to 14.5). The effectiveness of cytisine for continuous abstinence was superior to that of nicotine-replacement therapy at 1 week, 2 months, and 6 months. In a prespecified subgroup analysis of the primary outcome, cytisine was superior to nicotine-replacement therapy among women and noninferior among men. Self-reported adverse events over 6 months occurred more frequently in the cytisine group (288 events among 204 participants) than in the group receiving nicotine-replacement therapy (174 events among 134 participants); adverse events were primarily nausea and vomiting and sleep disorders., Conclusions: When combined with brief behavioral support, cytisine was found to be superior to nicotine-replacement therapy in helping smokers quit smoking, but it was associated with a higher frequency of self-reported adverse events. (Funded by the Health Research Council of New Zealand; Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry number, ACTRN12610000590066.).

Electronic cigarettes (e-cigarettes) are novel vaporising devices that, similar to nicotine replacement treatments, deliver nicotine but in lower amounts and less swiftly than tobacco smoking. However, they enjoy far greater popularity than these medications due in part to their behaviour replacement characteristics. Evidence for their efficacy as cessation aids, based on several randomised trials of now obsolete e-cigarettes, suggests a modest effect equivalent to nicotine patch. E-cigarettes are almost certainly far less harmful than tobacco smoking, but the health effects of long-term use are as yet unknown. Dual use is common and almost as harmful as usual smoking unless it leads to quitting. Population effects, such as re-normalising smoking behaviour, are a concern. Clinicians should be knowledgeable about these products. If patients who smoke are unwilling to quit or cannot succeed using evidence-based approaches, e-cigarettes may be an option to be considered after discussing the limitations of current knowledge.

Background: Electronic cigarettes (e-cigarettes) can deliver nicotine and mitigate tobacco withdrawal and are used by many smokers to assist quit attempts. We investigated whether e-cigarettes are more effective than nicotine patches at helping smokers to quit., Methods: We did this pragmatic randomised-controlled superiority trial in Auckland, New Zealand, between Sept 6, 2011, and July 5, 2013. Adult (≥18 years) smokers wanting to quit were randomised (with computerised block randomisation, block size nine, stratified by ethnicity [Māori; Pacific; or non-Māori, non-Pacific], sex [men or women], and level of nicotine dependence [>5 or ≤5 Fagerström test for nicotine dependence]) in a 4:4:1 ratio to 16 mg nicotine e-cigarettes, nicotine patches (21 mg patch, one daily), or placebo e-cigarettes (no nicotine), from 1 week before until 12 weeks after quit day, with low intensity behavioural support via voluntary telephone counselling. The primary outcome was biochemically verified continuous abstinence at 6 months (exhaled breath carbon monoxide measurement <10 ppm). Primary analysis was by intention to treat. This trial is registered with the Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry, number ACTRN12610000866000., Findings: 657 people were randomised (289 to nicotine e-cigarettes, 295 to patches, and 73 to placebo e-cigarettes) and were included in the intention-to-treat analysis. At 6 months, verified abstinence was 7·3% (21 of 289) with nicotine e-cigarettes, 5·8% (17 of 295) with patches, and 4·1% (three of 73) with placebo e-cigarettes (risk difference for nicotine e-cigarette vs patches 1·51 [95% CI -2·49 to 5·51]; for nicotine e-cigarettes vs placebo e-cigarettes 3·16 [95% CI -2·29 to 8·61]). Achievement of abstinence was substantially lower than we anticipated for the power calculation, thus we had insufficient statistical power to conclude superiority of nicotine e-cigarettes to patches or to placebo e-cigarettes. We identified no significant differences in adverse events, with 137 events in the nicotine e-cigarettes group, 119 events in the patches group, and 36 events in the placebo e-cigarettes group. We noted no evidence of an association between adverse events and study product., Interpretation: E-cigarettes, with or without nicotine, were modestly effective at helping smokers to quit, with similar achievement of abstinence as with nicotine patches, and few adverse events. Uncertainty exists about the place of e-cigarettes in tobacco control, and more research is urgently needed to clearly establish their overall benefits and harms at both individual and population levels., Funding: Health Research Council of New Zealand., (Copyright © 2013 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Aim: To determine the combined effect of very low nicotine content (VLNC) cigarettes and usual Quitline care [nicotine replacement therapy (NRT) and behavioural support] on smoking abstinence, in smokers motivated to quit., Design: Single-blind, parallel randomized trial., Setting: New Zealand. PARTICIPANTS Smokers who called the Quitline for quitting support were randomized to either VLNC cigarettes to use whenever they had an urge to smoke for up to 6 weeks after their quit date, in combination with usual Quitline care (8 weeks of NRT patches and/or gum or lozenges, plus behavioural support) or to usual Quitline care alone., Measurements: The primary outcome was 7-day point-prevalence smoking abstinence 6 months after quit day. Secondary outcomes included continuous abstinence, cigarette consumption, withdrawal, self-efficacy, alcohol use, serious adverse events and views on the use of the VLNC cigarettes at 3 and 6 weeks and 3 and 6 months., Findings: A total of 1410 participants were randomized (705 in each arm), with a 24% loss to follow-up at 6 months. Participants in the intervention group were more likely to have quit smoking at 6 months compared to the usual care group [7-day point-prevalence abstinence 33 versus 28%, relative risk (RR) = 1.18, 95% confidence interval (CI): 1.01, 1.39, P = 0.037; continuous abstinence 23 versus 15%, RR = 1.50, 95% CI: 1.20, 1.87, P = 0.0003]. The median time to relapse in the intervention group was 2 months compared to 2 weeks in the usual care group (P < 0.0001)., Conclusions: Addition of very low nicotine content cigarettes to standard Quitline smoking cessation support may help some smokers to become abstinent., (© 2012 Auckland Uni Services Ltd.)

Background: Smokers need effective support to maximise the chances of successful quit attempts. Current smoking cessation medications, such as nicotine replacement therapy (NRT), bupropion, nortriptyline or varenicline, have been shown to be effective in clinical trials but are underused by smokers attempting to quit due to adverse effects, contraindications, low acceptability and/or high cost. Cytisine is a low-cost, plant-based alkaloid that has been sold as a smoking cessation aid in Eastern Europe for 50 years. A systematic review of trial evidence suggests that cytisine has a positive impact on both short- and long-term abstinence rates compared to placebo. However, the quality of the evidence is poor and insufficient for licensing purposes in many Western countries. A large, well-conducted placebo-controlled trial (n = 740) of cytisine for smoking cessation has recently been published and confirms the findings of earlier studies, with 12-month continuous abstinence rates of 8.4% in the cytisine group compared to 2.4% in the placebo group (Relative risk = 3.4, 95% confidence intervals 1.7-7.1). No research has yet been undertaken to determine the effectiveness of cytisine relative to that of NRT., Methods/design: A single-blind, randomised controlled, non-inferiority trial has been designed to determine whether cytisine is at least as effective as NRT in assisting smokers to remain abstinent for at least one month. Participants (n = 1,310) will be recruited through the national telephone-based Quitline service in New Zealand and randomised to receive a standard 25-day course of cytisine tablets (Tabex®) or usual care (eight weeks of NRT patch and/or gum or lozenge). Participants in both study arms will also receive a behavioural support programme comprising an average of three follow-up telephone calls delivered over an eight-week period by Quitline. The primary outcome is continuous abstinence from smoking at one month, defined as not smoking more than five cigarettes since quit date. Outcome data will also be collected at one week, two months and six months post-quit date., Discussion: Cytisine appears to be effective compared with placebo, and given its (current) relative low cost may be an acceptable smoking cessation treatment for smokers, particularly those in low- and middle-income countries. Cytisine's 'natural' product status may also increase its acceptability and use among certain groups of smokers, such as indigenous people, smokers in countries where the use of natural medicines is widespread (e.g. China, India), and in those people who do not want to use NRT or anti-depressants to help them quit smoking. However it is important to ascertain the effectiveness of cytisine compared with that of existing cessation treatments., Trial Registration: Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry (ACTRN12610000590066).

Aims: To determine the effect of offering smokers who want to quit easy access to nicotine replacement therapy (NRT), a period of familiarization and choice of product on smoking abstinence at 6 months., Design: Single-blind, randomized controlled trial., Setting: New Zealand., Participants: A total of 1410 adult smokers who called the national Quitline for quitting support were randomized to usual Quitline care or a box containing different NRT products (patch, gum, inhaler, sublingual tablet, oral pouch) to try for a week prior to quitting, and then to choose one or two of these products for 8 weeks' use., Measurements: The primary outcome was 7-day point prevalence smoking abstinence 6 months after quit day. Secondary outcomes included continuous abstinence, cigarette consumption, withdrawal, NRT choice and serious adverse events at 1 and 3 weeks and 3 and 6 months., Findings: No differences in 6-month quit rates (7-day point prevalence or continuous abstinence) were observed between the groups. However, smokers allocated to the intervention group were more likely to have quit smoking at 3 months [self-reported point prevalence, relative risk (RR)=1.17, 95% confidence interval (CI): 1.02, 1.35, P=0.03], had a longer time to relapse (median 70 days versus 28 days, P<0.01) and used significantly more NRT. The selection box concept was highly acceptable to users, with the patch and inhaler combination the most popular choice (34%)., Conclusions: In terms of smoking abstinence at 6 months, offering smokers who want to quit free access to a wide range of nicotine replacement therapy, including a 1-week period of familiarization and choice of up to two products, appears no different to offering reduced cost and choice of nicotine replacement therapy, with no familiarization period. This trial is registered with the Australasian Clinical Trials Network Number: ACTRN 12606000451505., (© 2011 Auckland UniServices Limited.)

Electronic nicotine delivery systems (ENDS, also called electronic cigarettes or e-cigarettes) are marketed to deliver nicotine and sometimes other substances by inhalation. Some tobacco smokers report that they used ENDS as a smoking cessation aid. Whether sold as tobacco products or drug delivery devices, these products need to be regulated, and thus far, across countries and states, there has been a wide range of regulatory responses ranging from no regulation to complete bans. The empirical basis for these regulatory decisions is uncertain, and more research on ENDS must be conducted in order to ensure that the decisions of regulators, health care providers and consumers are based on science. However, there is a dearth of scientific research on these products, including safety, abuse liability and efficacy for smoking cessation. The authors, who cover a broad range of scientific expertise, from basic science to public health, suggest research priorities for non-clinical, clinical and public health studies. They conclude that the first priority is to characterize the safety profile of these products, including in long-term users. If these products are demonstrated to be safe, their efficacy as smoking cessation aids should then be tested in appropriately designed trials. Until these studies are conducted, continued marketing constitutes an uncontrolled experiment and the primary outcome measure, poorly assessed, is user health. Potentially, this research effort, contributing to the safety and efficacy of new smoking cessation devices and to the withdrawal of dangerous products, could save many lives.

Aims: To determine the effectiveness of 2 weeks' pre-cessation nicotine patches and/or gum on smoking abstinence at 6 months., Design: Pragmatic randomized controlled trial., Setting: New Zealand., Participants: Eleven hundred adult, dependent smokers who called the New Zealand Quitline between March 2006 and May 2007 for support to stop smoking were randomized to 2 weeks of nicotine patches and/or gum prior to their target quit day followed by usual care (8 weeks of patches and/or gum plus support calls from a Quitline adviser), or to usual care alone., Measurements: The primary outcome was self-reported 7-day point prevalence smoking abstinence 6 months after quit day. Secondary outcomes included continuous abstinence, cotinine-verified abstinence, daily cigarette consumption, withdrawal symptoms and adverse events., Findings: Six months after quit day 125 (22.7%) participants in the pre-cessation group and 116 (21.0%) in the control group reported 7-day point prevalence abstinence (relative risk 1.08 95% CI: 0.86, 1.35, P = 0.4, risk difference 1.7%, 95% CI: -3.2%, 6.6%). However, when pooled in a meta-analysis with other pre-cessation trials a moderate benefit of about a one-quarter increase in cessation rates was evident. There was no difference in adverse events between groups., Conclusions: In this, the largest pre-cessation NRT trial to date, using NRT 2 weeks before the target quit day was safe and well tolerated but offered no benefit over usual care. However, in conjunction with previous pre-cessation trials there appears to be a moderate benefit, but not as large as that seen in most smaller trials.

Aims: To determine effects on craving, user satisfaction, and consumption patterns of two new nicotine replacement therapies (NRT) used for eight hours after overnight tobacco abstinence., Design: In a within-subject, cross-over trial participants were randomly assigned Zonnic nicotine mouth spray (1 mg/spray), Zonnic nicotine lozenge (2.5 mg), Nicorette gum (4 mg) and placebo lozenge on each of four study days., Setting: University research unit., Participants: Forty-seven dependent adult smokers., Measurements: Participants rated their urges to smoke, irritability, concentration and restlessness before and during the first hour of product use on a 100-point scale. A subsample of 11 participants provided blood samples for nicotine analysis., Findings: All active products reduced craving significantly more than placebo (mean reductions of 28.6, 25.8, 24.7 and 8.9 points for mouth spray, gum, lozenge and placebo). Mouth spray relieved craving faster than placebo and gum with significant reductions within five minutes of use (mean differences of -14.5 (95% CI: -23.0 to -6.0) and -10.6 (95% CI: -19.1 to -2.1) with placebo and gum respectively. Mouth spray produced a faster time to maximum plasma nicotine concentration (14.5 minutes, 95% CI: 8.0 to 21.0) compared to the lozenge (30.3 minutes, 95% CI: 21.1 to 39.5) and gum (45.8 minutes, 95% CI: 36.2 to 55.4). Maximum concentrations of blood nicotine were higher with mouth spray (10.0 ng/ml) and lozenge (10.8 ng/ml) compared to gum (7.8 ng/ml). Both lozenge and mouth spray were well tolerated., Conclusions: The mouth spray and lozenge are at least as effective as 4 mg nicotine gum in relieving craving suggesting that they are likely to be effective in aiding smoking cessation. The mouth spray may be particularly useful for acute craving relief.

Objectives: To measure the short-term effects of an electronic nicotine delivery device ("e cigarette", ENDD) on desire to smoke, withdrawal symptoms, acceptability, pharmacokinetic properties and adverse effects., Design: Single blind randomised repeated measures cross-over trial of the Ruyan V8 ENDD., Setting: University research centre in Auckland, New Zealand., Participants: 40 adult dependent smokers of 10 or more cigarettes per day., Interventions: Participants were randomised to use ENDDs containing 16 mg nicotine or 0 mg capsules, Nicorette nicotine inhalator or their usual cigarette on each of four study days 3 days apart, with overnight smoking abstinence before use of each product., Main Outcome Measures: The primary outcome was change in desire to smoke, measured as "area under the curve" on an 11-point visual analogue scale before and at intervals over 1 h of use. Secondary outcomes included withdrawal symptoms, acceptability and adverse events. In nine participants, serum nicotine levels were also measured., Results: Over 60 min, participants using 16 mg ENDD recorded 0.82 units less desire to smoke than the placebo ENDD (p=0.006). No difference in desire to smoke was found between 16 mg ENDD and inhalator. ENDDs were more pleasant to use than inhalator (p=0.016) and produced less irritation of mouth and throat (p<0.001). On average, the ENDD increased serum nicotine to a peak of 1.3 mg/ml in 19.6 min, the inhalator to 2.1 ng/ml in 32 min and cigarettes to 13.4 ng/ml in 14.3 min., Conclusions: The 16 mg Ruyan V8 ENDD alleviated desire to smoke after overnight abstinence, was well tolerated and had a pharmacokinetic profile more like the Nicorette inhalator than a tobacco cigarette. Evaluation of the ENDD for longer-term safety, potential for long-term use and efficacy as a cessation aid is needed. Trial registration No.12607000587404, Australia and New Zealand Clinical Trials Register.

Introduction: Current smoking cessation treatments largely address pharmacological dependence on nicotine. New approaches are needed that address both nicotine dependence and psychological dependence on cigarettes as the source of nicotine. One such approach is the use of cigarettes with reduced nicotine content., Methods: We reviewed the available literature on the use of reduced-nicotine content cigarettes as a cessation aid., Results: One case series study and trial data indicate that reduction in the level of nicotine in cigarette tobacco can reduce the level of nicotine dependence in smokers and do so without adverse effects on cardiovascular biomarkers or significant compensatory smoking. We identified three clinical trials (total n = 489) that suggest that smokers can dissociate nicotine delivery from the act of smoking if they use reduced-nicotine content cigarettes in combination with nicotine replacement therapy., Discussion: The identified studies point to a benefit but involved only a small number of participants and provide only limited data on long-term abstinence. More definitive evidence from larger trials with longer follow-up is needed to clarify the role of reduced nicotine cigarettes as an aid to smoking cessation.

Introduction: We compared the effects of a 4-mg oral nicotine pouch (Zonnic pouch), with nicotine chewing gum and placebo pouch, on withdrawal discomfort after overnight tobacco abstinence. We also assessed participants' preferences, satisfaction, and consumption patterns., Methods: This was a randomized, placebo-controlled, three-way crossover study of 30 adult smokers. After overnight tobacco abstinence, subjects reported on a Visual Analog Scale (VAS; 0-100) tobacco withdrawal symptoms (craving, irritability, difficulty concentrating, and restlessness) before use and during the first hour after first product use. They then used the product throughout the study day and in the evening reported product usefulness, temporary abstinence success, and satisfaction., Results: In a multivariate analysis, area under the curve (craving vs. time) was reduced by 23 points 60 min after taking the study medication in the nicotine pouch group, compared with 15- and 8-point decreases in the gum and placebo groups, respectively. The difference in craving ratings between the pouch and placebo was significant (p = .002). Nicotine pouch reduced irritability more than gum (difference = 9.86; p = .01). For pouch users, the odds ratio for temporary tobacco abstinence (21.5 hr) during study days (compared with gum) was 2.8 (95% CI = 0.8-8.1). Compared with the gum, the pouch was rated as significantly more "helpful to stop smoking" (difference = 20.6; 95% CI = 2.4-38.9) and "pleasant to use" (difference = 17.3; 95% CI = 2.6-32.0)., Discussion: The Zonnic pouch appears to be as effective at relieving craving as nicotine gum and was subjectively favored over the gum. These results suggest that the pouch will be a helpful addition to the range of existing nicotine replacement treatments.

Background: The aim of nicotine replacement therapy (NRT) is temporarily to replace much of the nicotine from cigarettes to reduce motivation to smoke and nicotine withdrawal symptoms, thus easing the transition from cigarette smoking to complete abstinence., Objectives: The aims of this review were:To determine the effect of NRT compared to placebo in aiding smoking cessation, and to consider whether there is a difference in effect for the different forms of NRT (chewing gum, transdermal patches, nasal spray, inhalers and tablets/lozenges) in achieving abstinence from cigarettes. To determine whether the effect is influenced by the dosage, form and timing of use of NRT; the intensity of additional advice and support offered to the smoker; or the clinical setting in which the smoker is recruited and treated. To determine whether combinations of NRT are more likely to lead to successful quitting than one type alone. To determine whether NRT is more or less likely to lead to successful quitting compared to other pharmacotherapies., Search Strategy: We searched the Cochrane Tobacco Addiction Group trials register for papers with 'nicotine' or 'NRT' in the title, abstract or keywords. Date of most recent search July 2007., Selection Criteria: Randomized trials in which NRT was compared to placebo or to no treatment, or where different doses of NRT were compared. We excluded trials which did not report cessation rates, and those with follow up of less than six months., Data Collection and Analysis: We extracted data in duplicate on the type of participants, the dose, duration and form of nicotine therapy, the outcome measures, method of randomization, and completeness of follow up. The main outcome measure was abstinence from smoking after at least six months of follow up. We used the most rigorous definition of abstinence for each trial, and biochemically validated rates if available. We calculated the risk ratio (RR) for each study. Where appropriate, we performed meta-analysis using a Mantel-Haenszel fixed-effect model., Main Results: We identified 132 trials; 111 with over 40,000 participants contributed to the primary comparison between any type of NRT and a placebo or non-NRT control group. The RR of abstinence for any form of NRT relative to control was 1.58 (95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.50 to 1.66). The pooled RR for each type were 1.43 (95% CI: 1.33 to 1.53, 53 trials) for nicotine gum; 1.66 (95% CI: 1.53 to 1.81, 41 trials) for nicotine patch; 1.90 (95% CI: 1.36 to 2.67, 4 trials) for nicotine inhaler; 2.00 (95% CI: 1.63 to 2.45, 6 trials) for oral tablets/lozenges; and 2.02 (95% CI: 1.49 to 3.73, 4 trials) for nicotine nasal spray. The effects were largely independent of the duration of therapy, the intensity of additional support provided or the setting in which the NRT was offered. The effect was similar in a small group of studies that aimed to assess use of NRT obtained without a prescription. In highly dependent smokers there was a significant benefit of 4 mg gum compared with 2 mg gum, but weaker evidence of a benefit from higher doses of patch. There was evidence that combining a nicotine patch with a rapid delivery form of NRT was more effective than a single type of NRT. Only one study directly compared NRT to another pharmacotherapy. In this study quit rates with nicotine patch were lower than with the antidepressant bupropion., Authors' Conclusions: All of the commercially available forms of NRT (gum, transdermal patch, nasal spray, inhaler and sublingual tablets/lozenges) can help people who make a quit attempt to increase their chances of successfully stopping smoking. NRTs increase the rate of quitting by 50-70%, regardless of setting. The effectiveness of NRT appears to be largely independent of the intensity of additional support provided to the individual. Provision of more intense levels of support, although beneficial in facilitating the likelihood of quitting, is not essential to the success of NRT.

Oliver Knight-West, Christopher Bullen The National Institute for Health Innovation, School of Population Health, The University of Auckland, Auckland, New Zealand Abstract: In this review, we discuss current evidence on electronic cigarettes (ECs), a rapidly evolving class of nicotine delivery system, and their role in managing nicotine addiction, specifically in helping smokers to quit smoking and/or reduce the amount of tobacco they smoke. The current evidence base is limited to three randomized trials (only one compares ECs with nicotine replacement therapy) and a growing number of EC user surveys (n=6), case reports (n=4), and cohort studies (n=8). Collectively, these studies suggest modest cessation efficacy and a few adverse effects, at least with the short-term use. On this basis, we provide advice for health care providers on providing balanced information for patients who enquire about ECs. More research, specifically well-conducted large efficacy trials comparing ECs with standard smoking cessation management (eg, nicotine replacement therapy plus behavioral support) and long-term prospective studies for adverse events, are urgently needed to fill critical knowledge gaps on these products. Keywords: tobacco, smoking, nicotine, electronic cigarettes, cessation, addiction