Search

Aims: The aim of this study was to examine the safety of e‐cigarettes (EC) and nicotine patches (NRT) when used to help pregnant smokers quit. Design: A recent trial of EC versus NRT reported safety outcomes in the randomized arms. We conducted a further analysis based on product use. Setting: Twenty‐three hospitals in England and a stop‐smoking service in Scotland took part. Participants: The participants comprised 1140 pregnant smokers. Interventions: We compared women using and not using EC and NRT regularly during pregnancy. Measurements Measurements included nicotine intake compared with baseline, birth weight, other pregnancy outcomes, adverse events, maternal respiratory symptoms and relapse in early abstainers. Findings Use of EC was more common than use of NRT (47.3% vs 21.6%, P < 0.001). Women who stopped smoking (abstainers) and used EC at the end‐of‐pregnancy (EOP) reduced their salivary cotinine by 45% [49.3 ng/ml, 95% confidence interval (CI) = −79.8 to −10]. Only one abstainer used NRT at EOP. In dual users, cotinine increased by 19% (24 ng/ml, 95% CI = 3.5–68). In women reporting a reduction of at least 50% in cigarette consumption, cotinine levels increased by 10% in those using nicotine products and by 9% in those who did not. Birth weights in dual users and exclusive smokers were the same (3.1 kg). Birth weight in abstainers using either nicotine product was higher than in smokers [3.3 kg, standard deviation (SD) = 0.7] versus 3.1 kg, SD = 0.6; difference = 0.15 kg, 95% CI = 0.05–0.25) and not different from abstainers not using nicotine products (3.1 kg, SD = 0.8). Abstainers and smokers using nicotine products had no worse pregnancy outcomes or more adverse events than abstainers and smokers not using them. EC users reported more improvements than non‐users in cough [adjusted relative risk (aRR) = 0.59, 95% CI = 0.37–0.93] and phlegm (aRR = 0.53, 95% CI = 0.31–0.92), controlling for smoking status. EC or NRT use had no association with relapse. Conclusions: Regular use of e‐cigarettes or nicotine patches by pregnant smokers does not appear to be associated with any adverse outcomes. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Extending screening intervals in ongoing cancer screening programmes can lead to challenging year‐on‐year variations in the number of screening tests. We explored how such variation could be diminished with a managed transition to the extended interval. We defined three extension scenarios: immediate extension for the entire target population; stepped transition by birth cohort; and gradual transition by reducing the number of available screening appointments. These were compared to a situation in which the interval remains unchanged in a demographic model covering a 15‐year period. The model was populated with observed parameters from England, a real‐world setting recommending cervical screening with 3‐year intervals at age 25‐49 and 5‐year intervals at age 50‐64. Informed by typical changes currently considered by several European programmes including the programme in England, we explored the effect on screening test numbers of an extension of the 3‐year interval to 5 years for women younger than 50. All three extension scenarios resulted in similar cumulative numbers of screening tests, which were about 30% lower compared to a situation in which the interval would remain unchanged. However, the year‐on‐year variation in the number of screening tests varied between the scenarios. This variation was around 4‐fold for the immediate scenario. In the stepped scenario, the yearly numbers could differ by around 20%, whereas in the gradual scenario they were virtually constant. A managed interval extension, transitioning different groups of the target population at different times, can substantially reduce the yearly variation in screening workload without increasing the total number of screening tests in the long term. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Introduction: In England, routine invitations for cervical screening were reduced between April 2020 and June 2020 due to the COVID-19 pandemic. We quantify the impact of COVID-19 disruptions on attendance and excess diagnoses of cervical cancer (CC). Methods: Using Public Health England CC screening data on laboratory samples received in 2018 as a baseline we quantify the reduction in screening attendances due to the COVID-19 pandemic between April 2020 and March 2021 for women aged 25–64. We model the impact on excess CC diagnoses assuming once invitations resume 87.5% of women attend within 12 months and 12.5% delay screening for 3 or 5 years (depending on age). Results: The number of samples received at laboratories was 91% lower than expected during April, 85% during May and 43% during June 2020 compared to the same period in 2018. Although on average laboratories received 12.6% more samples between August 2020 and April 2021 than over the same months in 2018, by April 2021 there was a short fall of 200,949 samples (6.4% fewer than in 2018). An excess of 41 CC (4.0 per 100,000 women with a maximum screening delay of 12 months) are predicted to occur among the estimated 1,024,794 women attending this screening round with a delay. An excess of 60 CC (41.0 per 100,000 women) are predicted to occur among the estimated 146,391 women who do not attend this screening round. Conclusion: Prompt restoration of cervical screening services limited the impact on excess CC diagnoses. However, in 2020 a 6.4% shortfall of screening samples was observed. Every effort should be made to reassure these women that services are open and safe to attend. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Supporting recovery is the aim of national mental health policy in many countries. However, only one measure of recovery has been developed in England: the Questionnaire about the Process of Recovery (QPR), which measures recovery from the perspective of adult mental health service users with a psychosis diagnosis.Aims: To independently evaluate the psychometric properties of the 15- and 22-item versions of the QPR.Method: Two samples were used: data-set 1 (n = 88) involved assessment of the QPR at baseline, 2 weeks and 3 months. Data-set 2 (n = 399; trial registration: ISRCTN02507940) involved assessment of the QPR at baseline and 1 year.Results: For the 15-item version, internal consistency was 0.89, convergent validity was 0.73, test-retest reliability was 0.74 and sensitivity to change was 0.40. Confirmatory factor analysis showed the 15-item version offered a good fit. For the 22-item version, the interpersonal subscale was found to underperform and the intrapersonal subscale overlaps substantially with the 15-item version.Conclusions: Both the 15-item and the intrapersonal subscale of the 22-item versions of the QPR demonstrated satisfactory psychometric properties. The 15-item version is slightly more robust and also less burdensome, so it can be recommended for use in research and clinical practice. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: The COVID-19 pandemic has disrupted cervical cancer screening services. Assuming increases to screening capacity are unrealistic, we propose two recovery strategies: one extends the screening interval by 6 months for all and the other extends the interval by 36/60 months, but only for women who have already missed being screened., Methods: Using routine statistics from England we estimate the number of women affected by delays to screening. We used published research to estimate the proportion of screening age women with high-grade cervical intraepithelial neoplasia and progression rates to cancer. Under two recovery scenarios, we estimate the impact of COVID-19 on cervical cancer over one screening cycle (3 years at ages 25-49 and 5 years at ages 50-64 years). The duration of disruption in both scenarios is 6 months. In the first scenario, 10.7 million women have their screening interval extended by 6 months. In the second, 1.5 million women (those due to be screened during the disruption) miss one screening cycle, but most women have no delay., Results: Both scenarios result in similar numbers of excess cervical cancers: 630 vs. 632 (both 4.3 per 100,000 women in the population). However, the scenario in which some women miss one screening cycle creates inequalities-they would have much higher rates of excess cancer: 41.5 per 100,000 delayed for screened women compared to those with a 6-month delay (5.9 per 100,000)., Conclusion: To ensure equity for those affected by COVID-19 related screening delays additional screening capacity will need to be paired with prioritising the screening of overdue women.

Background: Relapse remains an unresolved issue in smoking cessation. Extended stop smoking medication use can help, but uptake is low and several behavioural relapse prevention interventions have been found to be ineffective. However, opportunistic 'emergency' use of fast-acting nicotine replacement treatment or electronic cigarettes may be more attractive and effective, and an online behavioural Structured Planning and Prompting Protocol has shown promise. The present trial aimed to evaluate the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of these two interventions., Design: A randomised controlled trial., Setting: English stop smoking services and Australian quitlines, Australian social media and St Vincent's Hospital Melbourne, Fitzroy, VIC., Participants: Ex-smokers abstinent for at least 4 weeks, with some participants in Australia also recruited from 1 week post quit date. The planned sample size was 1400, but the trial was curtailed when 235 participants were recruited., Interventions: Participants were randomised in permuted blocks of random sizes to (1) oral nicotine replacement treatment/electronic cigarettes to use if at risk of relapse, plus static text messages ( n  = 60), (2) the Structured Planning and Prompting Protocol and interactive text messages ( n  = 57), (3) oral nicotine replacement treatment/electronic cigarettes plus the Structured Planning and Prompting Protocol with interactive text messages ( n  = 58) or (4) usual care plus static text messages ( n  = 59)., Outcome Measures: Owing to delays in study set-up and recruitment issues, the study was curtailed and the primary outcome was revised. The original objective was to determine whether or not the two interventions, together or separately, reduced relapse rates at 12 months compared with usual care. The revised primary objective was to determine whether or not number of interventions received (i.e. none, one or two) affects relapse rate at 6 months (not biochemically validated because of study curtailment). Relapse was defined as smoking on at least 7 consecutive days, or any smoking in the last month at final follow-up for both the original and curtailed outcomes. Participants with missing outcome data were included as smokers. Secondary outcomes included sustained abstinence (i.e. no more than five cigarettes smoked over the 6 months), nicotine product preferences (e.g. electronic cigarettes or nicotine replacement treatment) and Structured Planning and Prompting Protocol coping strategies used. Two substudies assessed reactions to interventions quantitatively and qualitatively. The trial statistician remained blinded until analysis was complete., Results: The 6-month relapse rates were 60.0%, 43.5% and 49.2% in the usual-care arm, one-intervention arm and the two-intervention arm, respectively ( p  = 0.11). Sustained abstinence rates were 41.7%, 54.8% and 50.9%, respectively ( p  = 0.17). Electronic cigarettes were chosen more frequently than nicotine replacement treatment in Australia (71.1% vs. 29.0%; p  = 0.001), but not in England (54.0% vs. 46.0%; p  = 0.57). Of participants allocated to nicotine products, 23.1% were using them daily at 6 months. The online intervention received positive ratings from 63% of participants at 6 months, but the majority of participants (72%) completed one assessment only. Coping strategies taught in the Structured Planning and Prompting Protocol were used with similar frequency in all study arms, suggesting that these are strategies people had already acquired. Only one participant used the interactive texting, and interactive and static messages received virtually identical ratings., Limitations: The inability to recruit sufficient participants resulted in a lack of power to detect clinically relevant differences. Self-reported abstinence was not biochemically validated in the curtailed trial, and the ecological momentary assessment substudy was perceived by some as an intervention., Conclusions: Recruiting recent ex-smokers into an interventional study proved problematic. Both interventions were well received and safe. Combining the interventions did not surpass the effects of each intervention alone. There was a trend in favour of single interventions reducing relapse, but it did not reach significance and there are reasons to interpret the trend with caution., Future Work: Further studies of both interventions are warranted, using simpler study designs., Trial Registration: Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN11111428., Funding: This project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment ; Vol. 24, No. 68. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information. Funding was also provided by the National Health and Medical Research Council, Canberra, ACT, Australia (NHMRC APP1095880). Public Health England provided the funds to purchase the nicotine products in England.

Aim: To evaluate the cost-effectiveness of e-cigarettes as a smoking cessation aid used in routine stop smoking services in England., Design: Cost-effectiveness analysis was performed from the National Health Service (NHS) and Personal Social Services (PSS) perspective for 12-month periods and life-time. Costs, including that of both treatments, other smoking cessation help and health-care services, and health benefits, estimated from EQ-5D-5L and measured in quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), for the 12-month analysis, came from a randomized controlled trial. Life-time analysis was model-based with input from both trial data and published secondary data sources. Cost-effectiveness was measured by an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER)., Setting: Three stop-smoking service sites in England., Participants: Adult smokers (n = 886) who sought help to quit in the participating sites., Intervention and Comparator: An e-cigarette (EC) starter kit versus provision of nicotine replacement therapy (NRT) for up to 3 months, both with standard behavioural support. A total of 886 participants were randomized (439 in the EC arm, 447 in the NRT arm). Excluding one death in each arm, the 1-year quit rate was 18.0 and 9.9%, respectively., Measurements: Cost of treatments was estimated from the treatment log. Costs of other smoking cessation help and health-care services and EQ-5D-5 L were collected at baseline, 6- and 12-month follow-ups. Incremental costs and incremental QALYs were estimated using regression adjusting for baseline covariates and their respective baseline values., Findings: The ICER was £1100 per QALY gained at the 12 months after quit date (87% probability below £20 000/QALY). Markov model estimated the life-time ICER of EC to be £65 per QALY (85% probability below £20 000/QALY)., Conclusion: Using e-cigarettes as a smoking cessation aid with standard behavioural support in stop-smoking services in England is likely to be more cost-effective than using nicotine replacement therapy in the same setting., (© 2019 Society for the Study of Addiction.)

Objectives: To better model underlying trends in cervical cancer incidence so as to model past trends, to estimate the impact of cervical screening on cervical cancer rates at different ages and to obtain a counterfactual baseline under a no-screening scenario., Design: Trend analysis of cancer registry data recorded between 1971 and 2013., Setting: England., Participants: 132 493 women aged 20-84 with a diagnosis of cervical cancer., Outcome Measure: Cervical cancer incidence data were modelled using a modified age period cohort model able to capture both increased exposure to human papillomavirus (HPV) as well as changes in the age of exposure to HPV in young cohorts. Observed rates were compared with counterfactual baseline rates under a no-screening scenario to estimate the protective effect of screening., Results: Rates of cervical cancer incidence have been decreasing since the introduction of screening but are projected to increase in the future under the current scenario. Between 1988 and 2013, it was estimated that screening had prevented approximately 65 000 cancers. Moreover, in 2013, the age-standardised rate (ASR) estimated under the no-screening scenario (37.9, 95% CI 37.4 to 38.3) was threefold higher among women aged 20-84 than the observed ASR (12.8, 95% CI 12.3 to 13.3). We estimate that the age of first HPV exposure has decreased by about 1 year every decade since the early 1970s (women born in 1955 onwards)., Conclusions: Our results corroborated the importance of screening in preventing cervical cancer and indicated future rates are dependent on age at HPV exposure. Estimated future rates can be used for healthcare planning while the counterfactual baseline to quantify the impact of HPV vaccination in microsimulations., Competing Interests: Competing interests: None declared., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2019. Re-use permitted under CC BY. Published by BMJ.)

Background: The aim of this study was to assess the incidence and trends of oesophageal adenocarcinomas (OACs) and squamous cell carcinomas (OSCCs) in England from 1971 to 2037., Methods: Data on 220,026 oesophageal cancers diagnosed in England between 1971 and 2013 were extracted. Multiple imputation was used to predict morphology data were missing. Incidence rates were modelled and extrapolated to 2037 using age-period-cohort models., Results: The OAC age-standardised incidence rate (ASRs) increase was greatest from 1972 to 1992 (from 4.8 to 12.3 for men and 1.1 to 3 per 100,000 for women) and slowed from 1992 to 2012 (with an increase to 17 for men and 3.8 per 100,000 for women). OSCCs rates decreased from 7.5 to 4.9 from 1972 to 2012 for men. For women, ASRs increased from 5.5 to 5.9 between 1972 and 1992 and then decreased to 4.7 per 100,000 until 2012. Rates until 2032 are predicted to stay stable for OACs and further decrease for OSCCs., Conclusions: Imputing missing morphology allowed accurate and up-to-date estimates of trends and projections. We observed a slowing down of the increase in OAC ASRs and an overall decrease in OSCC ASRs.