smoking

Importance: Little is known about the relative effectiveness of nicotine-containing electronic cigarettes (ECs) compared with varenicline as smoking cessation aids.

Objective: To determine the relative effectiveness of ECs in smoking cessation.

Design, setting, and participants: This randomized placebo-controlled single-center trial was conducted in northern Finland. Participants aged 25 to 75 years who smoked daily and had volunteered to quit smoking were recruited from August 1, 2018, to February 20, 2020, via local media. The trial included 52 weeks of follow-up. All data analyses were conducted from September 1, 2022, to January 15, 2024. The participants, study nurses, and researchers were masked to group assignment.

Intervention: The participants were assigned by block randomization to receive 18 mg/mL of nicotine-containing ECs together with placebo tablets, varenicline with standard dosing together with nicotine-free ECs, or placebo tablets together with nicotine-free ECs, all combined with a motivational interview, with the intervention phase lasting for 12 weeks.

Main outcome and measure: The primary outcome was self-reported 7-day conventional cigarette smoking abstinence as confirmed by the exhaled carbon monoxide level on week 26. The analysis followed the intent-to-treat principle.

Results: Of the 561 recruited participants, 458 (81.6%) eligible participants (257 women [56%]; 201 men [44%]; mean [SD] age, 51 [11.6] years) were randomized. The primary outcome occurred in 61 of 152 participants (40.4%) in the EC group, 67 of 153 (43.8%) in the varenicline group, and 30 of 153 (19.7%) in the placebo group (P < .001). In the pairwise comparison, placebo differed statistically significantly from ECs (risk difference [RD], 20.7%; 95% CI, 10.4-30.4; P < .001) and varenicline (RD, 24.1%; 95% CI, 13.7-33.7; P < .001), but the difference was statistically insignificant between ECs and varenicline (RD, 3.4%; 95% CI, -7.6 to 14.3; P = .56). No serious adverse events were reported.

Conclusions: This randomized clinical trial found that varenicline and nicotine-containing ECs were both effective in helping individuals in quitting smoking conventional cigarettes for up to 6 months.

Importance: African American smokers have among the highest rates of tobacco-attributable morbidity and mortality in the US, and effective treatment is needed for all smoking levels.

Objectives: To evaluate the efficacy of varenicline vs placebo among African American adults who are light, moderate, and heavy daily smokers.

Design, setting, and participants: The Kick It at Swope IV (KIS-IV) trial was a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled clinical trial conducted at a federally qualified health center in Kansas City. A total of 500 African American adults who were daily smokers of all smoking levels were enrolled from June 2015 to December 2017; final follow-up was completed in June 2018.

Interventions: Participants were provided 6 sessions of culturally relevant individualized counseling and were randomized (in a 3:2 ratio) to receive varenicline (1 mg twice daily; n = 300) or placebo (n = 200) for 12 weeks. Randomization was stratified by sex and smoking level (1-10 cigarettes/d [light smokers] or >10 cigarettes/d [moderate to heavy smokers]).

Main outcomes and measures: The primary outcome was salivary cotinine-verified 7-day point prevalence smoking abstinence at week 26. The secondary outcome was 7-day point prevalence smoking abstinence at week 12, with subgroup analyses for light smokers (1-10 cigarettes/d) and moderate to heavy smokers (>10 cigarettes/d).

Results: Among 500 participants who were randomized and completed the baseline visit (mean age, 52 years; 262 [52%] women; 260 [52%] light smokers; 429 [86%] menthol users), 441 (88%) completed the trial. Treating those lost to follow-up as smokers, participants receiving varenicline were significantly more likely than those receiving placebo to be abstinent at week 26 (15.7% vs 6.5%; difference, 9.2% [95% CI, 3.8%-14.5%]; odds ratio [OR], 2.7 [95% CI, 1.4-5.1]; P = .002). The varenicline group also demonstrated greater abstinence than the placebo group at the end of treatment week 12 (18.7% vs 7.0%; difference, 11.7% [95% CI, 6.0%-17.7%]; OR, 3.0 [95% CI, 1.7-5.6]; P < .001). Smoking abstinence at week 12 was significantly greater for individuals receiving varenicline compared with placebo among light smokers (22.1% vs 8.5%; difference, 13.6% [95% CI, 5.2%-22.0%]; OR, 3.0 [95% CI, 1.4-6.7]; P = .004) and among moderate to heavy smokers (15.1% vs 5.3%; difference, 9.8% [95% CI, 2.4%-17.2%]; OR, 3.1 [95% CI, 1.1-8.6]; P = .02), with no significant smoking level × treatment interaction (P = .96). Medication adverse events were generally comparable between treatment groups, with nausea reported more frequently in the varenicline group (163 of 293 [55.6%]) than the placebo group (90 of 196 [45.9%]).

Conclusions and relevance: Among African American adults who are daily smokers, varenicline added to counseling resulted in a statistically significant improvement in the rates of 7-day point prevalence smoking abstinence at week 26 compared with counseling and placebo. The findings support the use of varenicline in addition to counseling for tobacco use treatment among African American adults who are daily smokers.

Importance: Lung cancer is the second most common cancer and the leading cause of cancer death in the US. In 2020, an estimated 228 820 persons were diagnosed with lung cancer, and 135 720 persons died of the disease. The most important risk factor for lung cancer is smoking. Increasing age is also a risk factor for lung cancer. Lung cancer has a generally poor prognosis, with an overall 5-year survival rate of 20.5%. However, early-stage lung cancer has a better prognosis and is more amenable to treatment.

Objective: To update its 2013 recommendation, the US Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) commissioned a systematic review on the accuracy of screening for lung cancer with low-dose computed tomography (LDCT) and on the benefits and harms of screening for lung cancer and commissioned a collaborative modeling study to provide information about the optimum age at which to begin and end screening, the optimal screening interval, and the relative benefits and harms of different screening strategies compared with modified versions of multivariate risk prediction models.

Population: This recommendation statement applies to adults aged 50 to 80 years who have a 20 pack-year smoking history and currently smoke or have quit within the past 15 years.

Evidence assessment: The USPSTF concludes with moderate certainty that annual screening for lung cancer with LDCT has a moderate net benefit in persons at high risk of lung cancer based on age, total cumulative exposure to tobacco smoke, and years since quitting smoking.

Recommendation: The USPSTF recommends annual screening for lung cancer with LDCT in adults aged 50 to 80 years who have a 20 pack-year smoking history and currently smoke or have quit within the past 15 years. Screening should be discontinued once a person has not smoked for 15 years or develops a health problem that substantially limits life expectancy or the ability or willingness to have curative lung surgery. (B recommendation) This recommendation replaces the 2013 USPSTF statement that recommended annual screening for lung cancer with LDCT in adults aged 55 to 80 years who have a 30 pack-year smoking history and currently smoke or have quit within the past 15 years.

INTRODUCTION:

E-cigarettes deliver an aerosol of nicotine by heating a liquid and are promoted as an alternative to combustible tobacco. This study determines the longitudinal associations between e-cigarette use and respiratory disease controlling for combustible tobacco use.

METHODS:

This was a longitudinal analysis of the adult Population Assessment of Tobacco and Health Waves 1, 2, and 3. Multivariable logistic regression was performed to determine the associations between e-cigarette use and respiratory disease, controlling for combustible tobacco smoking, demographic, and clinical variables. Data were collected in 2013-2016 and analyzed in 2018-2019.

RESULTS:

Among people who did not report respiratory disease (chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, chronic bronchitis, emphysema, or asthma) at Wave 1, the longitudinal analysis revealed statistically significant associations between former e-cigarette use (AOR=1.31, 95% CI=1.07, 1.60) and current e-cigarette use (AOR=1.29, 95% CI=1.03, 1.61) at Wave 1 and having incident respiratory disease at Waves 2 or 3, controlling for combustible tobacco smoking, demographic, and clinical variables. Current combustible tobacco smoking (AOR=2.56, 95% CI=1.92, 3.41) was also significantly associated with having respiratory disease at Waves 2 or 3. Odds of developing respiratory disease for a current dual user (e-cigarette and all combustible tobacco) were 3.30 compared with a never smoker who never used e-cigarettes. Analysis controlling for cigarette smoking alone yielded similar results.

CONCLUSIONS:

Use of e-cigarettes is an independent risk factor for respiratory disease in addition to combustible tobacco smoking. Dual use, the most common use pattern, is riskier than using either product alone.