Suchergebnisse

<b><i>Introduction:</i></b> Electronic cigarettes and "vaping" have become popular since their appearance in Europe and the USA in approximately 2006. They are often perceived as having fewer health risks than conventional cigarettes, which makes them of interest as a support tool in smoking cessation. However, its efficacy regarding cessation or reduction of smoking under real-life conditions remains controversial. Our objective was to clarify this question in an observational study of smoking habits after initiating vaping without targeted intervention, as compared to a validated cessation programme. <b><i>Methods:</i></b> From October 2015 to April 2018, 80 subjects (60 in the e-cigarette group and 20 in the supervised smoking cessation group) were included in two trial visits, one at the start of the trial and the second after 3 months, plus 4 questionnaire surveys: at the start of the trial and after a 1, 2, and 3 month period. The questionnaire included a nicotine use inventory, a modified Fagerström test for nicotine dependence, and the WHO-QOL-BREF survey. <b><i>Results:</i></b> E-cigarettes were effective, leading to a significant (<i>p</i> &lt; 0.03) reduction (<i>p</i> &lt; 0.03) in tobacco consumption and nicotine dependence, with an abstinence rate of 43% after 3 months. Compared to participants in the smoking cessation programme, their use was not associated with an improvement in quality of life during the quitting attempt, and there were no significant differences in clinical symptoms between groups. The reduction in nicotine dependence was more pronounced (<i>p</i> &lt; 0.012) for the smoking cessation programme, with higher abstinence rates (<i>p</i> = 0.011 after 12 weeks) and lower (<i>p</i> &lt; 0.003) remaining tobacco consumption compared to electronic cigarettes. <b><i>Discussion/Conclusions:</i></b> The use of electronic cigarettes reduced nicotine dependence and tobacco consumption, but a supervised smoking cessation programme was superior in terms of achieved cessation in both regards. Electronic cigarettes did not improve the quality of life. Since e-cigarettes could be associated with long-term health risks, their usefulness in smoking cessation remains questionable, and a professionally guided and validated smoking cessation programme still appears to be superior and preferable, in terms of achieved cessation. Although this trial is limited regarding the number of participants and follow-up time, it highlights the need for additional, large clinical trials evaluating the efficacy of e-cigarettes for smoking cessation in comparison to a professionally guided smoking cessation programme.

<b><i>Aims:</i></b> The present study investigated the feasibility, acceptance and efficacy of a newly developed cognitive behavioral program for smoking cessation/reduction ('Rethink your Smoking' program, RSP) in inpatients with substance use disorder (SUD). <b><i>Method:</i></b> One hundred ninety-nine inpatients with SUD were randomly assigned to either the RSP (n = 101) or a minimal intervention (MI) program (n = 98). In addition, participants were offered optional nicotine replacement therapy. Data from a group of patients with SUD without any intervention (control group, n = 78) were included in the analyses for comparison. Assessments were performed at admission, discharge and follow-up after 3 and 6 months. <b><i>Results:</i></b> RSP proved to be feasible and was well accepted by participants. Patients in both interventions showed lower scores for physical nicotine dependence and number of cigarettes smoked per day and higher scores for various motivational parameters at discharge and 3 months later. Both interventions were superior to no intervention, but no differences were found between the RSP and MI. <b><i>Conclusion:</i></b> A smoking cessation/reduction program is feasible for substance-dependent in-patients undergoing detoxification. Although the RSP appears to be effective in terms of harm reduction in in-patients with SUD, more cost- and time-efficient programs might also be suitable for this population.

The emergence of e-cigarettes on the consumer market led to a tremendous rise in e-cigarette consumption among adolescents in the United States. The success of JUUL and other pod systems was linked to its high nicotine delivery capacity. In compliance with the European Tobacco Product directive, liquid nicotine contents in the European JUUL variants are limited to 20 mg/mL or below. A short time after launching the initial version in Europe, JUUL pods have been modified in terms of the wick material used. This modification has been demonstrated previously to lead to an elevated aerosol generation, consequently, to a larger amount of nicotine per puff generated. The present study was designed to assess whether the mentioned differences between the "initial" and "modified" JUUL versions may cause a significant difference during consumption, and how nicotine delivery compares with tobacco cigarettes. In this single-center three-arm study, nicotine pharmacokinetics and influence on urge to smoke/vape were compared for tobacco cigarettes, the "initial" version of the European JUUL, and the "modified" version of the European JUUL. Participants, 15 active smokers and 17 active e-cigarette users, were instructed to consume their study product according to a pre-directed puffing protocol. Venous blood was sampled for nicotine analysis to cover the acute phase and the first 30 min after starting. Nicotine delivery and the reduction of urge to smoke/vape upon usage of both European JUUL variants were lower in comparison to tobacco cigarettes. This suggests a lower addictive potential. Modification of the pod design did not result in significant differences at the first ten puffs, as confirmed by a vaping machine experiment. Apparently, the limitations by the initially used wick material only come into effect after longer usage time.

<b><i>Introduction:</i></b> In addition to the prevention of tobacco consumption, the establishment and assurance of high-quality treatment for harmful use and dependence on tobacco products remains an important health-related task in Germany. Regular updating of the Association of the Scientific Medical Societies (AWMF) S3 guideline "Smoking and Tobacco Dependence: Screening, Diagnosis, and Treatment" (Tobacco Guideline) offers a sustainable and reputable source of knowledge on smoking cessation. <b><i>Methods:</i></b> Under the auspices of the German Society for Psychiatry, Psychotherapy, Psychosomatics, and Neurology (DGPPN) and the German Society for Addiction Research and Addiction Therapy (DG-Sucht), the Tobacco Guideline was revised in 2019–2020 by 63 experts, who were involved in the development process of the text, in 11 working groups. Undue influence of conflicts of interest on the guideline could be minimized through careful conflict of interest management. Delegates from 50 professional societies discussed the 80 guideline recommendations and voted online. <b><i>Results:</i></b> In addition to recommendations for screening and diagnostics, the Tobacco Guideline takes a positive stance towards the use of low-threshold counseling and support services. If, due to the severity of the tobacco-related disorder, brief counseling, telephone counseling, or internet- or smartphone-based methods are not sufficiently effective, individual or group behavioral therapy, possibly in combination with medication, is indicated. If nicotine replacement therapy is not effective, varenicline or bupropion should be offered. Alternative strategies with a lower level of recommendation are hypnotherapy, mindfulness-based treatments, or medication with cytisine. In adolescents and pregnant women, the use of medication should be limited to well-specified exceptions and nicotine replacement. The mean agreement with the recommendations reached a value of 98%. A general overview of the treatment recommendations of the Tobacco Guideline is provided by three clinical algorithms.

Zusammenfassung. Einleitung: Neben der Prävention des Tabakkonsums bleibt die Herstellung und Sicherung eines hohen Niveaus der Behandlungsqualität bei schädlichem Gebrauch und Abhängigkeit von Tabakprodukten eine wichtige gesundheitsbezogene Aufgabe in Deutschland. Eine regelmäßige Aktualisierung der AWMF-S3-Leitlinie "Rauchen und Tabakabhängigkeit: Screening, Diagnostik und Behandlung" schafft eine nachhaltige und seriöse Quelle für den Wissensstand zur Tabakentwöhnung. Methoden: Unter Federführung der Deutschen Gesellschaft für Psychiatrie, Psychotherapie, Psychosomatik und Nervenheilkunde (DGPPN) und der Deutschen Gesellschaft für Suchtforschung und Suchttherapie e. V. (DG-Sucht) wurde die Tabakleitlinie 2019–2020 von insgesamt 63 am Entstehungsprozess des Textes beteiligten Personen in 11 Arbeitsgruppen überarbeitet. Der Einfluss von Interessenkonflikten (COI) konnte durch ein sorgfältiges COI-Management minimiert werden. Über die 80 Leitlinienempfehlungen diskutierten Delegierte aus 50 Fachgesellschaften und stimmten in einem moderierten Konsensprozess online ab. Ergebnisse: Neben Empfehlungen zum Screening und zur Diagnostik nimmt die Leitlinie positiv Stellung zur Nutzung niederschwelliger Beratungs- und Unterstützungsangebote. Falls aufgrund des Schweregrads der tabakbezogenen Störung Kurzberatung, Telefonberatung oder Internet- bzw. Smartphone-gestützte Verfahren nicht hinreichend wirksam sind, ist eine verhaltenstherapeutisch basierte Einzel- oder Gruppenbehandlung, ggf. in Verbindung mit Medikamenten, indiziert. Wenn eine Nikotinersatztherapie nicht wirksam sein sollte, soll Vareniclin oder Bupropion angeboten werden. Alternative Strategien mit niedrigerem Empfehlungsgrad sind Hypnotherapie, achtsamkeitsbasierte Verfahren, oder auch Cytisin. Bei Jugendlichen und Schwangeren ist das Angebot von Medikamenten auf genau spezifizierte Ausnahmen und Nikotinersatz zu beschränken. Die mittlere Zustimmung für die Empfehlungen der Leitlinie erreichte 98 %. Eine Gesamtübersicht über die Behandlungsempfehlungen der Tabakleitlinie geben drei klinische Algorithmen.