Key message 2: diabetes and its consequences are costly to patients and economies We estimate that, in 2015, the overall cost of diabetes in sub-Saharan Africa was US$19•45 billion or 1•2% of cumulative gross domestic product (GDP). Around $10•81 billion (55•6%) of this cost arose from direct costs, which included expenditure on diabetes treatment (eg, medication, hospital stays, and treatment of complications), with out-of-pocket expenditure likely to exceed 50% of the overall health expenditure in many countries. We estimate that the total cost will increase to between $35•33 billion (1•1% of GDP) and $59•32 billion (1•8% of GDP) by 2030. Putting in place systems to prevent, detect, and manage hyperglycaemia and its consequences is therefore warranted from a health economics perspective. Key message 3: health systems in countries in sub-Saharan Africa are unable to cope with the current burden of diabetes and its complications By use of information from WHO Service Availability Readiness Assessment surveys and World Bank Service Delivery Indicator surveys and the local knowledge of Commissioners, we found inadequacies at all levels of the health system required to provide adequate management for diabetes and its associated risk factors and sequelae. We found inadequate availability of simple equipment for diagnosis and monitoring, a lack of sufficiently knowledgable health-care providers, insufficient availability of treatments, a dearth of locally appropriate guidelines, and few disease registries. These inadequacies result in a substantial dropoff of patients along the diabetes care cascade, with many patients going undiagnosed and with those who are diagnosed not receiving the advice and drugs they need. We also noted scarce facilities to manage the microvascular and macro vascular complications of diabetes. Additionally, despite calls for adding the care of diabetes and other cardiovascular risk factors onto existing infectious disease programmes (such as those for HIV), we found little evidence that such combined programmes are successful at improving outcomes.

Objectives. To determine the association between e-cigarette use and smoking cessation. Methods. We searched PubMed, Web of Science Core Collection, and EMBASE and computed the association of e-cigarette use with quitting cigarettes using random effects meta-analyses. Results. We identified 64 papers (55 observational studies and 9 randomized clinical trials [RCTs]). In observational studies of all adult smokers (odds ratio [OR] = 0.947; 95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.772, 1.160) and smokers motivated to quit smoking (OR = 0.851; 95% CI = 0.684, 1.057), e-cigarette consumer product use was not associated with quitting. Daily e-cigarette use was associated with more quitting (OR = 1.529; 95% CI = 1.158, 2.019) and less-than-daily use was associated with less quitting (OR = 0.514; 95% CI = 0.402, 0.665). The RCTs that compared quitting among smokers who were provided e-cigarettes to smokers with conventional therapy found e-cigarette use was associated with more quitting (relative risk = 1.555; 95% CI = 1.173, 2.061). Conclusions. As consumer products, in observational studies, e-cigarettes were not associated with increased smoking cessation in the adult population. In RCTs, provision of free e-cigarettes as a therapeutic intervention was associated with increased smoking cessation. Public Health Implications. E-cigarettes should not be approved as consumer products but may warrant consideration as a prescription therapy.