Search

Background and aims: Ontologies are ways of representing information that improve clarity and the ability to connect different data sources. This paper proposes an initial version of an ontology of tobacco, nicotine and vaping products with the aim of reducing ambiguity and confusion in the field. Methods: Terms related to tobacco, nicotine and vaping products were identified in the research literature and their usage characterised. Basic Formal Ontology was used as a unifying upper‐level ontology to describe the domain, and classes with definitions and labels were developed linking them to this ontology. Labels, definitions and properties were reviewed and revised in an iterative manner until a coherent set of classes was agreed by the authors. Results: Overlapping, but distinct classes were developed: 'tobacco‐containing product', 'nicotine‐containing product' and 'vaping device'. Subclasses of tobacco‐containing products are 'combustible tobacco‐containing product', 'heated tobacco product' and 'smokeless tobacco‐containing product'. Subclasses of combustible tobacco‐containing product include 'cigar', 'cigarillo', 'bidi' and 'cigarette' with further subclasses including 'manufactured cigarette'. Manufactured cigarettes have properties that include 'machine‐smoked nicotine yield' and 'machine‐smoked tar yield'. Subclasses of smokeless tobacco product include 'nasal snuff', 'chewing tobacco product', and 'oral snuff' with its subclass 'snus'. Subclasses of nicotine‐containing product include 'nicotine lozenge' and 'nicotine transdermal patch'. Subclasses of vaping device included 'electronic vaping device' with a further subclass, 'e‐cigarette'. E‐cigarettes have evolved with a complex range of properties including atomiser resistance, battery power, properties of consumables including e‐liquid nicotine concentration and flavourings, and the ontology characterises classes of product accordingly. Conclusions: Use of an ontology of tobacco, nicotine and vaping products should help reduce ambiguity and confusion in tobacco control research and practice. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This paper critically analyses a statement by Australia's National Health and Medical Research Council (NHMRC) on e‐cigarettes in May 2022 that will be used to guide national policy. We reviewed the evidence and the conclusions drawn in the NHMRC Statement. In our view, the Statement is not a balanced reflection of the benefits and risks of vaping because it exaggerates the risks of vaping and fails to compare them to the far greater risks of smoking; it uncritically accepts evidence of harms from e‐cigarettes while adopting a highly sceptical attitude towards evidence of their benefits; it incorrectly claims that the association between adolescent vaping and subsequent smoking is causal; and it understates the evidence of the benefits of e‐cigarettes in assisting smokers to quit. The Statement dismisses the evidence that vaping is probably already having a positive net public health effect and misapplies the precautionary principle. Several sources of evidence supporting our assessment were published after the NHMRC Statement's publication and are also referenced. The NHMRC Statement on e‐cigarettes does not present a balanced assessment of the available scientific literature and fails to meet the standard expected of a leading national scientific body. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article comments on a paper by H. Tattan-Birch and colleagues on the impact of the increase use of disposable vapes among young adults on the implementation of policy in the United Kingdom. Topics mentioned include the need of policy actions that should impact both young adults, smokers, and vapers, the importance of considering the evidence before making policy decisions to avoid unintended consequences, and the difficulty of using target advertising to promote disposables.

Background and Aims: Heated tobacco products (HTPs) are electronic devices that heat process tobacco to release an aerosol containing nicotine and other chemicals. Limited data exist on world‐wide HTP use prevalence. This meta‐analytic review estimated the prevalence of HTP use by country, World Health Organization (WHO) region, year, sex/gender and age. Methods: Five databases (Web of Science, Scopus, Embase, PubMed and PsycINFO) were searched between January 2015 and May 2022. Included studies reported the prevalence of HTP use in nationally representative samples post‐modern HTP device market entry (2015). A random‐effects meta‐analysis was used to estimate overall prevalence for life‐time, current and daily HTP use. Results: Forty‐five studies (n = 1 096 076) from 42 countries/areas from the European Region (EUR), Western Pacific Region (WPR), Region of the Americas (AMR) and African Region (AFR) met inclusion criteria. Estimated pooled prevalence for life‐time, current and daily HTP use was 4.87% [95% confidence interval (CI) = 4.16, 5.63], 1.53% (95% CI = 1.22, 1.87) and 0.79% (95% CI = 0.48, 1.18), respectively, across all years (2015–22). Life‐time HTP use prevalence significantly increased by 3.39% for WPR [0.52% (95% CI = 0.25, 0.88) in 2015 to 3.91% (95% CI = 2.30, 5.92) in 2019] and 5.58% for EUR [1.13% (95% CI = 0.59, 1.97) in 2016 to 6.98% (95% CI = 5.69, 8.39) in 2020]. Current HTP use increased by 10.45% for WPR [0.12% (95% CI = 0, 0.37) in 2015 to 10.57% (95% CI = 5.59, 16.88) in 2020] and 1.15% for EUR [0% (95% CI = 0, 0.35) in 2016 to 1.15% (95% CI = 0.87, 1.47) in 2020]. Meta‐regression revealed higher current HTP use in WPR [3.80% (95% CI = 2.88, 4.98)] compared with EUR [1.40% (95% CI = 1.09, 1.74)] and AMR [0.81% (95% CI = 0.46, 1.26)] and for males [3.45% (95% CI = 2.56, 4.47)] compared with females [1.82% (95% CI = 1.39, 2.29)]. Adolescents had higher life‐time HTP use prevalence [5.25% (95% CI = 4.36, 6.21) than adults [2.45% (95% CI = 0.79, 4.97)]. Most studies scored a low risk of sampling bias due to their nationally representative sampling. Conclusion: The prevalence of HTPs use increased in the EUR and WPR between 2015 and 2020, with nearly 5% of the included populations having ever tried HTP and 1.5% identifying as current users during the study period. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The authors applaud the Surgeon General of the U.S. for launching an initiative to reduce health misinformation about electronic cigarettes (e-cigarettes). They talk about examples that continue to be propagated by the U.S. public health officials, issue that the CDC lacks, and the SG-sponsored public information website about e-cigarettes entitled "Know the Risks: E-cigarettes and Young People."

Aims: To estimate associations between e‐cigarette flavour and smoking cessation and study product use at 6 months or longer. Methods: Secondary analysis of data from a living systematic review, with meta‐analyses and narrative synthesis, incorporating data up to January 2022. Included studies provided people who smoked combustible cigarettes with nicotine e‐cigarettes for the purpose of smoking cessation compared with no treatment or other stop smoking interventions. Measurements included smoking cessation and study product use at 6 months or longer reported as risk ratios (RR) with 95% confidence intervals (CI); and flavour use at any time‐points. Results: We included 16 studies (n = 10 336); 14 contributed to subgroup analyses and 10 provided participants with a choice of e‐cigarette flavour. We judged nine, five and two studies at high, low and unclear risk of bias, respectively. Subgroup analyses showed no clear associations between flavour and cessation or product use. In all but one analysis, tests for subgroup differences resulted in I2 values between 0 and 35%. In the comparison between nicotine e‐cigarettes and nicotine replacement therapy (NRT) (I2 = 65.2% for subgroup differences), studies offering tobacco flavour e‐cigarettes showed evidence of a greater proportion of participants still using at 6 months or longer (RR = 3.81; 95% CI = 1.45–10.05; n = 1181; I2 = 84%), whereas there was little evidence for greater 6‐month use when studies offered a choice of flavours (RR = 1.44; 95% CI = 0.80–2.56; n = 454; I2 = 82%). However, substantial statistical heterogeneity within subgroups makes interpretation of this result unclear. In the 10 studies where participants had a choice of flavours, and this was tracked over time, some switching between flavours occurred, but there were no clear patterns in flavour preferences. Conclusions: There does not appear to be a clear association between e‐cigarette flavours and smoking cessation or longer‐term e‐cigarette use, possibly due to a paucity of data. There is evidence that people using e‐cigarettes to quit smoking switch between e‐cigarette flavours. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Aims: This study aims to compare biomarkers of potential harm between people switching from smoking combustible cigarettes (CC) completely to electronic cigarettes (EC), continuing to smoke CC, using both EC and CC (dual users) and using neither (abstainers), based on behaviour during EC intervention studies. Design: Secondary analysis following systematic review, incorporating inverse variance random‐effects meta‐analysis and effect direction plots. Setting: This study was conducted in Greece, Italy, Poland, the United Kingdom and the United States. Participants: A total of 1299 adults smoking CC (nine studies) and provided EC. Measurements Measurements were conducted using carbon monoxide (CO) and 26 other biomarkers. Findings In pooled analyses, exhaled CO (eCO) was lower in EC versus EC + CC [mean difference (MD) = −4.40 parts per million (p.p.m.), 95% confidence interval (CI) = −12.04 to 3.24, two studies] and CC (MD = −9.57 p.p.m., 95% CI = −17.30 to −1.83, three studies). eCO was lower in dual users versus CC only (MD = −1.91 p.p.m., 95% CI = −3.38 to −0.45, two studies). Magnitude rather than direction of effect drove substantial statistical heterogeneity. Effect direction plots were used for other biomarkers. Comparing EC with CC, 12 of 13 biomarkers were significantly lower in EC users, with no difference for the 13th. Comparing EC with dual users, 12 of the 25 biomarkers were lower for EC, and five were lower for dual use. For the remaining eight measures, single studies did not detect statistically significant differences, or the multiple studies contributing to the outcome had inconsistent results. Only one study provided data comparing dual use with CC; of the 13 biomarkers measured, 12 were significantly lower in the dual use group, with no statistically significant difference detected for the 13th. Only one study provided data on abstainers. Conclusions: Switching from smoking to vaping or dual use appears to reduce levels of biomarkers of potential harm significantly. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background and Aims: Most population studies that evaluate the relationship between nicotine vaping and cigarette cessation focus on limited segments of the smoker population. We evaluated vaping uptake and smoking cessation considering differences in smokers' plans to quit. Design: Longitudinal International Tobacco Control (ITC) Four Country Smoking and Vaping Surveys were conducted in 2016, 2018 and 2020. Setting: This study was conducted in the United States, Canada, England and Australia. Participants: Participants of this study were adult daily cigarette smokers who had not vaped in the past 6 months at baseline and had participated in two or more consecutive waves of the ITC Four Country Smoking and Vaping Surveys (n = 2815). Measurements Plans to quit cigarette smoking was assessed at baseline (within 6 months, beyond 6 months, not planning to quit) and at follow‐up (within 6 months vs not within 6 months), cigarette smoking cessation was assessed at follow‐up (smoking less than monthly [including complete cessation] vs daily/weekly/monthly smoking) and inter‐wave vaping uptake was assesed between baseline and follow‐up (none, only non‐daily vaping and any daily vaping). Generalized estimating equations were used to evaluate whether inter‐wave vaping uptake was associated with smoking cessation at follow‐up and with planning to quit at follow‐up, each stratified by plans to quit smoking at baseline. Findings Overall, 12.7% of smokers quit smoking. Smokers not initially planning to quit within 6 months experienced higher odds of smoking cessation when they took up daily vaping (32.4%) versus no vaping (6.8%; adjusted odds ratio [AOR], 8.58; 95% CI, 5.06–14.54). Among smokers planning to quit, smoking cessation rates were similar between those who did and did not take up daily vaping (25.1% vs 16.8%; AOR, 1.91; 95% CI, 0.91–4.00), although we could not account for potential use of cessation aids. Daily vaping uptake was associated with planning to quit smoking at follow‐up among those initially not planning to quit (AOR,6.32; 95% CI, 4.17–9.59). Conclusions: Uptake of nicotine vaping appears to be strongly associated with cigarette smoking cessation among smokers with no initial plans to quit smoking. Excluding smokers not planning to quit from studies on vaping and smoking cessation may underestimate potential benefit of daily vaping for daily smokers. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Aims: To estimate whether and to what extent extending indoor smoking restrictions to include electronic cigarettes (ECs) impact the use of ECs and cigarette smoking among adults in the United States. Design: Observational study using a linear probability model and applying a difference‐in‐differences analysis. Setting: United States. Participants: People aged 18–54 who lived in US counties where comprehensive indoor smoking laws in bars, restaurants and private work‐places have been in place prior to 2010 (n = 45 111 for EC use analysis, n = 75 959 for cigarette use analysis). Measurements Data on cigarette smoking, use of ECs and place of residence from the Tobacco Use Supplement of the Current Population Survey (TUS‐CPS 2010–11, 2014–15 and 2018–19) were combined with the American Nonsmokers' Rights Foundation (ANRF) database of state and local indoor smoking and vaping restriction laws. Findings Indoor vaping restriction (IVR) coverage was not significantly associated with the likelihood of adult EC use [coefficient estimate = 0.001; 95% confidence interval (CI) = −0.009, 0.013, P‐value = 0.783]. In addition, IVR coverage was not significantly associated with adult cigarette smoking (coefficient estimate = −0.00; 95% CI = −0.016, 0.015, P‐value = 0.954). The non‐significant results appeared in different socio‐demographic subgroups. Conclusions: IVRs do not appear to decrease electronic cigarette use among US adults. There is no evidence that IVRs increase or decrease cigarette smoking among US adults. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Aims: To examine whether polyuse of cigarettes and other smoked products (polysmoking) is predictive of quit attempts and quit success. Design: A prospective multi‐country cohort design. Setting: Australia, Canada, England and the United States. Participants: A total of 3983 adult daily cigarette smokers were surveyed in 2016 (wave 1 of data collection) and were re‐contacted in 2018 (wave 2) (i.e. waves 1–2 cohort) in the International Tobacco Control Four Country Smoking and Vaping (ITC 4CV) surveys; and 3736 smokers were surveyed in 2018 and re‐contacted in 2020 (wave 3) (i.e. waves 2–3 cohort). Measurements Participants were asked about their cigarette smoking and use of cigars, cigarillos, pipes and waterpipes. Outcomes were quit attempts between two survey waves and success, defined as having quit smoking all the combustible tobacco at the subsequent survey for 1 month or more. Findings Levels of polysmoking were 12.7% in the waves 1–2 cohort and 10.5% for the waves 2–3 cohort. Compared with cigarette‐only smokers, polysmokers were more likely to attempt to quit between waves 1 and 2 [54.9 versus 42.7%, adjusted odds ratio (aOR) = 1.37, 95% confidence interval (CI) = 1.08–1.74, P < 0.01], but not between waves 2 and 3 (43.8 versus 40.1%, aOR = 0.94, 95% CI = 0.72–1.22). Polysmoking predicted reduced likelihood of success in both cohorts among attempters and the overall samples. Between waves 2 and 3 there were significantly more transitions to non‐daily smoking among the polysmokers (12.4 versus 5.3%, χ2 = 40.4, P < 0.001). Conclusions: There is a consistent association between polysmoking (use of cigarettes together with other smoked products) and reduced quit success for combustible tobacco, but it is probably due to increased likelihood of transitioning to non‐daily use rather than complete cessation. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background and Aims: Although over half of United States states have passed taxes on electronic nicotine delivery systems (ENDS), recent evidence links ENDS tax rates to increases in smoking, suggesting potentially substantive health costs. Overall health implications will depend on how these taxes affect transitions from experimentation to regular smoking and vaping. Current analyses have not assessed ENDS tax rates' effects in young adulthood (ages 18–25). This study measures the relationship between ENDS and cigarette tax rates and ENDS use and smoking in young adulthood, a key period for initiation of regular tobacco use. Design: Observational study of data from the Current Population Survey's 2010–2019 Tobacco Use Supplements. Setting: The United States. Participants/Cases: A total of 38 906 18 to 25 year‐olds Measurements: Multivariable linear regressions estimated two‐way fixed effects analyses to assess ENDS and cigarette tax rates' relationships to recent and daily smoking and vaping, adjusting for an array of potential sociodemographic and policy confounders along with state and year fixed effects. Findings A $1 increase in ENDS taxes yielded significant reductions in young adults' daily vaping (β̂ = −0.025; 95% CI, −0.037, −0.014) alongside increases in recent smoking (β̂ = 0.037; 95% CI, 0.013, 0.061), primarily reflecting greater dual use (β̂ =2.078; 95% CI, 0.890, 4.852; P = 0.09). A $1 cigarette tax increase yielded 2.1 and 2.5 percentage point increases in recent and daily vaping, with 95% CIs of (0.004, 0.038) and (0.018, 0.032) respectively. Conclusions: In the United States, higher ENDS tax rates are associated with decreased ENDS use but increased cigarette smoking among 18‐ to 25‐year‐olds, with associations reversed for cigarette taxes. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Aims: To identify subpopulations of dual users of combustible and electronic cigarettes using current smoking and vaping behaviors. Design: Secondary analysis of baseline data from a randomized controlled trial testing a smoking cessation intervention for dual users. Finite mixture modeling of frequency, quantity, and dependence on combustible and electronic cigarettes was used to identify classes. Demographics and additional smoking and vaping variables were used to further characterize the classes. Setting: United States. Participants: A total of 2896 adults who smoked weekly for the past year and vaped weekly for the past month. Measurements Self‐report baseline measures assessed demographics and smoking and vaping behaviors and characteristics including days of use per week, frequency of use within a day, time to first use after waking, urges to smoke, smoking cessation motivation, self‐efficacy to abstain from smoking, months since vaping initiation, reasons for initiating and maintaining vaping, and future plans to stop vaping. Findings Eight probabilistic classes were identified and well‐defined (relative entropy = 0.95, Lo–Mendell–Rubin adjusted likelihood ratio test P < 0.0001; class probabilities 0.89–0.97). In general, classes crossed two levels of smoking with four levels of vaping. The largest class (31%) had relatively high levels of smoking (72% daily, 56% 11+ cigarettes per day [CPD], 96% within 30 minutes of waking) and vaping (74% daily, 100% 20+ electronic‐CPD, 74% <30 minutes). The next largest class (27%) had relatively high levels of vaping (93% daily, 100% 20+ electronic‐CPD, 82% <30 minutes) and very low levels of smoking (28% daily, 12% 11+ CPD, 0% <30 minutes). The six smaller classes (3%–13%) also had distinct smoking and vaping behaviors. All eight classes exhibited distinguishing characteristics beyond current smoking and vaping behaviors. Conclusions: Dual users of combustible and electronic cigarettes are not a homogeneous population, having eight well‐defined prospective subpopulations. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Aim: To measure whether the prevalence of use and real‐world effectiveness of different smoking cessation aids has changed in England since the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID‐19) pandemic. Design: Representative monthly cross‐sectional surveys, January 2015–June 2021. Setting: England. Participants: A total of 7300 adults (≥18 y) who had smoked within the previous 12 months and had made ≥1 quit attempt during that period. Measurements The independent variable was the timing of the COVID‐19 pandemic (pre‐pandemic [January 2015–February 2020] vs pandemic [April 2020–June 2021]). We analysed (i) the association between the pandemic period and self‐reported use (vs non‐use) during the most recent quit attempt of: prescription medication (nicotine replacement therapy [NRT]/varenicline/bupropion), NRT bought over‐the‐counter, e‐cigarettes, traditional behavioural support and traditional remote support (telephone support/written self‐help materials/websites) and (ii) the interaction between the pandemic period and use of these cessation aids on self‐reported abstinence from quit date to survey. Covariates included age, sex, social grade, level of cigarette addiction and characteristics related to the quit attempt. Findings After adjustment for secular trends, there was a significant increase from the pre‐pandemic to pandemic period in the prevalence of use of traditional remote support by past‐year smokers in a quit attempt (OR = 2.18; 95% CI, 1.42–3.33); specifically telephone support (OR = 7.16; 95% CI, 2.19–23.45) and websites (OR = 2.39; 95% CI, 1.41–4.08). There was also an increase in the prevalence of use of prescription medication (OR = 1.47; 95% CI, 1.08–2.00); specifically varenicline (OR = 1.66; 95% CI, 1.09–2.52). There were no significant changes in prevalence of use of other cessation aids after adjustment for secular trends. People who reported using prescription medication (OR = 1.41; 95% CI, 1.09–1.84) and e‐cigarettes (OR = 1.87; 95% CI, 1.62–2.16) had greater odds of reporting abstinence than people who did not. There were no significant interactions between the pandemic period and use of any cessation aid on abstinence, after adjustment for covariates and use of the other aids, although data were insensitive to distinguish no change from meaningful modest (OR = 1.34) effects (Bayes factors 0.72–1.98). Conclusions: In England, the COVID‐19 pandemic was associated with an increase in use of remote support for smoking cessation and varenicline by smokers in a quit attempt up to June 2021. The data were inconclusive regarding an association between the pandemic and changes in the real‐world effectiveness of popular smoking cessation aids. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Aim: To (i) estimate the prevalence of adolescent vaping in 47 lower‐middle, upper‐middle and high‐income countries, and (ii) test the association between implementation of World Health Organisation (WHO) tobacco control policies and adolescent e‐cigarette use (also known as vaping) in 44 countries where implementation data were available. Design: Cross‐sectional surveys. Settings A total of 47 lower‐middle, upper‐middle and high‐income countries. Participants: A total of 151 960 adolescents (typically ages 13–15) who participated in WHO's Global Youth Tobacco Survey between 2015 and 2018. Measurements Prevalence of past‐30‐day vaping and past 30‐day frequent vaping (≥10 days) were estimated from the surveys. Data on the implementation of six tobacco control measures including monitoring, smoke‐free policies, cessation programs, warning about the dangers of tobacco, advertising bans and taxation were taken from WHO's report on global tobacco epidemic. Findings The overall weighted prevalence of adolescent vaping and frequent vaping in the past 30 days was 8.6% (95% CI, 8.3‐8.9) and 1.7% (95% CI, 1.6‐1.8), respectively. For five of WHO's policies (monitoring, smoking‐free environment, cessation programs, health warning and advertising bans), their association with adolescent vaping was inconclusive because of large variation of their effects across countries. Higher tax on combustible tobacco products was associated with higher adolescent vaping (> = 75% tax vs < 25% tax; odds ratio = 2.58; 95% CI, 1.25‐5.21). Conclusion: In 47 lower‐middle, upper‐middle and high‐income countries from 2015 to 2018, ~1 in 12 (8.6%) adolescents reported vaping in the past 30 days, but prevalence of frequent vaping was low (1 in 60; 1.7%). A higher tobacco tax was associated with higher adolescent vaping. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background and aims: Previous analyses of the effect of e‐cigarettes on real world smoking cessation success have mainly been based on surveys undertaken in the United States and United Kingdom, where nicotine e‐cigarettes can be readily obtained. In Australia, regulations have made obtaining e‐cigarettes containing nicotine difficult. The effectiveness of e‐cigarette use as a smoking cessation aid in Australia might therefore be lower than survey‐based estimates published to date. This study aimed to estimate the effect of using e‐cigarettes for a smoking cessation attempt on past‐year smoking cessation success in Australia. Design: Multivariable logistic regression models for past‐year smoking cessation success. Setting and participants: Respondents to the 2019 wave of Australia's National Drug Strategy Household Survey who made a smoking cessation attempt in the 12 months leading up to the survey. Measurements Past‐year smoking cessation success was assumed if a smoking cessation attempt resulted in abstinence of more than a month at the time of the survey. Findings In 2019, Australians who attempted to quit smoking using e‐cigarettes achieved greater success than smokers attempting to quit without e‐cigarettes [adjusted odds ratio (aOR) = 1.68; 95% confidence interval (CI) = 1.09–2.60]. If people who only tried e‐cigarettes once or twice are considered not to have used e‐cigarettes, the estimated effect was slightly stronger (aOR = 1.98; 95% CI = 1.27–3.10). Also, the estimated odds ratio was higher among vapers who acquired their e‐cigarettes from overseas websites (aOR = 2.24; 95% CI = 1.02–4.93). Conclusions: Use of e‐cigarettes for a smoking cessation attempt appears to be associated with greater success among Australians who attempted to quit tobacco in 2019 compared with Australians attempting to quit without e‐cigarettes, after adjusting for confounding effects. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Aims: To assess how changes in the prevalence of e‐cigarette use among young adults have been associated with changes in the uptake of smoking in England between 2007 and 2018. Design Time–series analysis of population trends with autoregressive integrated moving average with exogeneous input (ARIMAX models). Setting: England. Participants: Data were aggregated quarterly on young adults aged 16–24 years (n = 37 105) taking part in the Smoking Toolkit Study. Measures: In the primary analysis, prevalence of e‐cigarette use was used to predict prevalence of ever regular smoking among those aged 16–24. Sensitivity analyses stratified the sample into those aged 16–17 and 18–24. Bayes' factors and robustness regions were calculated for non‐significant findings [effect size beta coefficient (B) = 3.1]. Findings There was evidence for no association between the prevalence of e‐cigarette use and ever regular smoking among those aged 16–24 [B = –0.015, 95% confidence interval (CI) = –0.046 to 0.016; P = 0.341; Bayes factor (BF) = 0.002]. Evidence for no association was also found in the stratified analysis among those aged 16–17 (B = 0.070, 95% CI –0.014 to 0.155, P = 0.102; BF = 0.015) and 18–24 (B = –0.021, 95% CI –0.053 to 0.011; P = 0.205; BF = 0.003). These findings were able to rule out percentage point increases or decreases in ever regular smoking prevalence greater than 0.31% or less than −0.03% for 16–17‐year‐olds and 0.01 or −0.08% for 18–24‐year‐olds for every 1%‐point increase in e‐cigarette prevalence. Conclusion: Prevalence of e‐cigarette use among the youth population in England does not appear to be associated with substantial increases or decreases in the prevalence of smoking uptake. Small associations cannot be ruled out. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Aim: To test whether intrapersonal growth in e‐cigarette advertising exposure over time is associated with growth in e‐cigarette use and/or cigarette smoking. Design Longitudinal study using four waves of data were collected in 6‐month intervals between 2018 and 2020. Setting and participants: Participants were 2327 young adults recruited from colleges in Hawaii, USA. Measurements Data were collected on demographics, e‐cigarette advertising exposure measured using the cued‐ recall method and recent (past 30‐day) cigarette and e‐cigarette use. Findings The average trajectory for e‐cigarette advertising exposure over time was significant and upward [M slope = 0.18 (0.14–0.22), P < 0.0001]. However, average trajectories for e‐cigarette [M slope = −0.08 (−0.18 to 0.02), P = 0.09] and cigarette [M slope = −0.14 (−0.30 to 0.02), P = 0.07] use were not. There were significant differences in individual level trajectories across participants for advertising exposure [σ2 = 0.12 (0.10–0.14), P < 0.0001], e‐cigarette use [σ2 = 0.22 (0.14–0.30), and cigarette smoking (σ2 = 0.17 [0.09–0.25], P < 0.0001). Individuals with an increasing rate of advertising exposure showed an increasing rate of e‐cigarette use [B = 0.63 (0.36–0.90), P < 0.0001). Neither initial level of, nor rate of change in, advertising exposure was significantly associated with cigarette smoking growth factors (P > 0.05). Higher initial level of e‐cigarette use was associated with higher initial level of cigarette smoking [B = 0.89 (0.69–1.09), P < 0.0001] but decreased rate of cigarette smoking over time [B = −0.12 (−0.20 to –0.04) P = 0.003]. Rate of change in e‐cigarette use was not associated with the rate of change in cigarette smoking (P > 0.05). Conclusions: Increased exposure to e‐cigarette advertising appears to be associated with increased e‐cigarette use but not with increased cigarette smoking. Higher initial level of e‐cigarette use appears to be associated with higher initial level of cigarette smoking but may be associated with a decreasing rate of cigarette smoking over time. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Aims: To investigate whether e‐cigarette and cigarette susceptibility predict e‐cigarette and cigarette use among American youth 1 year later. Design and Setting: Longitudinal data from the Population Assessment of Tobacco and Health (PATH) Study—a four‐stage, stratified probability cohort study of youth (12–17 years old) sampled from the United States civilian, non‐institutionalized population. Multivariable logistic regression was used to estimate the association between initial product‐specific susceptibility and subsequent cigarette smoking and e‐cigarette use while controlling for sociodemographic characteristics, exposure to nicotine users, and behavioral risk factors. Participants: The sample included 8841 adolescent never nicotine users at initial survey who participated in both wave 4 (2016–2017) and wave 4.5 (2017–2018) of PATH. Measurements We measured cigarette and e‐cigarette susceptibility (defined as a lack of a firm commitment to not use cigarettes or e‐cigarettes) among never nicotine users at baseline (wave 4) as well as cigarette and e‐cigarette use at 12‐month follow‐up (wave 4.5). Findings Youth e‐cigarette susceptibility was statistically significantly (P < 0.05) associated with e‐cigarette use 1 year later, for both past 12‐month (adjusted odds ratio [aOR], 2.99; 95% CI, 2.29–3.90) and past 30‐day e‐cigarette use (aOR, 2.73; 95% CI, 1.78–4.16), but not with cigarette smoking (aOR, 1.05; 95% CI, 0.64–1.73 for past 12‐month smoking and aOR, 0.65; 95% CI, 0.29–1.45 for past 30‐day smoking. Smoking susceptibility predicted subsequent smoking in the past 12 months (aOR, 1.82; 95% CI, 1.09–3.03) and past 30 days (aOR, 3.32; 95% CI (1.33–8.29), but not e‐cigarette use in the past 12 months (aOR, 0.96; 95% CI, 0.77–1.19) or past 30 days (aOR, 1.11; 95% CI, 0.82–1.51). Conclusion: E‐cigarette and cigarette susceptibility measures appear to predict product‐specific use among youth 1 year later. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Aims: To summarize evidence on tobacco addiction interventions published by the Cochrane Tobacco Addiction Group (CTAG) from 2019 to 2020. Methods: Narrative summary of all new and updated Cochrane Reviews published by CTAG in 2019 and 2020, outlining key results and promising avenues for future research. Results: CTAG published six new reviews and updated 15 reviews. There is high‐certainty evidence that combining fast‐acting nicotine replacement therapy (NRT) with transdermal patches helped more people to quit than single‐form NRT [risk ratio (RR) = 1.25, 95% confidence interval (CI) = 1.15–1.36, 14 studies, n = 11 356; I2 = 4%] and moderate‐certainty evidence that using NRT before quitting can increase quit rates more than using NRT from quit day onwards (RR = 1.25, 95% CI = 1.08–1.44, nine studies, n = 4395; I2 = 0%). Reducing smoking in order to quit completely results in similar quit rates to abrupt quitting (RR = 1.01, 95% CI= 0.87–1.17; I2 = 29%; 22 studies, n = 9219; moderate‐certainty). Electronic cigarettes may help more people quit than NRT (RR = 1.53, 95% CI = 1.21–1.93; I2 = 0%; four studies, n = 1924; moderate certainty), nicotine‐free electronic cigarettes (RR = 1.94, 95% CI = 1.21–3.13; I2 = 0%; five studies, n = 1447; moderate‐certainty) and behavioural/no support (RR = 2.61, 95% CI = 1.44–4.74; I2 = 0%; six studies, n = 2886; very low‐certainty). Varenicline may help prevent relapse in abstainers (RR = 1.23, 95% CI = 1.08–1.41; I2 = 82%; 11 studies, n = 1297; moderate‐certainty), but behavioural support did not prevent relapse (RR = 0.98, 95% CI = 0.87–1.11; I2 = 52%; 11 studies, n = 5523; moderate‐certainty). Financial incentives increased quit rates in the general population (RR = 1.49, 95% CI = 1.28–1.73; I2 = 33%; 30 studies, adjusted n = 20 097; high‐certainty) and during pregnancy (RR = 2.38, 95% CI = 1.54–3.69; I2 = 41%; nine studies, n = 2273; moderate‐certainty). This overview also provides detail on a wider range of interventions. Conclusions: There is high certainty that using nicotine replacement therapy from quit day increases smoking abstinence and no further research is required. Evidence is less certain that nicotine replacement increases abstinence when used in higher doses tailored to particular groups of smokers or use prior to quit day, and further research would be helpful. There is moderate‐certainty evidence to support the use of e‐cigarettes as cessation aids, but research on their role in preventing relapse would be particularly helpful. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background and Aims: There is concern that young people may be attracted to e‐liquid flavours, prompting long‐term vaping in naive users and potentially subsequent tobacco smoking. We aimed to review the use of e‐liquid flavours by young people and describe associations with uptake or cessation of both regular vaping and tobacco smoking, adverse effects and subjective experiences. Design Systematic review, including interventional, observational and qualitative studies reporting on the use of e‐cigarette flavours by young people (aged < 18 years). Setting: Studies published in English language from any country or cultural setting. Participants: Young people and their carers (aged < 18 years). Measurements A meta‐analysis was not possible due to substantial heterogeneity, inconsistency in reporting of flavour categorizations and non‐interventional study designs; thus, we narratively report findings. Findings In total, 58 studies were included. The quality of the evidence was extremely low. Most (n = 39) studies were cross‐sectional survey designs. In total, 11 longitudinal cohort studies assessed trajectories; eight qualitative studies reported on user experiences. Studies reported views and experiences of a total of 512 874 young people. Both cross‐sectional and longitudinal studies suggested that flavours are important for initiation and continuation of vaping. Qualitative evidence shows interest and enjoyment in flavours. There was judged to be insufficient evidence that use of e‐liquid flavours specifically is associated with uptake of smoking. No studies found clear associations between flavours and cessation in this population. We found no included reports of adverse effects of flavours. Conclusions: Flavours may be an important motivator for e‐cigarette uptake, but the role of flavours in tobacco smoking uptake or cessation is unclear. The quality of the evidence on use of e‐cigarette flavours by young people is low overall. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background and Aims: Clinicians could promote e‐cigarettes for harm reduction to people who smoke but cannot stop, but many clinicians feel uneasy doing so. In a randomized controlled trial (RCT), primary care clinicians offered free e‐cigarettes and encouraged people with chronic diseases who were unwilling to stop smoking to switch to vaping. We interviewed clinicians and patients to understand how to adopt harm reduction in routine practice. Design Qualitative analysis nested within an RCT, comprising thematic analysis of semi‐structured interviews with primary care clinicians who delivered the trial intervention, and patients who took part. Setting: Primary care clinics in England. Participants/Cases: Twenty‐one patients and 11 clinicians, purposively sampled from an RCT. Measurements We qualitatively explored patients' and clinicians' experiences of: being offered/offering an e‐cigarette, past and current perceptions about e‐cigarettes and applying a harm reduction approach. Findings Four themes captured clinicians' and patients' reported perspectives. These were: (1) concepts of safety/risk, with clinicians concerned about recommending a product with unknown long‐term risks and patients preferring the known risks of cigarettes; (2) clinicians felt they were going out on a limb by offering these as though they were prescribing them, whereas patients did not share this view; (3) equating quitting with success, as both patients and clinicians conceptualized e‐cigarettes as quitting aids; and (4) unchanged views, as clinicians reported that training did not change their existing views about e‐cigarettes. These themes were united by the higher‐order concept: 'The old and familiar meets the new and unknown', as a contradiction between this new approach and long‐established methods underpinned these concerns. Conclusions: A qualitative analysis found barriers obstructing clinicians and patients from easily accepting e‐cigarettes for harm reduction, rather than as aids to support smoking cessation: clinicians had difficulty reconciling harm reduction with their existing ethical models of practice, even following targeted training, and patients saw e‐cigarettes as quitting aids. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This narrative review examines the impact of cigarette smoking and the use of other tobacco and nicotine products on cardiovascular disease. Smoking increases the incidence of both acute and chronic cardiovascular diseases, and the harmful effects are substantially and relatively quickly reversible after quitting. Recommended cessation treatment includes offering pharmacotherapy, counseling which should emphasize the rapid risk reduction that occurs after quitting and adequate follow‐up contacts. Although most research on cardiovascular disease in relation to tobacco use has focused upon cigarette smoking, we also review available data related to other combustible tobacco products, smokeless tobacco, electronic nicotine delivery systems and second‐hand smoke. We discuss the implications of smoking on clinical management of patients with heart disease and newer developments with potential relevance to treatment of such patients. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Aim: To determine how varenicline, bupropion, nicotine replacement therapy (NRT) and electronic cigarettes compare with respect to their clinical effectiveness and safety. Method: Systematic reviews and Bayesian network meta‐analyses of randomized controlled trials, in any setting, of varenicline, bupropion, NRT and e‐cigarettes (in high, standard and low doses, alone or in combination) in adult smokers and smokeless tobacco users with follow‐up duration of 24 weeks or greater (effectiveness) or any duration (safety). Nine databases were searched until 19 February 2019. Primary outcomes were sustained tobacco abstinence and serious adverse events (SAEs). We estimated odds ratios (ORs) and treatment rankings and conducted meta‐regression to explore covariates. Results: We identified 363 trials for effectiveness and 355 for safety. Most monotherapies and combination therapies were more effective than placebo at helping participants to achieve sustained abstinence; the most effective of these, estimated with some imprecision, were varenicline standard [OR = 2.83, 95% credible interval (CrI) = 2.34–3.39] and varenicline standard + NRT standard (OR = 5.75, 95% CrI = 2.27–14.88). Estimates were higher in smokers receiving counselling than in those without and in studies with higher baseline nicotine dependence scores than in those with lower scores. Varenicline standard + NRT standard showed a high probability of being ranked best or second‐best. For safety, only bupropion at standard dose increased the odds of experiencing SAEs compared with placebo (OR = 1.27, 95% CrI = 1.04–1.58), and we found no evidence of effect modification. Conclusions: Most tobacco cessation monotherapies and combination therapies are more effective than placebo at helping participants to achieve sustained abstinence, with varenicline appearing to be most effective based on current evidence. There does not appear to be strong evidence of associations between most tobacco cessation pharmacotherapies and adverse events; however, the data are limited and there is a need for improved reporting of safety data. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background and Aims: People with mental ill health are more likely to smoke and experience smoking-related harm than those without. Switching from combustible tobacco to lower-risk nicotine-containing products may be of benefit; however, misperceptions of harm may prevent their use. We aimed to assess, among adults with and without mental ill health, (1) perceptions of harm from nicotine and relative harm and addictiveness of different nicotine-containing products and (2) sources of information associated with harm perceptions. Design: Cross-sectional study. Setting and Participants: On-line survey of adults (n = 3400) who smoke cigarettes and/or use e-cigarettes, or have recently stopped, in the United Kingdom. Measurements: Outcomes: harm perceptions of nicotine; relative perceived harm and addictiveness of different nicotine-containing products; sources of information for harm perceptions of nicotine, cigarette smoking and e-cigarettes. Demographics: sex, age, education, ethnic group and region. Other measures: self-reported smoking, vaping and mental health status. Analyses: frequencies and logistic regressions adjusting for demographic/other measures. Findings: Among those with serious mental distress (versus no/low mental distress): 9.6% [13.9%, adjusted odds ratio (aOR) = 0.69, 95% confidence interval (CI) = 0.50-0.97] correctly identified that none/a very small amount of the health risks of smoking cigarettes come from nicotine; 41.7% (53.5%, aOR = 0.67, 95% CI = 0.54-0.84) perceived e-cigarettes and 53.2% (70.3%, aOR = 0.62, 95% CI = 0.50-0.77) perceived nicotine replacement therapy to be less harmful than cigarettes; and 42.1% (51.3%, aOR = 0.77, 95% CI = 0.62-0.95) perceived e-cigarettes as being less likely than cigarettes to cause cancer, 35.4% (45.5%, aOR = 0.71, 95% CI = 0.57-0.88) heart attacks and 34.9% (42.3%, aOR = 0.80, 95% CI = 0.64-0.99) lung problems. The most popular sources of information for cigarette smoking, e-cigarettes and nicotine were scientific experts' opinions and media reports, with little variation by mental distress. Conclusions: Among adults with a history of tobacco and/or e-cigarette use, those with serious mental distress appear to have less accurate harm perceptions of nicotine and nicotine-containing products than those with no/low distress, despite reporting similar sources of information. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background and Aims: In 2017, the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) proposed to reduce nicotine in cigarettes to minimally or non‐addictive levels. This study qualitatively explored perceptions of nicotine and addiction, both independently and in response to messages communicating about nicotine reduction. Design Qualitative study using focus groups. Participants described their perceptions of nicotine and addiction and their responses to messages about the nicotine reduction. Setting: Atlanta, GA and San Francisco, CA, USA. Semi‐structured focus groups were conducted virtually in Spring 2020. Participants: Exclusive smokers (n = 27), dual users (of cigarettes and electronic cigarettes) (n = 25), former smokers (n = 32) and young adult non‐smokers (n = 31). Measurement Inductive thematic analysis of transcripts was conducted, and results were compared across smoking status groups. Findings Participants across all smoking status groups associated nicotine with tobacco products, but consistently misperceived that nicotine caused disease. Perceptions of addiction were largely negative and varied by smoking status. Experienced smokers (exclusive smokers, former smokers and dual users) differentiated tobacco use from other addictions and minimized their own experiences of addiction. Perceptions of addiction across experienced smokers included not only the chemical properties of nicotine, but also the behavioral aspects of tobacco use, including oral fixation, having a smoking routine and response to internal and external cues. In response to messages, many believed that removing the nicotine would not make cigarettes less addictive because of the multi‐factorial nature of smoking addiction that includes non‐pharmacological cues. Conclusions: Perceptions of nicotine and addiction among non‐smokers, former smokers, exclusive smokers and dual users of cigarettes and e‐cigarettes vary based on smoking status, but there is a common tendency to believe that nicotine is addictive, that addiction results from more than just nicotine, and that very low nicotine cigarettes will not necessarily reduce the addictiveness of cigarettes. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background and Aims: For electronic cigarettes (e‐cigarettes) to be a viable substitute for combustible cigarettes, it is likely that they must be rewarding enough for regular use, indicated by factors such as craving and dependence, important aspects of reinforcement. This study aimed to understand short‐term changes in measures of nicotine dependence between groups differing by use trajectory in a switching trial, and within group changes of these measures. Design Secondary data analysis of one arm of an e‐cigarette randomized clinical trial. Setting: San Diego, California and Kansas City, Missouri, United States. Participants: 114 African American (n = 60) and Latinx (n = 54) smokers (58.8% male) attempting to switch to nicotine salt pod system (NSPS) e‐cigarettes in a 6‐week trial. Measurements At week 6, participants were classified by use trajectory: exclusive smokers (n = 16), exclusive e‐cigarette (n = 32), or dual users (n = 66). E‐cigarette, cigarette, and total nicotine dependence (cigarette + e‐cigarette), use patterns, cigarette craving and nicotine withdrawal, and cotinine were assessed at baseline and week 6 using standard measures. Findings In between group comparisons, exclusive e‐cigarette and dual users showed greater reductions in cigarette dependence (e‐cigarette: −32.38, 95% CI = −37.7,−27.1; dual: −18.48, 95% CI = −22.2,−14.7), withdrawal (e‐cigarette: −6.25, 95% CI = −8.52,−3.98; dual: −3.18, 95% CI = −5.02,−1.34), craving (e‐cigarette: −11.44, 95% CI = −14.2,8.7; dual: −9.59, 95% CI = −11.6,−7.59), and cigarettes per day (CPD; e‐cigarette: −11.19, 95% CI = −13.1,−9.27; dual: −9.39, 95% CI = −11.3, −7.52) compared with exclusive smokers. In within group analyses, e‐cigarette and dual users showed reductions in craving and withdrawal from baseline to week 6. Exclusive e‐cigarette and dual users, maintained cotinine levels (all Ps > 0.05) and showed reductions in CPD and cigarette dependence (all Ps < 0.01). Findings were inconclusive regarding changes in total nicotine dependence from baseline to week 6 among exclusive e‐cigarette users (P = 0.123). Dual users showed increased total nicotine dependence (P < 0.001) and smokers showed decreased total dependence (P = 0.004). Conclusions: Smokers who switch to nicotine salt pod system e‐cigarettes maintain their nicotine levels and transfer their dependence, suggesting that nicotine salt pod system e‐cigarettes have a similar reinforcement potential to cigarettes and facilitate switching. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background and aims: The vaping rate among US teenagers has doubled in the last 2 years, which may be explained in part by teenagers' optimism that they would have relatively little trouble in quitting. The aim of this study was to estimate the extent to which teenagers exhibited optimism bias, what characteristics are associated with optimism bias and which factors are related to respondents' perceptions of how hard it would be for them to quit. Design A national, on‐line, cross‐sectional survey in 2018 using quota sampling. Setting: United States. Participants: Respondents were 1610 teenagers aged 14–18 years who had ever tried or heard of JUULs or e‐cigarettes generally. Measurements Optimism bias was defined as respondents' perceptions of their own difficulty quitting vaping compared with that of an average US person of their own age. Linear regression was used to examine associations between respondents' characteristics with both optimism bias and their own perceived difficulty quitting vaping. Findings More than 60% of teenagers were optimistically biased about their ability to quit vaping. Smoking (b = −0.69, P < 0.01) and JUULing (b = −0.62, P < 0.01) were negatively associated with optimism bias but reduced‐price school lunch eligibility (0.27, P = 0.02) and school satisfaction were positively associated (b = 0.05, P = 0.02). Smoking (b = 0.85, P < 0.01) was associated with an increased perception of the difficulty of quitting. That association was negative for black respondents (b = −0.81, P = 0.01) and those eligible for reduced‐priced lunches (b = −0.48, P = 0.01), and positive for Hispanic respondents (b = 0.47, P = 0.04). Conclusions: On average, US teenagers appear to show optimism bias about their ability to quit vaping, which decreases with smoking and vaping and increases with eligibility for reduced‐price school lunches. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background and Aims: Between March 2019 and February 2020 there was an outbreak of acute lung injury associated with vaping tetrahydrocannabinol (THC), contaminated with vitamin E acetate, in the United States. To date, there has been no comprehensive study of drug‐related deaths associated with vaping products in the United Kingdom. We aimed to identify any trends in drug‐related deaths associated with vaping product use in the United Kingdom. Methods: We retrospectively identified any deaths associated with the use of vaping products reported to the UK National Programme on Substance Abuse Deaths (NPSAD). This contains voluntarily reported information from UK Coroners on more than 42 000 deaths related to psychoactive drugs, other than nicotine or caffeine, which occurred between 1997 and 2020. Results: Two drug‐related deaths were reported which were associated with vaping products, one person having died in 2017 and one in 2018. Both decedents were men currently serving prison sentences in England and were aged 26 and 42 years at the time of death. Both deaths were associated with recent use of Synthetic Cannabinoid Receptor Agonists (SCRAs), with no other substances found to be implicated in death. No details regarding the type of vaping products were available. Conclusions: In a UK sample (1997 to 2020) of 42 000 deaths related to psychoactive drugs other than nicotine or caffeine, only two deaths were associated with vaping products, and those involved use of synthetic cannabinoid receptor agonists. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

An editorial is presented that examines the benefits of raising age-of-sale laws for combustible tobacco. Particular focus is given to how something like a Combustible 21 law could prohibit the sale of combustible tobacco to individuals under 21 years of age, leaving open the opportunity for those individuals to legally purchase e-cigarettes and smokeless tobacco products. The possible effects of incentivizing e-cigarettes are also noted.