Search

Aims: This paper presents updated prevalence estimates of awareness, ever‐use, and current use of nicotine vaping products (NVPs) from 14 International Tobacco Control Policy Evaluation Project (ITC Project) countries that have varying regulations governing NVP sales and marketing. Design, Setting, Participants and Measurements: A cross‐sectional analysis of adult (≥ 18 years) current smokers and ex‐smokers from 14 countries participating in the ITC Project. Data from the most recent survey questionnaire for each country were included, which spanned the period 2013–17. Countries were categorized into four groups based on regulations governing NVP sales and marketing (allowable or not), and level of enforcement (strict or weak where NVPs are not permitted to be sold): (1) most restrictive policies (MRPs), not legal to be sold or marketed with strict enforcement: Australia, Brazil, Uruguay; (2) restrictive policies (RPs), not approved for sale or marketing with weak enforcement: Canada, Malaysia, Mexico, New Zealand; (3) less restrictive policies (LRPs), legal to be sold and marketed with regulations: England, the Netherlands, Republic of Korea, United States; and (4) no regulatory policies (NRPs), Bangladesh, China, Zambia. Countries were also grouped by World Bank Income Classifications. Country‐specific weighted logistic regression models estimated adjusted NVP prevalence estimates for: awareness, ever/current use, and frequency of use (daily versus non‐daily). Findings NVP awareness and use were lowest in NRP countries. Generally, ever‐ and current use of NVPs were lower in MRP countries (ever‐use = 7.1–48.9%; current use = 0.3–3.5%) relative to LRP countries (ever‐use = 38.9–66.6%; current use = 5.5–17.2%) and RP countries (ever‐use = 10.0–62.4%; current use = 1.4–15.5%). NVP use was highest among high‐income countries, followed by upper–middle‐income countries, and then by lower–middle‐income countries. Conclusions: With a few exceptions, awareness and use of nicotine vaping products varied by the strength of national regulations governing nicotine vaping product sales/marketing, and by country income. In countries with no regulatory policies, use rates were very low, suggesting that there was little availability, marketing and/or interest in nicotine vaping products in these countries where smoking populations are predominantly poorer. The higher awareness and use of nicotine vaping products in high income countries with moderately (e.g. Canada, New Zealand) and less (e.g. England, United States) restrictive policies, is likely due to the greater availability and affordability of nicotine vaping products. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article presents addition-related news briefs on topics including the U.S. Food and Drug Administration's plan to regulate tobacco and nicotine in an effort to reduce the number of tobacco use-related deaths in America. According to the article, Ozamiz, Philippines Mayor Reynaldo Parojinog and several other people have been killed during the nation's War on Drugs. A report from the U.S. Commission on Combating Drug Addiction and the Opioid Crisis is addressed.

The article discusses the regulatory framework that is best for nicotine vaping. Topics include adult cigarette smoking rate in 2020 according to the U.S. National Health Interview Survey, impact of the decision not to authorize most vaping products for the U.S. market, and the flawed prescription-only model of Australia.

Background: Smoking is Australia's leading preventable cause of premature mortality and a major contributor to the national disease burden. If quit rates do not dramatically improve, then smoking will continue to be a major public health issue for decades to come. Harm-reduction approaches using novel nicotine products like e-cigarettes as long term replacements for smoking have the potential to improve quit rates. However, little research has assessed such approaches.Methods/design: Design: Three-arm parallel-group pragmatic randomised controlled trial.Participants: People living in Australia who are at least 18 years old, smoke five or more cigarettes per day and are willing to try a sample of nicotine products.Intervention: Participants are randomised to receive standard quit advice and medicinal nicotine (Condition A); quit or substitute advice and medicinal nicotine (Condition B); or quit or substitute advice and medicinal nicotine and e-cigarettes (Condition C). Participants choose which (if any) nicotine products to receive to try in a free sample pack followed by a two to three week free supply of their favourite product(s) and the option to purchase more at a discounted price. Follow-up surveys will assess nicotine product use and smoking.Primary Outcome: Continuous abstinence for at least 6 months. Target sample size: 1600 people (Condition A: 340; Condition B: 630; Condition C: 630) provides at least 80 % power at p = 0.05 to detect a 5 % difference in abstinence rates between each condition.Discussion: This trial will provide data on tobacco harm-reduction approaches and in particular the use of e-cigarettes as a replacement for smoking.Trial Registration: Australian and New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry: ACTRN12612001210864. Date of registration: 15/11/2012. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Aims: To compare the policy positions of health and medical organisations across Australia, New Zealand, and the UK as they relate to sale and supply of nicotine vaping products (NVPs) and evaluate factors that have informed the differences in policy recommendations among these countries.Methods: We used mixed methods to analyse data from position or policy statements published by health and medical organisations regarding NVPs (n = 30) and consultation documents submitted to government committees regarding policy options for the regulation of NVPs (n = 26). Quality assessment of included documents was conducted using the six-item Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI) Critical Appraisal Checklist for Text and Opinion Papers, and findings were presented narratively. Qualitative data were coded using NVivo 12 software and analysed using thematic analysis.Results: An overwhelming majority of health bodies, charities and government agencies in the UK and New Zealand portrayed NVPs as a life-saving harm reduction tool. In contrast, concerns about addicting non-smoking youth to nicotine, a perceived lack of clear and convincing evidence of safety and efficacy and the potential to undermine tobacco control progress continues to define attitudes and recommendations towards NVPs among Australian health and medical organisations. Although the profoundly divided views among stakeholders seem to arise from empirical uncertainties and disagreements over the level and credibility of evidence, the source of most of these disagreements can be traced back to the fundamental and irreconcilable differences in the framing of the NVP debate, and varied tolerability of risk trade-offs associated with NVPs.Conclusion: Progress in resolving the controversy surrounding NVP policy requires stakeholders to be frame-reflective and engage in a meaningful dialogue of risk trade-offs, as well as both intended and unintended consequences of proposed policies. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]