Search

Background: Prevalence of youth nicotine vaping has increased, heightening concerns around negative health effects. This study aimed to compare self-reported respiratory symptoms among youth by vaping behaviours. Methods: Participants (n = 39,214) aged 16–19 from the 2020 and 2021 International Tobacco Control Policy Evaluation Project (ITC) Youth Tobacco and Vaping Surveys (Canada, England, US). Weighted multivariable logistic regression assessed associations between reporting any of five respiratory symptoms in the past week (shortness of breath, wheezing, chest pain, phlegm, cough) and: past 30-day smoking and/or vaping; lifetime/current vaping. Among past-30-day vapers (n = 4644), we assessed associations between symptoms and vaping frequency, use of nicotine salts, usual flavour and device type(s). Results: Overall, 27.8% reported experiencing any of the five respiratory symptoms. Compared with youth who had only vaped, those who had only smoked had similar odds of symptoms [adjusted odds ratio, OR (95% confidence interval, CI): 0.97 (0.85–1.10)], those who both smoked and vaped had higher odds [1.26 (1.12–1.42)], and those who had done neither, lower odds [0.67 (0.61–0.72)]. Compared with those who had never vaped, past use, experimentation and current regular or occasional use were all associated with higher odds. Reporting usually using nicotine salts was associated with higher odds of symptoms [1.43 (1.22–1.68)] than non-salt but was often uncertain. Compared with tobacco flavour (including with menthol), menthol/mint and sweets flavours were associated with similar odds; fruit [1.44 (1.07–1.93)], multiple [1.76 (1.30–2.39)] and 'other' [2.14 (1.45–3.16)] flavours with higher odds. All device types were associated with similar odds. Conclusions: Among youth, vaping was associated with increased reporting of past-week respiratory symptoms. Among those who vaped, some flavour types and potentially nicotine salts were associated with respiratory symptoms. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Standardized ('plain') packaging is effective in reducing the appeal of cigarettes among young people. This study examined the impact of plain packaging and brand imagery on interest in trying e-cigarettes among youth. Experimental design. Two online experiments were conducted in February 2020 as part of the ITC Youth Tobacco & Vaping Survey, conducted with 13,624 16- to 19-year-olds in Canada, England, and the USA. In the between-group Experiment 1, participants were randomized to view a set of 3 e-cigarette brands, in either their original external packaging ('branded' condition) or standardized olive-green packaging ('standardized' condition), and asked to select the product they would be most interested in trying. The within-group Experiment 2 examined brand imagery directly on devices, including potential differences in appeal among subgroups. Each participant viewed 4 pod-style e-cigarette devices: one 'plain' and 3 in colourful 'skins'. Logistic regression models were conducted to test the effect of condition, adjusting for demographics, smoking and vaping status. In Experiment 1, participants in the 'standardized' packaging condition were significantly more likely to indicate 'I have no interest in trying any of these products' (72.3%) than those in the 'branded' condition (66.9%, AOR 1.45, 95% CI 1.33–1.59). Experiment 2 results indicated differences in e-cigarette appeal by sex in the selection of male- and female-oriented designs, and by cannabis use for a Rastafarian-themed design. Brand imagery on e-cigarettes can target products to specific subgroups. Removal of imagery, in the form of standardized packaging, has the potential to reduce interest in trying e-cigarettes among young people. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Aims: The aim of this study was to examine the safety of e‐cigarettes (EC) and nicotine patches (NRT) when used to help pregnant smokers quit. Design: A recent trial of EC versus NRT reported safety outcomes in the randomized arms. We conducted a further analysis based on product use. Setting: Twenty‐three hospitals in England and a stop‐smoking service in Scotland took part. Participants: The participants comprised 1140 pregnant smokers. Interventions: We compared women using and not using EC and NRT regularly during pregnancy. Measurements Measurements included nicotine intake compared with baseline, birth weight, other pregnancy outcomes, adverse events, maternal respiratory symptoms and relapse in early abstainers. Findings Use of EC was more common than use of NRT (47.3% vs 21.6%, P < 0.001). Women who stopped smoking (abstainers) and used EC at the end‐of‐pregnancy (EOP) reduced their salivary cotinine by 45% [49.3 ng/ml, 95% confidence interval (CI) = −79.8 to −10]. Only one abstainer used NRT at EOP. In dual users, cotinine increased by 19% (24 ng/ml, 95% CI = 3.5–68). In women reporting a reduction of at least 50% in cigarette consumption, cotinine levels increased by 10% in those using nicotine products and by 9% in those who did not. Birth weights in dual users and exclusive smokers were the same (3.1 kg). Birth weight in abstainers using either nicotine product was higher than in smokers [3.3 kg, standard deviation (SD) = 0.7] versus 3.1 kg, SD = 0.6; difference = 0.15 kg, 95% CI = 0.05–0.25) and not different from abstainers not using nicotine products (3.1 kg, SD = 0.8). Abstainers and smokers using nicotine products had no worse pregnancy outcomes or more adverse events than abstainers and smokers not using them. EC users reported more improvements than non‐users in cough [adjusted relative risk (aRR) = 0.59, 95% CI = 0.37–0.93] and phlegm (aRR = 0.53, 95% CI = 0.31–0.92), controlling for smoking status. EC or NRT use had no association with relapse. Conclusions: Regular use of e‐cigarettes or nicotine patches by pregnant smokers does not appear to be associated with any adverse outcomes. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Tobacco smoking affects women's fertility and is associated with substantial risks of adverse pregnancy outcomes. This study explored trends by socioeconomic position in patterns of smoking, use of non-combustible nicotine products, and quitting activity among women of reproductive age in England. Methods: Data come from a nationally representative monthly cross-sectional survey. Between October 2013 and October 2023, 197,266 adults (≥ 18 years) were surveyed, of whom 44,052 were women of reproductive age (18–45 years). Main outcome measures were current smoking, vaping, and use of nicotine replacement therapy (NRT), heated tobacco products (HTPs), and nicotine pouches; mainly/exclusively smoking hand-rolled cigarettes and level of dependence among current smokers; past-year quit attempts among past-year smokers; and success of quit attempts among those who tried to quit. We modelled time trends in these outcomes, overall and by occupational social grade (ABC1 = more advantaged/C2DE = less advantaged). Results: Smoking prevalence among women of reproductive age fell from 28.7% [95%CI = 26.3–31.2%] to 22.4% [19.6–25.5%] in social grades C2DE but there was an uncertain increase from 11.7% [10.2–13.5%] to 14.9% [13.4–16.6%] in ABC1. By contrast, among all adults and among men of the same age, smoking prevalence remained relatively stable in ABC1. Vaping prevalence among women of reproductive age more than tripled, from 5.1% [4.3–6.0%] to 19.7% [18.0–21.5%], with the absolute increase more pronounced among those in social grades C2DE (reaching 26.7%; 23.3–30.3%); these changes were larger than those observed among all adults but similar to those among men of the same age. The proportion of smokers mainly/exclusively smoking hand-rolled cigarettes increased from 40.5% [36.3–44.9%] to 61.4% [56.5–66.1%] among women of reproductive age; smaller increases were observed among all adults and among men of the same age. Patterns on other outcomes were largely similar between groups. Conclusions: Among women of reproductive age, there appears to have been a rise in smoking prevalence in the more advantaged social grades over the past decade. Across social grades, there have been substantial increases in the proportion of women of reproductive age who vape and shifts from use of manufactured to hand-rolled cigarettes among those who smoke. These changes have been more pronounced than those observed in the general adult population over the same period. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Introduction Vaping is not risk-free but can help those who smoke to reduce harm to health and stop smoking. However, packaging of vaping products, including e-liquids, appeals to youth and might facilitate vaping among nicotine-naïve people. Standardized packaging of vaping products could moderate the appeal of vaping among youth. This study assessed how youth interest in trying and perceived health harms of using e-liquids are associated with branded or standardized (white or olive) e-liquid packaging with different nicotine levels displayed. Aims and Methods A between-subject experiment with three packaging and two nicotine level conditions included youth (n = 13801) aged 16 to 19 from England, Canada, and the United States as a part of a cross-sectional online survey in August–September 2021. Participants' interest in trying and perceived harm of e-liquids were analyzed using logistic and multinomial regressions adjusted for age, sex, race or ethnicity, country, vaping, and smoking status. Results Compared with branded e-liquid packs, more youth reported no interest in trying e-liquids in white (aOR = 1.48, 95% CI = 1.34 to 1.64) or olive (aOR = 1.62, 95% CI: 1.47 to 1.80) standardized packs. Compared with branded e-liquid packs, more youth inaccurately perceived e-liquids in white (aOR = 1.22, 95% CI: 1.11 to 1.34) or olive (aOR = 1.29, 95% CI: 1.18 to 1.41) standardized packs as equally or more harmful than smoking. E-liquid nicotine levels displayed on packs were not associated with youth interest in trying or harm perceptions of using e-liquids. Conclusions Among 16- to 19-year-old youth from England, Canada, and the United States, standardized packaging of e-liquids was associated with lower interest in trying and higher health risk perceptions. Implications Branded packaging of vaping products appeal to youth and might prompt nicotine use among those who had never smoked. This study suggests that restricting branding elements on e-liquid packaging is associated with youth's lower interest in trying e-liquids and higher misperceptions that vaping is equally or more harmful than smoking. Standardized packaging might reduce appeal of vaping among youth, but its potential to discourage vaping for harm reduction should also be considered. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Introduction: Consumer preferences should be important factors that are considered when developing health policies and interventions. This paper examines the prevalence of, and factors associated with, consumer preferences regarding smoking behaviour 1 to 2 years in the future. Methods: At least weekly cigarette smokers in the 2020 wave of the International Tobacco Control Four Country Smoking and Vaping Survey (USA, Canada, England and Australia) (N = 8642) were asked if they preferred to continue to smoke or to quit with or without an alternative nicotine product (ANP) over the next 1–2 years. Results: Country‐specific weighted data showed 21.5% preferred to continue smoking and 8.0% were uncertain, leaving 70.6% preferring to quit: 13.7% using an ANP and 56.9% completely quitting nicotine. Apart from interest in quitting, the main predictors of preferring to quit were history of vaping, being aged 55 and over, smoking weekly, worrying about smoking harms, regretting starting and believing vaping is less harmful relative to smoking. Among those preferring to quit, preferring to use ANPs in future was very strongly associated with current vaping (especially daily), being younger, living in England, reporting strong urges to smoke, believing vaping is much less harmful than smoking, and not strongly regretting starting to smoke, and not wanting to quit. Discussion and Conclusions: A significant minority of smokers preferred not to quit, at least in the next year or two. Both interest in quitting and preference for ANPs over complete cessation were associated with similar covariates, including interest in vaping. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Most smokers know that smoking is harmful to health, but less is known about their understanding of what causes the harms. The primary aim was to examine smokers' perceptions of the relative contributions to smoking-related morbidity from combustion products, nicotine, other substances present in unburned tobacco, and additives. A secondary aim was to evaluate the association of these perceptions with nicotine vaping product use intentions, and quitting motivation/intentions. Methods: Participants were current smokers and recent ex-smokers from Australia, Canada, England and the United States (N = 12,904, including 8511 daily smokers), surveyed in the 2018 International Tobacco Control Four Country Smoking and Vaping Survey. Respondents reported on how much they thought combustion products, nicotine, chemicals in the tobacco and additives in cigarettes contribute to smoking-related morbidity (none/very little; some but less than half; around half; more than half; all or nearly all of it; don't know). Results: Overall, 4% of participants provided estimates for all four component causes that fell within the ranges classified correct, with younger respondents and those from England most likely to be correct. Respondents who rated combustion as clearly more important than nicotine in causing harm (25%) were the least likely to be smoking daily and more likely to have quit and/or to be vaping. Among daily smokers, all four cause estimates were independently related to overall health worry and extent of wanting to quit, but the relative rating of combustion compared to nicotine did not add to prediction. Those who answered 'don't know' to the sources of harm questions and those suggesting very little harm were consistently least interested in quitting. Conclusions: Most smokers' knowledge of specific causes of harm is currently inadequate and could impact their informed decision-making ability. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Introduction In the last 5 years, there has been a dramatic shift in the types of nicotine products being purchased. This study aimed to estimate how much users spend on types of cigarettes and alternative nicotine products (e-cigarettes, nicotine replacement therapy (NRT), heated tobacco, and nicotine pouches) and describe changes between 2018 and 2022. Aims and Methods Monthly representative cross-sectional survey in England. 10 323 adults who smoked cigarettes or used alternative nicotine reported their average weekly expenditure on these products, adjusted for inflation. Results Smokers spent £20.49 [95% CI = 20.09–20.91] on cigarettes each week (£27.66 [26.84–28.50] and £15.96 [15.49–16.28] among those who mainly smoked manufactured and hand-rolled cigarettes, respectively), e-cigarette users spent £6.30 [5.99–6.55] (£8.41 [7.17–9.78], £6.42 [5.58–7.39], and £5.93 [5.64–6.30] among those who mainly used disposable, pod, and refillable devices, respectively), NRT users £6.11 [5.53–6.69], and heated tobacco users £13.87 [9.58–20.09]. Expenditure on cigarettes grew by 10% from September 2018 to July 2020, then fell by 10% from July 2020 to June 2022. These changes coincided with a 13% reduction in cigarette consumption and a 14% increase in the proportion mainly smoking hand-rolled cigarettes. Expenditure on e-cigarettes was stable between 2018 and late 2020, then rose by 31% up to mid-2022. Expenditure on NRT increased slowly in 2018–2020 (+4%) and more quickly thereafter (+20%). Conclusions Inflation-adjusted expenditure on cigarettes has fallen since 2020, such that the average smoker in England currently spends the same on cigarettes each week as in 2018. This has been achieved by smoking fewer cigarettes and switching to cheaper hand-rolled cigarettes. Expenditure on alternative nicotine has increased above inflation; users spent around a third more on these products in 2022 than between 2018–2020. Implications People in England continue to spend substantially more on smoking cigarettes than using alternative nicotine products. The average smoker in England spends around £13 a week (~£670 a year) more than people using only e-cigarettes or NRT. The average expenditure on manufactured cigarettes is double that of hand-rolled cigarettes. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background and Aims: The addictive potential of electronic cigarettes (e‐cigarettes) remains to be fully understood. We identified patterns and correlates of perceived addiction to e‐cigarettes and perceived addictiveness of e‐cigarettes relative to tobacco cigarettes (relative addictiveness) in dual users as well as exclusive e‐cigarette users. Design, Setting and Participants: Observational study using cross‐sectional survey data from England (2016) from the International Tobacco Control Project (ITC) Four Country Smoking and Vaping (4CV) survey. The study comprised 832 current e‐cigarette users who had been vaping for at least 4 months. Measurements: Perceived addiction to e‐cigarettes and relative addictiveness of e‐cigarettes were examined. Socio‐demographic factors were age, gender and education; markers of addiction included urge to vape, time to first vape after waking and nicotine strength used; vaping and smoking characteristics included frequency and duration of e‐cigarette use, intention to quit, adjustable power or temperature, enjoyment, satisfaction relative to tobacco cigarettes and tobacco cigarette smoking status. Findings A total of 17% of participants reported feeling very addicted to e‐cigarettes, while 40% considered e‐cigarettes equally/more addictive than tobacco cigarettes. Those who felt very addicted had higher odds of regarding e‐cigarettes as more addictive than tobacco cigarettes (odds ratio 3.4, 95% confidence interval 2.3–5.1). All markers of addiction, daily use and enjoyment were associated with higher perceived addiction, whereas time to first vape after waking, daily vaping and perceiving vaping as less satisfying than smoking were associated with relative addictiveness. Conclusions: Markers of addiction to e‐cigarettes appear to correspond with perceived addiction to e‐cigarettes, suggesting that self‐reported perceived addiction might serve as an indicator of addiction. Prevalence both of markers of addiction and perceived addiction were comparatively low overall, suggesting a limited but relevant addictive potential of e‐cigarettes. Additionally, positive and negative reinforcement, reflected here by enjoyment and relative satisfaction, might play a role in e‐cigarette addiction. [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 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]

Aims: To measure the prevalence and changes in smokers' discussions with health professionals (HPs) about nicotine vaping products (NVPs) and HPs' recommendations about NVPs between 2016 and 2020, and their associations with tobacco product use transitions. Design: Cohort study using multinomial logistic regression analyses on data from waves 1 (2016), 2 (2018) and 3 (2020) from the International Tobacco Control Four Country Smoking and Vaping Surveys. Setting: Four countries with varying NVP regulatory environments: 'most restrictive' (Australia), 'somewhat restrictive' (Canada) and 'less restrictive' (England and the United States). Participants: Adult exclusive daily smokers who did not report NVP use at the time of their baseline survey and had visited a HP in the last 12–24 months. Prevalence data came from 4125, 4503 and 4277 respondents, respectively, for each year. Longitudinal data were from 4859 respondents who participated in at least two consecutive surveys. Measurements Prevalence of self‐reported discussions with HPs and recommendations from HPs about NVPs. Longitudinal transitions from smoking to vaping (either exclusively or concurrently with smoking) and quitting (regardless of NVP uptake). Findings The prevalence of NVP discussions was low among countries with varying regulatory environments and study waves (range = 1.4–6.2%). In 2020, a low percentage of smokers who discussed NVPs with a HP reported that their HPs recommended they use NVPs in the United States (14.7%), Australia (20.2%), Canada (25.7%), with a higher percentage in England (55.7%) where clinical guidelines for smoking cessation include NVPs. Compared with 12.0% of smokers who reported no discussion, 37.0% of those whose HPs recommended NVPs transitioned to vaping at follow‐up. Transition to quitting was 9.6% with HPs' recommendation of NVPs versus 13.5% without discussion, a non‐significant difference. Conclusions: In Australia, Canada, England and the United States between 2016 and 2020, health professionals' discussions with smokers about nicotine vaping products (NVPs) were infrequent. NVP discussions were associated with NVP uptake, but not with quitting smoking. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Introduction: Up-to-date monitoring of non-combustible nicotine products (e.g. e-cigarettes, nicotine replacement therapies (NRT), heated tobacco products (HTP); NNP) is important to assess their impact. To date, there is little evidence on the association between ever regular use (defined here as 1 year or more) of NNP and current smoking status. Aims/methods: The purpose of this study was to examine the prevalence, and sociodemographic, alcohol and smoking status correlates, of ever regular use of NNP in England in 2020. A cross-sectional survey of adults in England was conducted between February and June 2020. Results: A total of 8486 adults were surveyed; 94.9% (8055) were complete cases. The weighted prevalence of ever regular NNP use was 5.4% (n = 436; 95% CI 5.0–6.0), of which 82% (n = 360; 95% CI 78.7–85.8) was single and 18% (n = 79; 95% CI 14.8–22) multiple product use. Amongst ever regular NNP users, the prevalence of ever regular NRT, e-cigarette and HTP use was 64.7% (95% CI 60.1–69), 43.4% (95% CI 38.8–48) and 2.5% (95% CI 1.4–4.5), respectively. In adjusted analysis, ever regular NNP use was associated with smoking status, being significantly higher among current (22.3%; adjusted OR (aOR) 34.9, 95% CI 24.0–50.8) and ex-smokers (12.7%, aOR 19.8, 95% CI 11.1–14.4) than among never-smokers (0.6%). More advantaged occupational grade (aOR, 1.27 95% CI 1.02–1.57) and at least hazardous alcohol use (aOR, 1.38 95% CI 1.06–1.78) were associated with greater prevalence of ever regular NNP use. Conclusions: Ever regularly using NNP was highest among smokers and ex-smokers and rare among never-smokers. Among people who have ever regularly used NNP, NRT is the most popular. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Introduction: This study aimed to examine how the proportion of dual users of cigarettes and e-cigarettes who use e-cigarettes in situations where smoking is not permitted has changed since e-cigarettes became popular in England, and to characterize those who do so.Methods: Data were from 5081 adults in England who reported current smoking and current use of e-cigarettes ('dual users') participating in a nationally-representative monthly survey between April 2011 and February 2020. We modeled quarterly changes in prevalence of e-cigarette use in situations where smoking is not permitted and assessed multivariable associations with sociodemographic and smoking characteristics.Results: Between 2011 and 2020, prevalence of e-cigarette use in situations where smoking is not permitted followed a positive cubic trend, with a decelerating increase from an estimated 52.5% of dual users in Q2-2011 to 72.7% in Q3-2014, followed by a small decline to 67.5% in 2018, and subsequent increase to 74.0% in 2020. Odds were higher among those who were from more disadvantaged social grades, reported stronger smoking urges, or had made a past-year quit attempt, and lower among those who were aged at least 65 years (vs. 16-24 years), from the south (vs. north) of England, reported currently cutting down on their cigarette consumption or currently using nicotine replacement therapy.Conclusions: In England, use of e-cigarettes in situations where smoking is not permitted is common among dual cigarette and e-cigarette users, has increased nonlinearly since 2011, and is particularly prevalent among those who are younger, disadvantaged, more addicted, have recently failed to quit, and are not attempting to cut down.Implications: The ability to use nicotine in smoke-free settings appears to be an important part of the appeal of e-cigarettes. It is possible that if e-cigarette use was prohibited in public places, smokers may be deterred from using e-cigarettes alongside combustible tobacco, which could undermine quitting. Our results suggest disadvantaged and more addicted smokers would be disproportionately affected, suggesting such restrictions may contribute to inequalities in smoking and associated health outcomes. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Introduction: This study explores patterns of use of non-cigarette tobacco and nicotine products among adult cigarette smokers and recent ex-smokers. Along with cigarette smoking status we explore differences as a function of countries with different product regulations, gender, and age.Methods: Data came from the ITC Four Country Smoking and Vaping Wave 3 Survey conducted between February-June 2020. The analytic sample consisted of 9112 current cigarette smokers (at least monthly) and 1184 recent ex-smokers (quit cigarettes ≤ 2 years) from Australia, Canada, England, and the United States. Respondents were asked about their cigarette smoking and current use of the following non-cigarette products: combustible tobacco (cigars, cigarillos, pipe, waterpipe); noncombustible tobacco (smokeless tobacco, and heated tobacco products [HTPs]); and non-tobacco nicotine products (nicotine vaping products [NVPs], nicotine replacement therapy [NRT], and nicotine pouches).Results: Overall, NVPs (13.7%) and NRT (10.9%) were the most reported nicotine products used, followed by cigars (5.3%), cigarillos (4.2%), and HTPs (3.5%). More than 21% current and recent ex-smokers of cigarettes reported using a non-tobacco nicotine product and noncombustible product, with respondents in England reporting the highest levels of use (>26%). Males, younger respondents, and current non-daily cigarette smokers were more likely to use non-cigarette nicotine products. Notably, 11.6% of ex-cigarette smokers were using other combustible tobacco.Conclusion: Considerable percentages of current cigarette smokers and ex-smokers use non-cigarette nicotine products, and there are unexpectedly high levels of use of other combustible products by those recent ex-smokers of cigarettes which is concerning and has important implications for definitions of smoking cessation.Implications: The tobacco product market has evolved to include new products which add to existing non-cigarette tobacco products creating a much more diverse nicotine market. This brief report provides a snapshot of use of various combustible and noncombustible nicotine-containing products among current cigarette smokers and recent ex-smokers in four western countries. Our results indicate that use of non-cigarette tobacco and nicotine products among these cigarette smokers and recent ex-smokers is not low, particularly among males, younger and non-daily cigarette smokers. Use of other combustible tobacco among respondents that recently quit cigarette smoking is concerning and has important implications for definitions of smoking cessation. Increased emphasis on researching non-cigarette nicotine product use is warranted in tobacco control generally and smoking cessation in particular. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Aims: To examine whether norms towards nicotine vaping product (NVP) use varied between Australia, Canada, England and the United States and by socio‐demographics, smoking and NVP status. Design Cross‐sectional data from the 2016 ITC Four Country Smoking and Vaping Survey. Setting: Four countries with distinct regulatory policies relating to the sale and advertising of NVPs: Australia (most restrictive), Canada (restrictive), England and the United States (least restrictive). Participants: A total of 10900 adult (age 18+) current smokers, former smokers, or at least weekly NVP users. Respondents were from Australia (n = 1366), Canada (n = 3309), England (n = 3835) and the United States (n = 2390). Measurements Questions permitted the categorization of respondents as current smokers, former smokers, NVP users and socio‐demographic categories (sex, age, country, ethnicity, income and education). Further questions were asked regarding the frequency of exposure to NVPs in public, whether they had a partner or close friends who vaped and whether they believed society or those considered important to them approved of NVPs. Findings Adjusting for relevant covariates, compared with Australian respondents, those in England, Canada and the United States were more likely to report frequent exposure to NVPs in public (83.1%, 57.3% and 48.3%, respectively, compared to 19.8% in Australia; P < 0.0001), having a partner who vaped (13.8%, 7.1% and 7.7%, respectively, compared to 2.1% in Australia; P < 0.0001) and having close friend(s) who vaped (31.7%, 25.3%, 20.9%, respectively, compared to 10.0% in Australia; P < 0.0001). Compared with Australian respondents, respondents from England were more likely to report that society (27.6% compared to 12.3% in Australia; P < 0.0001) and people important to them approved of NVP use (28.9% compared to 14.3% in Australia; P < 0.0001). Conclusions: Norms towards nicotine vaping product (NVP) use appear to vary among countries with different regulatory contexts regarding sales and advertising. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Aims: To determine whether a simple combination of level of smoking and level of vaping results in a useful typology for characterizing smoking and vaping behaviours. Methods: Cross‐sectional data from adults (≥ 18 years) in the 2016 wave 1 ITC Four Country Smoking and Vaping Survey in the United States (n = 2291), England (n = 3591), Australia (n = 1376) and Canada (n = 2784) were used. Participants who either smoked, vaped or concurrently used both at least monthly were included and divided into eight groups based on use frequency of each product (daily, non‐daily, no current use). This resulted in four concurrent use groups (predominant smokers, dual daily users, predominant vapers and concurrent non‐daily users). These groups were compared with each other and with the four exclusive use groups, on socio‐demographics, nicotine dependence, beliefs and attitudes about both products, and quit‐related measures using data weighted to reference population surveys in each country. Results: Of the sample, 10.8% were concurrent users, with daily smokers vaping non‐daily (predominant smokers), constituting 51.6% of this group. All eight categories differed from other categories on at least some measures. Concurrent daily nicotine users reported higher levels of indicators of nicotine dependence, and generally more positive attitudes toward both smoking and vaping than concurrent non‐daily users. Among daily nicotine users, compared with exclusive daily smokers, reports of interest in quitting were higher in all concurrent use groups. Dual daily users had the most positive attitudes about smoking overall, and saw it as the least denormalized, and at the same time were equally interested in quitting as other concurrent users and were most likely to report intending to continue vaping. Conclusions: In Australia, Canada, England and the United States in 2016, daily nicotine users differed considerably from non‐daily nicotine users. Among daily nicotine users, dual daily users (those who smoke and vape concurrently) should be treated as a distinct grouping when studying relationships between smoking and vaping. The eight‐level typology characterizing concurrent and exclusive use of smoking and vaping should be considered when studying both products. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background and Aims: The presence and content of health warning labels (HWLs) on nicotine vaping products (NVPs), such as electronic cigarettes, varies by country and manufacturer. We compared proportions of people who report (i) noticing HWLs on NVPs and (ii) feeling concerned having noticed HWLs, by country and by smoking or vaping status. We also examined recall of HWL content and whether this varies by country. Design Cross‐sectional survey. Setting: Australia (AU), Canada (CA), England (EN) and the United States (US). At the time of data collection, HWLs on NVPs were only mandatory in EN. Participants: A total of 11 561 respondents from the following samples in the 2016 International Tobacco Control Four Country Project: (1) re‐contacted smokers and quitters who had participated in the previous wave of the project; (2) newly recruited current smokers and recent quitters; and (3) newly recruited current vapers from CA, EN and US. Measurements Outcomes included: (1) having noticed HWLs on NVPs, (2) feeling concerned having noticed HWLs, and (3) recall of HWL message content. Findings Compared with respondents in EN, respondents in CA were more likely to report having noticed HWLs [odds ratio (OR) = 1.58, P = 0.02], whereas respondents in AU (OR = 0.76, P = 1.00) and the US (OR = 1.54, P = 0.09) were not significantly more or less likely to report having noticed HWLs. Compared with concurrent smokers and vapers, daily smokers, non‐daily smokers and quitters were less likely to report having noticed HWLs (ORs = 0.21, 0.33 and 0.19, respectively, all P < 0.001). There were no significant differences in reports of noticing HWLs when comparing concurrent smokers and vapers with daily (OR = 1.62, P = 0.91) or non‐daily (OR = 1.15, P = 1.00) vapers. There were no significant differences by country in reporting that HWLs made them concerned about using NVPs. Daily vapers were less likely to report feeling concerned than concurrent users (OR = 0.11, P = 0.017). Among those who reported reading HWLs (n = 688), there was little evidence of differences in recall of the HWL content. Conclusions: Respondents in England, where health warning labels on nicotine vaping products are mandatory, were not significantly more likely to report having noticed such warnings than those in Australia, Canada and the United States where warnings are not mandatory. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background and Aims: Debate exists about whether health professionals (HPs) should advise smokers to use nicotine vaping products (NVPs) to quit smoking. The objectives were to examine in four countries: (1) the prevalence of HP discussions and recommendations to use an NVP; (2) who initiated NVP discussions; (3) the type of HP advice received about NVPs; and (4) smoker's characteristics related to receiving advice about NVPs. Design Cross‐sectional study using multivariable logistic regression analyses on weighted data from the 2016 ITC Four Country Smoking and Vaping Survey (ITC 4CV1). Setting: Four countries with varying regulations governing the sale and marketing of NVPs: 'most restrictive' (Australia), 'restrictive' (Canada) or 'less restrictive' (England and United States). Participants: A total of 6615 adult smokers who reported having visited an HP in the last year (drawn from the total sample of 12 294 4CV1 respondents, of whom 9398 reported smoking cigarettes daily or weekly). Respondents were from the United States (n = 1518), England (n = 2116), Australia (n = 1046), and Canada (n = 1935). Measurements Participants' survey responses indicated if they were current daily or weekly smokers and had visited an HP in the past year. Among those participants, further questions asked participants to report (1) whether NVPs were discussed, (2) who raised the topic, (3) advice received on use of NVPs and (4) advice received on quitting smoking. Findings Among the 6615 smokers who visited an HP in the last year, 6.8% reported discussing NVPs with an HP and 2.1% of smokers were encouraged to use an NVP (36.1% of those who had a discussion). Compared with Australia (4.3%), discussing NVPs with an HP was more likely in the United States [8.8%, odds ratio (OR) = 2.15, 95% confidence interval (CI) = 1.41–3.29] and Canada (7.8%, OR = 1.87, 95% CI = 1.26–2.78). Smokers in Australia were less likely to discuss NVPs than smokers in England (6.2%), although this was not statistically significant (OR = 1.47, 95% CI = 0.98–2.20). Overall, the prevalence of HPs recommending NVPs was three times more likely in the United States than in Australia (OR = 3.07, 95% CI = 1.45–6.47), and twice as likely in Canada (OR = 2.28, 95% CI = 1.06–4.87) than in Australia. Australia and England did not differ (OR = 1.76, 95% CI = 0.83–3.74). Just over half (54%) of respondents brought up NVPs themselves; there were no significant differences among countries. Conclusions: Discussions in Australia, Canada, England, and the United States between smokers and health professionals about nicotine vaping products appear to be infrequent, regardless of the regulatory environment. A low percentage of health professionals recommended vaping products. This was particularly evident in Australia, which has the most restrictive regulatory environment of the four countries studied. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Introduction: Concern about weight gain is a barrier to smoking cessation. E-cigarettes may help quitters to control their weight through continued exposure to the appetite-suppressant effects of nicotine and behavioural aspects of vaping. This study explored the views and practices of smokers, ex-smokers and current e-cigarette users relating to vaping and weight control.Methods: Cross-sectional survey of past-year smokers (n = 1320), current smokers (n = 1240) and current e-cigarette users (n = 394) in England, conducted April-July 2018. Data were weighted to match the English population on key sociodemographic characteristics.Results: Of e-cigarette users, 4.6% (95%CI 2.6-6.6) reported vaping for weight control, and 1.9% (95%CI 0.6-3.2) reported vaping to replace meals/snacks. It was rare for individuals who had smoked in the past year to have heard (8.8%, 95%CI 7.3-10.3) or believe (6.4%, 95%CI 5.1-7.7) that vaping could help control weight. Women (OR = 0.62, 95%CI 0.42-0.93) and older people (OR = 0.30, 95%CI 0.13-0.72) were less likely to have heard the claim and women were less likely to believe it (OR = 0.44, 95%CI 0.27-0.72). However, 13.4% (95%CI 11.3-15.5) and 13.1% (95%CI 11.0-15.2) of current smokers who did not use e-cigarettes said they would be more likely to try e-cigarettes or quit smoking, respectively, if vaping could help control their weight.Conclusion: One in 16 English people who have smoked in the last year believe that vaping would prevent weight gain after stopping. One in 22 people who vape are using e-cigarettes for this purpose. However, should evidence emerge that e-cigarettes prevent weight gain, one in eight people who smoke would be tempted to quit smoking and use e-cigarettes. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

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]

Background and aims: Using smoking cessation medications for several weeks prior to quitting smoking facilitates quitting success, but how it does so is not clear. Candidate theories are that pre‐cessation medication enhances self‐efficacy, facilitates medication adherence post‐quit, induces aversion to smoking, reduces reward from smoking or reduces the drive to smoke. We investigated these pathways using data from a large trial of nicotine pre‐loading, using mediation analysis. Design Randomized controlled trial of nicotine pre‐loading. Potential mediators were assessed at baseline and 1 week into the pre‐loading (3 weeks prior to quitting). In addition to this, urges to smoke in abstainers were assessed 1 week after the target quit date. Setting England. Participants: A total of 1792 smokers who wanted to quit attending specialist smoking cessation services in England were enrolled between 13 August 2012 and 10 March 2015. Intervention and comparator: Participants were randomized to either standard smoking cessation medications accompanied by behavioural support or the same treatment supplemented by nicotine 'pre‐loading', i.e. 4 weeks of 21 mg nicotine patch use prior to quitting. Measurements The primary outcome, selected for its proximity in time to potential mediators, was biochemically validated abstinence from smoking at 4 weeks post‐target quit date. Potential mediators included the Modified Cigarette Evaluation Questionnaire, with subscales assessing satisfaction, reward, craving and aversion; ratings of strength and frequency of urges to smoke; the Mood and Physical Symptoms Scale assessing cigarette withdrawal symptoms; two items from the Nicotine Dependence Syndrome Scale assessing smoking stereotypy; self‐reported reduction in cigarettes per day and in carbon monoxide (CO) reading; post‐target quit day (TQD) medication adherence; self‐efficacy; nausea. Findings Pre‐loading reduced urges to smoke at 3 weeks pre‐quit (P < 0.001) and exhaled CO concentrations (P < 0.001), and also urges to smoke post‐quit in abstainers (P = 0.001). At 3 weeks pre‐quit, it also reduced cigarette consumption, enjoyment of and satisfaction from smoking and smoking reward and increased nausea, aversion (all P < 0.001) and smoking stereotypy (P = 0.003). Only the first three variables, however (reduced smoke intake and reduced urges to smoke pre‐ and post‐quit), mediated abstinence from smoking at 4 weeks and only the latter two mediated abstinence at 6 months (indirect mediating effects P < 0.05). Conclusions: Nicotine pre‐loading appears to facilitate smoking abstinence by reducing urges to smoke and smoke intake before quitting and urges to smoke after quitting. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: E-cigarettes often contain nicotine without the most harmful constituents of tobacco smoke.Aims: This study aims to assess prevalence and correlates of accurately perceiving e-cigarettes as less harmful than cigarettes and that none or a small amount of the harm from smoking comes from nicotine.Methods: Cross-sectional survey of 2,103 11-18-year-olds in Great Britain in 2016. Prevalence of e-cigarette and nicotine harm perceptions were calculated. Logistic regressions assessed associations between accurate e-cigarette and nicotine harm perceptions and smoking, e-cigarette use, gender, age, region, social grade, family smoking, family e-cigarette use, smoking friends, public approval of smoking, and public approval of e-cigarettes. Associations between accurate e-cigarette and nicotine harm perceptions were also assessed.Results: Most (63.4%) accurate e-cigarette harm perceptions were higher among those aged 16+ (OR = 1.89 [95%CI = 1.45-2.47]), 14-15 (OR = 1.29 [1.00-1.65]), who tried/used an e-cigarette sometimes (OR = 1.51 [1.03-2.21]), with family e-cigarette use (OR = 2.11 [1.46-3.04]), who perceived public disapproval of smoking (OR = 2.11 [1.18-3.77]) and approval of e-cigarettes (OR = 2.44 [1.73-3.45]), and with accurate nicotine harm perceptions (OR = 2.05 [1.28-3.28]). Accurate nicotine harm perceptions were higher among those aged 16+ (OR = 2.60 [1.62-4.16]), from North England (OR = 1.87 [1.02-3.43]) and Wales/Scotland (OR = 2.61 [1.35-5.03]) vs. London, with family smoking (OR = 1.59 [1.05-2.42]), and with accurate e-cigarette harm perceptions (OR = 2.12 [1.32-3.41]).Conclusions: Many young people have inaccurate harm perceptions of e-cigarettes and nicotine. Accurate e-cigarette and nicotine harm perceptions were associated with one another. E-cigarette use was associated with accurate e-cigarette but not nicotine harm perceptions; smoking was not associated with either. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Abstract: Aims: To compare the effects of (i) high versus low nicotine concentration e‐liquid, (ii) fixed versus adjustable power and (iii) the interaction between the two on: (a) vaping behaviour, (b) subjective effects, (c) nicotine intake and (d) exposure to acrolein and formaldehyde in e‐cigarette users vaping in their everyday setting. Design: Counterbalanced, repeated measures with four conditions: (i) low nicotine (6 mg/ml)/fixed power; (ii) low nicotine/adjustable power; (iii) high nicotine (18 mg/ml)/fixed power; and (iv) high nicotine/adjustable power. Setting: London and the South East, England. Participants: Twenty experienced e‐cigarette users (recruited between September 2016 and February 2017) vaped ad libitum using an eVic Supreme™ with a ‘Nautilus Aspire’ tank over 4 weeks (1 week per condition). Measurements: Puffing patterns [daily puff number (PN), puff duration (PD), interpuff interval (IPI)], ml of e‐liquid consumed, changes to power (where permitted) and subjective effects (urge to vape, nicotine withdrawal symptoms) were measured in each condition. Nicotine intake was measured via salivary cotinine. 3‐Hydroxypropylmercapturic acid (3‐HPMA), a metabolite of the toxicant acrolein, and formate, a metabolite of the carcinogen formaldehyde, were measured in urine. Findings: There was a significant nicotine concentration × power interaction for PD (P < 0.01). PD was longer with low nicotine/fixed power compared with (i) high nicotine/fixed power (P < 0.001) and (ii) low nicotine/adjustable power (P < 0.01). PN and liquid consumed were higher in the low versus high nicotine condition (main effect of nicotine, P < 0.05). Urge to vape and withdrawal symptoms were lower, and nicotine intake was higher, in the high nicotine condition (main effects of nicotine: P < 0.01). While acrolein levels did not differ, there was a significant nicotine × power interaction for formaldehyde (P < 0.05). Conclusions: Use of a lower nicotine concentration e‐liquid may be associated with compensatory behaviour (e.g. higher number and duration of puffs) and increases in negative affect, urge to vape and formaldehyde exposure. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Despite growing evidence that e-cigarettes are likely less harmful than cigarettes, perceptions of equal or more harm have increased worldwide. This study aimed to identify the most common reasons behind adults' perceptions of the (i) relative harm of e-cigarettes compared with cigarettes and (ii) effectiveness of e-cigarettes for smoking cessation. Adults (N = 1646) from Northern England were recruited through online panels from December-March 2017/2018, using quota sampling to guarantee socio-demographic representativeness. Qualitative content analysis of open-ended responses was performed with codes representing reasons for a given perception about e-cigarettes. Percentages of participants who gave each reason for each perception were calculated. 823 (49.9%) participants agreed that e-cigarettes were less harmful than cigarettes, 283 (17.1%) disagreed, and 540 (32.8%) were undecided. The most common reasons for agreeing that e-cigarettes were less harmful than cigarettes were that they produce no smoke (29.8%) and fewer toxins (28.9%). Those who disagreed were most concerned about a perceived lack of trustworthy research (23.7%) and safety issues (20.8%). Lacking knowledge (50.4%) was the most common reason for being undecided. 815 (49.5%) of participants agreed that e-cigarettes were an effective smoking cessation aid, 216 (13.2%) disagreed, and 615 (37.4%) were undecided. The most common reasons participants gave for agreeing were related to e-cigarettes being successful smoking replacements (50.3%) and advice from family, friends or health professionals (20.0%). Respondents who disagreed were most concerned about e-cigarettes being addictive (34.3%) and containing nicotine (15.3%). Lacking knowledge (45.2%) was the most common reason for being undecided. Negative perceptions of e-cigarette harm were driven by concerns about a perceived lack of research and safety issues. Adults who viewed e-cigarettes as ineffective for smoking cessation feared that they perpetuate nicotine addiction. Campaigns and guidelines that address these concerns may help promote informed perceptions. • E-cigarettes' lower toxin production drive views that they are less harmful than cigarettes. • Concerns about safety and a lack of research motivate negative views of e-cigarettes' relative harm. • E-cigarettes' ability to replace cigarettes drive positive views on their use for cessation. • Fears that e-cigarettes perpetuate addiction fuel negative views on their use for cessation. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: There is limited evidence about the effectiveness of varenicline and nicotine replacement therapy (NRT) for long-term smoking cessation in primary care, or whether the treatment effectiveness differs by socioeconomic position (SEP). Therefore, we estimated the long-term effectiveness of varenicline versus NRT (> 2 years) on smoking cessation, and investigated whether effectiveness differs by SEP.Methods: This is a prospective cohort study of electronic medical records from 654 general practices in England, within the Clinical Practice Research Datalink, using three different analytical methods: multivariable logistic regression, propensity score matching and instrumental variable analyses. Exposure was prescription of varenicline versus NRT, and the primary outcome was smoking cessation at 2 years' follow-up; outcome was also assessed at 3, 6, and 9 months, and at 1 and 4 years after exposure. SEP was defined using the Index of Multiple Deprivation.Results: At 2 years, 28.8% (N = 20 362/70 610) of participants prescribed varenicline and 24.3% (N = 36 268/149 526) of those prescribed NRT quit; adjusted odds ratio was 1.26 [95% confidence interval (CI): 1.23 to 1.29], P < 0.0001. The association persisted for up to 4 years and was consistent across all analyses. We found little evidence that the effectiveness of varenicline differed greatly by SEP. However, patients from areas of higher deprivation were less likely to be prescribed varenicline; adjusted odds ratio was 0.91 (95% CI: 0.90 to 0.92), P < 0.0001.Conclusions: Patients prescribed varenicline were more likely to be abstinent up to 4 years after first prescription than those prescribed NRT. In combination with other evidence, the results from this study may be used to update clinical guidelines on the use of varenicline for smoking cessation. [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.

Background: The estimated number of cigarette smokers in the world is 1.3 billion, expected to rise to 1.7 billion by 2025, with 10 million smokers living in the U.K. Smoking is the leading, preventable death-cause worldwide, being responsible for almost 650,000 deaths in the E.U. annually. A combination of pharmacological interventions, including nicotine replacement therapy, bupropion and varenicline, and behavioural support is the most effective approach to smoking cessation. However, even the best methods have high relapse rates of approximately 75% within 6 months. Electronic (or "e-") cigarettes use battery power to disperse a solution that usually contains propylene glycol or glycerine, water, flavouring and nicotine. E-cigarettes have become the most popular smoking cessation aid in England, however, information on their effects on cardiovascular function is limited and contradictory. As e-cigarettes are not solely nicotine-based products, existing research exploring the effects of nicotine on the cardio-vasculature provides only limited information, while their extensive uptake urges the need of evidence to inform the general public, smokers and policy-makers.Methods: This is a pragmatic, 3-group, randomised, assessor-blinded, single-centre trial exploring the cardiovascular physiological effects of the use of e-cigarettes (nicotine-free and nicotine-inclusive, assessed separately) combined with behavioural support as a smoking cessation method in comparison to the combination of NRT and behavioural support. The primary outcome will be macro-vascular function, determined by a Flow Mediated Dilatation ultrasound assessment, 6 months following participants' "quit date".Discussion: Participants will be assessed at baseline, 3 days following their self-determined "quit date", at intervention end (3 months) and 6 months following their "quite date". Findings are expected to give an indication of the cardiovascular effects of e-cigarettes both in the short- and in the medium-term period, informing the general public, policy holders and researchers, helping to define the future role of e-cigarettes as a smoking cessation aid.Trial Registration: Clinicaltrials.gov NCT03061253 . Registered 17th February 2017. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objectives Electronic cigarettes (ECs) are known for their use as a smoking cessation aid; however, experimental use in adolescence is a growing international concern. The proportion of adolescent EC users who have never used tobacco is rising. EC use is associated with later tobacco initiation in young people. Understanding adolescent beliefs about ECs is needed to inform public health campaigns and school education regarding the EC and the associated risks. Study design A cross-sectional questionnaire-based design was used. Methods As part of a larger study, questionnaires to assess beliefs about ECs and current use were distributed to 499 school pupils aged 11-16 years in a county in England, UK. Results More than half of EC users had never used tobacco (52.6%), a substantially greater proportion than previously reported in the literature. Adolescents were aware that ECs were less harmful than tobacco but many were unaware that they contain nicotine and the subsequent risk of addiction could lead to later tobacco use. Conclusions Given the possible association of EC use and later smoking initiation, education in schools may warrant greater emphasis on ECs, the role of nicotine and the risk of addiction associated with experimentation. Young people who deem ECs as a 'safe' option, and may otherwise have never experimented with tobacco, could be at risk of later tobacco use. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article discusses electronic cigarettes or e-cigarettes can be used to effectively help people to stop smoking in Great Britain. Topics covered include why smoking is considered as the largest contributor to health inequalities and largest cause of preventable mortality and morbidity in England, the highlights of the "National Health Service (NHS) Stop Smoking Services" report for 2014 and 2015, and the nicotine component of e-cigarettes.

Background and Aims Electronic cigarettes (e-cigarettes) are rapidly increasing in popularity. Two randomized controlled trials have suggested that e-cigarettes can aid smoking cessation, but there are many factors that could influence their real-world effectiveness. This study aimed to assess, using an established methodology, the effectiveness of e-cigarettes when used to aid smoking cessation compared with nicotine replacement therapy (NRT) bought over-the- counter and with unaided quitting in the general population. Design and Setting A large cross-sectional survey of a representative sample of the English population. Participants The study included 5863 adults who had smoked within the previous 12 months and made at least one quit attempt during that period with either an e-cigarette only (n = 464), NRT bought over-the-counter only (n = 1922) or no aid in their most recent quit attempt (n = 3477). Measurements The primary outcome was self-reported abstinence up to the time of the survey, adjusted for key potential confounders including nicotine dependence. Findings E-cigarette users were more likely to report abstinence than either those who used NRT bought over-the-counter [odds ratio (OR) = 2.23, 95% confidence interval (CI) = 1.70–2.93, 20.0 versus 10.1%] or no aid (OR = 1.38, 95% CI = 1.08–1.76, 20.0 versus 15.4%). The adjusted odds of non-smoking in users of e-cigarettes were 1.63 (95% CI = 1.17–2.27) times higher compared with users of NRT bought over-the-counter and 1.61 (95% CI = 1.19–2.18) times higher compared with those using no aid. Conclusions Among smokers who have attempted to stop without professional support, those who use e-cigarettes are more likely to report continued abstinence than those who used a licensed NRT product bought over-the-counter or no aid to cessation. This difference persists after adjusting for a range of smoker characteristics such as nicotine dependence. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Introduction: Some jurisdictions have implemented nicotine vaping product (NVP) flavor restrictions because of concerns about rising adolescent use. However, little is known how these restrictions may impact adult vapers. This study describes the level of support and predictive behavioral responses to a hypothetical NVP ban on non-tobacco flavors among regular adult vapers who only use flavors that would be banned.Methods: Data came from 851 regular vapers (all current or ex-smokers) participating in the 2020 ITC Four Country Smoking and Vaping Survey in Canada, England, and the United States (US). A random sample of respondents in each country received and completed the questions about flavor bans: (1) do you support or oppose a ban on all non-tobacco flavors; and (2) what would you do if all flavors were banned, with the exception of tobacco in the US, and tobacco and menthol in Canada and England. Those who used tobacco-flavored or unflavored NVPs were excluded from all analyses, and additionally, vapers of menthol flavor in Canada and England were excluded from Aim 2.Results: Overall, 53.6% of vapers were strongly opposed to flavor bans, 28.2% were opposed, 9.3% were in support, 3.6% were in strong support, and 5.2% did not know. Predicted behavioral responses were: 28.8% would continue vaping an available flavor, 28.3% would find a way to get their banned flavor(s), 17.1% would stop vaping and smoke instead, 12.9% said that they would stop vaping and not smoke, and 12.9% do not know what they would do. Responses to a potential flavor ban largely varied by smoking and vaping status, and by the level of support of a flavor restriction policy.Conclusions: At this time, it is not clear what net population-level consequences would occur if non-tobacco flavored NVPs were prohibited. While a majority of vapers in this study opposed this policy, and many vapers would not be willing to switch to available flavors, there was considerable variability in predicted behavioral responses. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Aims To characterize e-cigarette use, users and effects in a sample of Electronic Cigarette Company (TECC) and Totally Wicked E-Liquid (TWEL) users. Design and setting Online survey hosted at the University of East London with links from TECC/TWEL websites from September 2011 to May 2012. Measurements Online questionnaire. Participants One thousand three hundred and forty-seven respondents from 33 countries (72% European), mean age 43 years, 70% male, 96% Causacian, 44% educated to degree level or above. Findings Seventy-four percent of participants reported not smoking for at least a few weeks since using the e-cigarette and 70% reported reduced urge to smoke. Seventy-two percent of participants used a 'tank' system, most commonly, the eGo-C (23%). Mean duration of use was 10 months. Only 1% reported exclusive use of non-nicotine (0 mg) containing liquid. E-cigarettes were generally considered to be satisfying to use; elicit few side effects; be healthier than smoking; improve cough/breathing; and be associated with low levels of craving. Among ex-smokers, 'time to first vape' was significantly longer than 'time to first cigarette' ( t1104 = 11.16, P < 0.001) suggesting a lower level of dependence to e-cigarettes. Ex-smokers reported significantly greater reduction in craving than current smokers (χ21 = 133.66, P < 0.0007) although few other differences emerged between these groups. Compared with males, females opted more for chocolate/sweet flavours (χ21 = 16.16, P < 0.001) and liked the e-cigarette because it resembles a cigarette (χ23 = 42.65, P < 0.001). Conclusions E-cigarettes are used primarily for smoking cessation, but for a longer duration than nicotine replacement therapy, and users believe them to be safer than smoking. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Aims Nicotine is known to enhance aspects of cognitive functioning in abstinent smokers, but the effects on specific areas of executive functions and in non-smokers are inconclusive. This may be due in part to the poor sensitivity of tests used to assess executive functions. This study used a new virtual reality assessment of executive functions known as JEF (the Jansari assessment of Executive Functions) to address this issue. Design A 2 × 2 design manipulating group (smokers and never-smokers) and drug [nicotine (4 mg for smokers; 2 mg for never smokers) versus placebo gum]. Setting School of Psychology; University of East London Participants Seventy-two participants (aged 18-54 years): 36 minimally deprived (2 hours) smokers and 36 never-smokers. Measurements Components of executive function were measured using the virtual reality paradigm JEF, which assesses eight cognitive constructs simultaneously as well as providing an overall performance measure. Findings Univariate analyses of variance revealed that nicotine improved overall JEF performance, time-based prospective memory and event-based prospective memory in smokers ( P < 0.01), but not in never-smokers. Action-based prospective memory was enhanced in both groups ( P < 0.01) and never-smokers out-performed smokers on selective thinking and adaptive thinking ( P < 0.01). Conclusions Executive functioning and prospective memory as aspects of cognitive performance can be enhanced by nicotine gum in smokers who have abstained for as little as 2 hours. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Of six established nicotine replacement therapy (NRT) formulations, only the gum and patch have been tested without specialist clinic support in placebo-controlled trials. We aimed to broaden the evidence base by examining if the nicotine nasal spray (NNS) could be effective with only brief support in general practice. Randomized placebo-controlled trial. Twenty-seven English general practices. A total of 761 heavy smokers received brief support and 12 weeks of treatment with NNS (506) or placebo (255). The primary outcome was biochemically verified complete abstinence from smoking throughout weeks 3-12. NNS compared with placebo more than doubled the number who successfully stopped smoking [15.4% versus 6.7%, odds ratio (OR) = 2.6, 95% confidence interval (CI) = 1.5-4.4]. Many participants reported minor irritant adverse symptoms. NNS was particularly effective among those who were more highly dependent on nicotine (OR = 6.17, 95% CI = 2.13-17.9). Of those who failed to stop during the first week (417, 54.8%), only one (0.2%) achieved later success. NNS is effective when given in primary care. The benefit was lower than in a specialist clinic but similar to that with the nicotine patch in primary care. Unlike most other NRT formulations, bupropion or varenicline, NNS was especially helpful for more dependent smokers. Continuing treatment of those initially failing was not beneficial. An initial 1-week prescription to those more dependent on nicotine is likely to be the most cost-effective NNS treatment protocol. These results should offer support to the effectiveness of the other NRT formulations untested in this setting. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Use of nicotine vaping products (NVPs) to replace smoking is often influenced by perceived harmfulness of these products relative to smoking. This study aimed to identify factors that conjointly influenced NVP relative harm perception among smokers and ex-smokers.Methods: Data (n = 11,838) from adult smokers and ex-smokers (quit < 2 years) who participated in the 2016 ITC 4 Country Smoking and Vaping Surveys in Australia, Canada, England and the US were analyzed. Decision tree models were used to classify respondents into those who perceived vaping as less harmful than smoking ("correct" perception) versus otherwise ("incorrect" perception) based on their socio-demographic, smoking and vaping related variables.Results: Decision tree analysis identified nicotine replacement therapy (NRT) harmfulness perceptions relative to smoking, perceived vaping portrayal in the media and other sources as positive, negative or balanced, recency of seeking online vaping information, and age as the key variables that interacted conjointly to classify respondents into those with "correct" versus "incorrect" harm perceptions of vaping relative to smoking (model performance accuracy = 0.70-0.74). In all countries, NRT relative harmfulness perception and vaping portrayal perception were consistently the two most important classifying variables, with other variables showing some country differences.Conclusions: In all four countries, perception of NVP relative harmfulness among smokers and recent ex-smokers is strongly influenced by a combination of NRT relative harmfulness perception and vaping portrayal in the media and other sources. These conjoint factors can serve as useful markers for identifying subgroups more vulnerable to misperception about NVP relative harmfulness to benefit from corrective intervention. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Abstract: Questionnaire and biochemical measures of smoking were studied in 211 hospital outpatients. Eleven different tests of smoke intake were compared for their ability to categorize smokers and nonsmokers correctly. The concentration of cotinine, whether measured in plasma, saliva or urine was the best indicator of smoking. with sensitivity of 96-97 per ¢ and specificity of 99-100 per ¢. Thiocyanate provided the poorest discrimination. Carbon inonoxide measured as blood carboxy haemoglobin or in expired air gave sensitivity and specificity of about 90 per ¢. Sensitivities of the tests were little affected by the presence among the claimed nonsmokers of a group of 21 "deceivers" who concealed their smoking. It is concluded that cotinine is the measure of choice, but for most clinical applications, carbon monoxide provides an accept able ° of discrimination and is considerably cheaper and simpler to apply. (Am J Public Health 1987: 77: 1435-1438.] [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

BackgroundLittle is known of paan quid with tobacco (PQT), a hand-made mixture of smokeless tobacco, areca nut, lime and flavourings in a betel leaf, despite its wide use in south Asian communities. This study has explored the price, tobacco types, brands and ingredient weights in vendor assembled PQT in London (England).MethodsThis cross-sectional study identified 31 commercial outlets selling PQT. Outlet staff were invited to assemble PQT for purchase. Individual ingredients were identified and weighed using a calibrated scale. Free nicotine availability was assessed in the laboratory. The data were analysed using frequencies, means, t test and Pearson correlations. Significance was set at p<0.05.Results73 samples were assembled and purchased. Mean total PQT weight was 10.06 g (95% CI 9.26 to 10.86). Mean price was £1.43 (range £0.50–3.50), which varied by location (p=0.001). The most common smokeless tobacco type was zarda (64.4%). Mean tobacco weight was 0.65 g (95% CI 0.56 to 0.76) and the mean lime weight was 0.58 g (95% CI 0.41 to 0.75). While other ingredients did not vary, tobacco and lime mean weights varied by location (p=0.01). Tobacco and lime weights correlated positively (r=0.427, p=0.01). The pH of the tobacco and lime mix varied between 12.2 and 12.5, indicating 99% free nicotine availability.ConclusionsVendor assembled PQT shares similar ingredients but varies by assembly locality, price and tobacco and lime weights. Tobacco and lime weights were balanced to ensure optimal free nicotine availability and dependency potential. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Tobacco use in high-income countries correlates with socio-economic disadvantage, but although switching to electronic cigarettes could be a safer alternative, little is known about barriers to use. Drawing on eighteen months of data collection in two areas of Northern England in 2017/18 including ethnography and interviews with 59 smokers and e-cigarette users, I show that concern about continued nicotine addiction either deterred working-class smokers from switching to e-cigarettes or dictated the conditions of their use. Research participants were unhappy about addiction both as loss of control experienced as moral failure and as neglect of financial responsibilities i.e. role performance failure in relation to family responsibilities, or what I call 'thrift as care'. They reduced the moral burden of addiction by lowering nicotine content, rejecting pleasure and minimising expenditure. They chose the cheapest possible tobacco, switched from combusted tobacco to cheaper e-cigarettes and bought cheap e-cigarettes and liquids. For working-class smokers, minimising spend on what they perceive negatively as addiction may be a greater moral concern than reducing health risk. I conclude that ensuring that vaping is significantly cheaper than smoking may be key to addressing health inequalities linked to tobacco use. • Working-class smokers avoided e-cigarettes because of concern about addiction. • Those who did switch preferred a medical to a recreational model of use. • Users reduced nicotine content, minimised spending and avoided exotic flavours. • Failure of willpower and role performance (thrift as care) created addiction shame. • Ensuring that vaping is cheaper than smoking is key to harm reduction. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article reports that GFC Diagnostics has received a grant for research and development worth 20,000 pounds by the South East England Development Agency for further development of its test that can detect cotinine. Cotinine is a breakdown product of nicotine in saliva that can be used to identify smokers and monitor changes in smokers' habits.