Electronic cigarettes (ECIGs) use electricity to power a heating element that aerosolizes a liquid that often contains solvents, flavorants, and the dependence-producing drug nicotine for user inhalation. ECIGs have evolved rapidly in the past 8 years, and the changes in product design and liquid constituents affect the resulting toxicant yield in the aerosol and delivery to the user. This rapid evolution has been accompanied by dramatic increases in ECIG use prevalence in many countries, including among adults and especially adolescents in the United States. This increased prevalence of a novel product that has the potential to deliver nicotine and other toxicants to users’ lungs drives a rapidly growing research effort. This review highlights the most recent information regarding the design of ECIGs and liquid and aerosol constituents, the epidemiology of ECIG use among adolescents and adults (including correlates of ECIG use), and preclinical and clinical research regarding ECIG effects. The current literature suggests a strong rationale for an empirical regulatory approach toward ECIGs that balances any potential ECIG-mediated decreases in health risks for smokers who use them as substitutes for tobacco cigarettes and against any increased risks for nonsmokers who may be attracted to them.

Liquid nicotine concentration can influence plasma nicotine concentration in ECIG-naïve cigarette smokers, and, at some concentrations, the nicotine delivery profile of a 3.3V ECIG with a dual coil, 1.5-Ohm cartomizer approaches that of a combustible tobacco cigarette in this population. Finding a product that delivers nicotine as effectively as a tobacco cigarette, as we report here, may be essential for smokers who want to replace completely their combustible tobacco cigarettes with ECIGs.

BackgroundThe emergence of hookah is being noted on college campuses and in large U.S. cities and evidence points to an increasing trend for college students. The purpose of this study was to assess hookah use and identify associations with cigarette smoking and demographic factors.MethodsAn intercept sampling method was used at various locations on a large university campus in the southeastern United States, yielding a high participation rate (52%). A total of 1,203 participants completed a computer-aided survey that assessed the use of tobacco products. The sample characteristics were then weighted to match the University population of students enrolled during the same semester. Bivariate (chi-square and t-test) and multivariate (logistic regression) tests of association were conducted to assess differences between cigarette and hookah users.ResultsHookah smoking exceeded cigarette smoking for both ever use (46.4% vs 42.1%) and past year use (28.4% vs 19.6%). Females and males used hookah at similar rates. Hispanic respondents had the highest prevalence of current use of hookah (18.9%) and cigarettes (16.4%).ConclusionsAs hookah surpasses cigarette use, efforts need to be made to slow the increase in new tobacco products that are attractive to young adults and that pose many of the same health risks as those related to traditional tobacco products. Prevalence of all emerging tobacco products, including hookah, and the relationship with cigarette use needs to be monitored on an ongoing basis.

ObjectivesThe province of Ontario, Canada, banned the use of menthol-flavoured tobacco products as of 1 January 2017. The long-term impact of a menthol ban on smoking behaviour has not been previously evaluated.MethodsPopulation cohort study with baseline survey conducted September–December 2016 and follow-up January–August 2018 among residents of Ontario, Canada, 16 years old and over who reported current smoking (past 30 days) at baseline survey and completed follow-up (n=913) including 187 reporting smoking menthol cigarettes daily, 420 reported smoking menthol cigarettes occasionally, and 306 were non-menthol cigarette smokers. Relative rates of making a quit attempt and being a non-smoker at follow-up were estimated with Poisson regression controlling for smoking and demographic characteristics at baseline.ResultsAt follow-up, 63% of daily menthol smokers reported making a quit attempt since the ban compared with 62% of occasional menthol smokers and 43% of non-menthol smokers (adjusted relative rate (ARR) for daily menthol smokers compared with non-menthol smokers: 1.25; 95% CI 1.03 to 1.50). At follow-up, 24% of daily menthol smokers reported making a quit since the ban compared with 20% of occasional menthol smokers and 14% of non-menthol smokers (ARR for daily menthol smokers compared with non-menthol smokers: 1.62; 95% CI 1.08 to 2.42).ConclusionsThe study found higher rates of quitting among daily and occasional menthol smokers in Ontario 1 year after the implementation of a menthol ban compared with non-menthol smokers. Our findings suggest that restrictions on menthol may lead to substantial improvements in public health.

Drs Lee and Fitchett had full access to all of the data in the study and take responsibility for the integrity of the data and the accuracy of the data analysis.