IntroductionE-cigarettes are largely unregulated and internet sales are substantial. This study examines how the online market for e-cigarettes has changed over time: in product design and in marketing messages appearing on websites.MethodsComprehensive internet searches of English-language websites from May–August 2012 and December 2013–January 2014 identified brands, models, flavours, nicotine strengths, ingredients and product claims. Brands were divided into older and newer groups (by the two searches) for comparison.ResultsBy January 2014 there were 466 brands (each with its own website) and 7764 unique flavours. In the 17 months between the searches, there was a net increase of 10.5 brands and 242 new flavours per month. Older brands were more likely than newer brands to offer cigalikes (86.9% vs 52.1%, p<0.01), and newer brands more likely to offer the more versatile eGos and mods (75.3% vs 57.8%, p<0.01). Older brands were significantly more likely to claim that they were healthier and cheaper than cigarettes, were good substitutes where smoking was banned and were effective smoking cessation aids. Newer brands offered more flavours per brand (49 vs 32, p<0.01) and were less likely to compare themselves with conventional cigarettes.ConclusionsThe number of e-cigarette brands is large and has been increasing. Older brands tend to highlight their advantages over conventional cigarettes while newer brands emphasise consumer choice in multiple flavours and product versatility. These results can serve as a benchmark for future research on the impact of upcoming regulations on product design and advertising messages of e-cigarettes.

BackgroundE-cigarettes have grown popular. The most common pattern is dual use with conventional cigarettes. Dual use has raised concerns that it might delay quitting of cigarette smoking. This study examined the relationship between long-term use of e-cigarettes and smoking cessation in a 2-year period.MethodsA nationally representative sample of 2028 US smokers were surveyed in 2012 and 2014. Long-term e-cigarette use was defined as using e-cigarettes at baseline and follow-up. Use of e-cigarettes only at baseline or at follow-up was defined as short-term use. Non-users did not use e-cigarettes at either survey. Quit attempt rates and cessation rates (abstinent for 3 months or longer) were compared across the three groups.ResultsAt 2-year follow-up, 43.7% of baseline dual users were still using e-cigarettes. Long-term e-cigarette users had a higher quit attempt rate than short-term or non-users (72.6% vs 53.8% and 45.5%, respectively), and a higher cessation rate (42.4% vs 14.2% and 15.6%, respectively). The difference in cessation rate between long-term users and non-users remained significant after adjusting for baseline variables, OR=4.1 (95% CI 1.5 to 11.4) as did the difference between long-term users and short-term users, OR=4.8 (95% CI 1.6 to 13.9). The difference in cessation rate between short-term users and non-users was not significant, OR=0.9 (95% CI 0.5 to 1.4). Among those making a quit attempt, use of e-cigarettes as a cessation aid surpassed that of FDA-approved pharmacotherapy.ConclusionsShort-term e-cigarette use was not associated with a lower rate of smoking cessation. Long-term use of e-cigarettes was associated with a higher rate of quitting smoking.

BackgroundThe electronic cigarette (e-cigarette) industry has grown in size and organizational complexity in recent years, most notably with the entry of major tobacco companies in 2012 and the proliferation of vape shops. Many brands maintain retail websites that present e-cigarette marketing claims and sell directly to consumers. Understanding of the evolving composition of different types of e-cigarette brand websites is currently underdeveloped.ObjectiveThis paper presents how e-cigarette brand websites surveyed in 2013-2014 evolved by 2016-2017, and how the websites run by different types of e-cigarette producers currently differ.MethodsIn 2016-2017, we revisited 466 e-cigarette brand websites surveyed in 2013-2014, 288 of which were extant, and identified 145 new English-language websites. We compared product designs, marketing claims, and age-based warnings presented by types of e-cigarette producers: major tobacco companies, independent vape shops, and independent internet-only companies.ResultsAmong the 433 websites examined in 2016-2017, 12 were owned by major tobacco companies, 162 operated a physical vape shop, and 259 were internet-only operations. Closed-system product designs were sold by 83% (10/12) of tobacco-owned brands. In comparison, 29.0% (47/162, P<.001) of vape shop and 55.2% (143/259, P=.06) of internet-only brands sold closed-system designs. Compared with vape shop and internet-only brands, tobacco-owned brands offered a smaller set of product models (P values <.001) and a narrower range of flavors (P values <.01), with greater emphasis on the traditional combustible cigarette flavors of tobacco and menthol (P values <.001). Tobacco-owned brands also offered a narrower range of nicotine options than the vape shops (P=.002) and were less likely to offer nicotine-free e-liquid compared with internet-only and vape shop brands (P values <.001). Finally, 83% (10/12) of tobacco-owned brand websites featured age verification pop-up windows. In comparison, only 50.2% (130/259) of internet-only brands (P=.01) and 60.5% (98/162) of vape shop brands (P=.06) featured age verification windows. Websites surveyed in both 2013-2014 and 2016-2017 became more likely to sell open-system mods (P<.001) and sold an increased number of product models (P<.001), flavors (P<.001), and nicotine options (P<.001). Prevalence of several types of claims decreased significantly, including indirect claims regarding smoking cessation (P<.001), claims regarding e-cigarettes as healthier (P<.001), less expensive (P<.001), and usable in more places (P<.001) compared with combustible cigarettes.ConclusionsThe number of e-cigarette brands has not appeared to increase since 2014, even as website messaging evolved, with brands owned by tobacco companies and vape shops pulling in opposite directions. Brands owned by tobacco companies offered a limited range of e-cigarette products, whereas brands owned by vape shops emphasized a panoply of flavor and nicotine options. Furthermore, the Food and Drug Administration’s regulatory ac...

No abstract

Objectives Important differences exist between closed-system and open-system e-cigarettes, but it is unknown whether online companies are marketing these devices differently and whether consumer reasons for using e-cigarettes vary by device type. This paper compares Internet-based advertising claims of closed- versus open-system products, and evaluates US consumers’ reasons for using closed- versus open-system e-cigarettes. Methods Internet sites selling exclusively closed (N = 130) or open (N = 129) e-cigarettes in December 2013–January 2014 were coded for advertising claims. Current users (≥18 years old) of exclusively closed or open e-cigarettes (N = 860) in a nationally representative online survey in February–March 2014 provided their main reason for using e-cigarettes. Results Internet sites that exclusively sold closed-system e-cigarettes were more likely to make cigarette-related claims such as e-cigarettes being healthier and cheaper than cigarettes (ps < .0001) compared to sites selling open systems. Many sites implied their products could help smokers quit. Exclusive users of both systems endorsed cessation as their top reason. Closed-system users were more likely to report their reason as “use where smoking is banned.” Conclusions Although promotion of e-cigarettes as cessation aids is prohibited, consumers of both systems endorsed smoking cessation as their top reason for using e-cigarettes.