BackgroundThe 2018 National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine Report found substantial evidence that electronic cigarette use (vaping) by youth is strongly associated with an increased risk of ever using cigarettes (smoking) and moderately associated with progressing to more established smoking. However, the Report also noted that recent increases in vaping have been associated with declining rates of youth smoking. This paper examines the temporal relationship between vaping and youth smoking using multiple data sets to explore the question of whether vaping promotes smoking initiation in the USA.MethodsUsing publicly available, nationally representative data on smoking and vaping among youth and young adults, we conducted a trend line analysis of deviations from long-term trends in smoking starting from when vaping became more prevalent.ResultsThere was a substantial increase in youth vaping prevalence beginning in about 2014. Time trend analyses showed that the decline in past 30-day smoking prevalence accelerated by two to four times after 2014. Indicators of more established smoking rates, including the proportion of daily smokers among past 30-day smokers, also decreased more rapidly as vaping became more prevalent.ConclusionsThe inverse relationship between vaping and smoking was robust across different data sets for both youth and young adults and for current and more established smoking. While trying electronic cigarettes may causally increase smoking among some youth, the aggregate effect at the population level appears to be negligible given the reduction in smoking initiation during the period of vaping’s ascendance.

ObjectiveTo evaluate the impact of menthol cigarette bans in seven Canadian provinces between 2016 and 2018.MethodsLongitudinal data from the Canadian arm of the 2016 and 2018 ITC Four Country Smoking and Vaping Survey. 1098 non-menthol and 138 menthol smokers were surveyed pre-menthol and post-menthol cigarette bans. Multivariate logistic regression models examined associations between pre-post ban changes in smoking behaviour, including differences between menthol and non-menthol smokers in quit attempts and quitting.ResultsAt follow-up, 59.1% of pre-ban menthol smokers switched to non-menthol cigarettes; 21.5% quit smoking and 19.5% still smoked menthols, primarily purchased from First Nations reserves. Menthol smokers were more likely than non-menthol smokers to make a quit attempt (adjusted OR (aOR)=1.61, 95% CI 1.03 to 2.51), and to remain quit (aOR=2.30, 95% CI 1.06 to 5.01). Menthol smokers did not differ significantly from non-menthol smokers in quit success (aOR=1.72, 95% CI 0.98 to 3.01); however, daily menthol smokers were more likely than daily non-menthol smokers to quit (aOR=2.21, 95% CI 1.15 to 4.24), and daily menthol smokers who quit before the ban were more likely than daily non-menthol smokers to remain quit (aOR=2.81, 95% CI 1.15 to 6.85).ConclusionsAlthough menthol smokers were most likely to switch to non-menthol cigarettes, the menthol ban was also significantly associated with higher rates of quit attempts and quit success among menthol smokers compared with non-menthol smokers, and may have helped to prevent relapse among menthol smokers who had quit smoking before the ban. Results confirm and extend evaluation of Ontario’s menthol ban across provinces covering 83% of the Canadian population.

Heated tobacco products (HTPs), such as IQOS, glo, and Ploom TECH, with a variety of flavored tobacco-containing inserts, have reportedly achieved a significant market share in Japan. We analyzed data from Wave 1 of the ITC Japan Survey, a nationally representative web survey conducted in February to March 2018 among 4684 adult participants to estimate the prevalence of HTP use, describe characteristics of HTP users, and explore user preferences for HTP device and flavor. The overall prevalence of monthly HTP use was 2.7% (1.7% daily use). Virtually all HTP users were current cigarette smokers (67.8%) or former smokers (25.0%); only 1.0% of HTP users were never smokers. Among HTP users, IQOS was the most frequently reported brand used (64.5%), and menthol was the most common flavor reported (41.5%). IQOS was used more by younger respondents and those who reported daily use, while Ploom TECH was more popular among older respondents and non-daily HTP users. This is one of the first non-industry funded studies to explore the use of HTPs in Japan.

Tobacco and substance use prevention efforts may benefit from comprehensive screening and interventions across tobacco products, alcohol, and drugs, and targeting risk factors shared across substances.

Aim: This study examines where vapers purchase their vaping refills in countries having different regulations over such devices, Canada (CA), the United States (US), England (EN), and Australia (AU). Methods: Data were available from 1899 current adult daily and weekly vapers who participated in the 2016 (Wave 1) International Tobacco Control Four Country Smoking and Vaping. The outcome was purchase location of vaping supplies (online, vape shop, other). Adjusted odds ratios and 95% confidence intervals were reported for between country comparisons. Results: Overall, 41.4% of current vapers bought their vaping products from vape shops, 27.5% bought them online, and 31.1% from other retail locations. The vast majority of vapers (91.1%) reported using nicotine-containing e-liquids. In AU, vapers were more likely to buy online vs other locations compared to CA (OR = 6.4, 2.3–17.9), the US (OR = 4.1, 1.54–10.7), and EN (OR = 7.9, 2.9–21.8). In the US, they were more likely to buy from vape shops (OR = 3.3, 1.8–6.2) or online (OR = 1.9, 1.0–3.8) vs other retail locations when compared to those in EN. In CA, vapers were more likely to purchase at vape shops than at other retail locations when compared to vapers in EN (5.9, 3.2–10.9) and the US (1.87, 1.0–3.1). Conclusions: The regulatory environment and enforcement of such regulations appear to influence the location where vapers buy their vaping products. In AU, banning the retail sale of nicotine vaping products has led vapers to rely mainly on online purchasing sources, whereas the lack of enforcement of the same regulation in CA has allowed specialty vape shops to flourish.

ObjectiveTo evaluate heated tobacco product (HTP) awareness, trial and current use among adult cigarette smokers and vaping product users in four countries with varying regulations governing HTP sales.DesignData came from Wave 2 of the ITC Four Country Smoking and Vaping Survey, collected from February to July 2018. Respondents were current and former smokers and/or users of vaping products (18 years or older) from Canada (CA; n=3778), England (EN; n=4848), the USA (US; n=2846) and Australia (AU; n=1515). At the time of the survey, only Canada and England permitted the sale of contemporary HTPs (eg, IQOS).ResultsOverall, 30.2% of respondents reported being aware of HTPs (CA=30.4%; EN=31.0%; US=30.2%; AU=27.4%; p=0.346), 2.4% had ever tried HTPs (CA=3.3%; EN=2.4%; US=2.0%; AU=0.9%; p=0.001) and 0.9% currently used HTPs at least monthly (CA=0.8%; EN=1.2%; US=0.7%; AU=0.2%; p<0.001). Trial and current use were higher among those who concurrently smoked and vaped (at least monthly) versus other nicotine use categories (trial: 10.9% v. 1.2%–2.0%, p<0.001; current use: 8.4% v. 0.1%–1.0%, p<0.001). In multivariable analyses, HTP awareness did not differ across countries, whereas odds of trial and current use were lower where HTPs were unavailable. Odds of HTP trial did not differ by regulatory environment when restricting analysis to HTP-aware concurrent smokers–vapers.ConclusionApproximately one third of respondents were aware of HTPs, even in the USA and Australia, where contemporary HTPs were not yet on the market. Trial and use were uncommon, except among concurrent smokers–vapers. Restrictions on availability may have limited HTP use generally, but less so for concurrent smokers–vapers.

Use of heated tobacco products (HTPs) among current smokers is becoming increasingly popular in Japan. This study aims to compare characteristics and tobacco-related behaviors among concurrent users of HTPs and combustible cigarettes (n = 644) with exclusive smokers (n = 3194) or exclusive HTP users (n = 164). The secondary aim was to explore heterogeneity within concurrent use subgroups. Data were from Wave 1 of the ITC Japan Survey, a nationally representative web survey conducted from February to March 2018. Concurrent cigarette-HTP users were younger and wealthier than exclusive smokers. However, there were no difference in the frequency of smoking, number of cigarettes per day, and smoking cessation behaviors between the two groups, suggesting that HTPs reinforce nicotine dependence. Compared to exclusive HTP users, concurrent cigarette-HTP users reported higher frequency of non-daily HTP use, and lower number of tobacco-containing inserts per day. Almost all concurrent cigarette-HTP users smoked every day (93.9%); 48.4% both smoked and used HTPs daily (dual daily users, n = 396), while 45.5% were daily smokers and non-daily HTP users (predominant smokers, n = 213). Concurrent user subgroups differed from each other on age, tobacco use behaviors, and quit intention. Alongside heterogeneity between concurrent and exclusive product users, differences across concurrent use subgroups highlight the importance of considering frequency of use in characterizing poly-tobacco users.

Background and Aims Within the context of busy clinical settings, health‐care providers need practical, evidence‐based options to engage smokers in quitting. Sampling of nicotine replacement therapy [i.e. provision of nicotine replacement therapy (NRT starter kits)] is a brief, pragmatic strategy to address this need. We aimed to compare the effects of NRT sampling plus standard care (SC), relative to SC alone, provided by primary care providers during routine clinic visits. Design Cluster‐randomized clinical trial. Setting Twenty‐two primary care clinics in South Carolina, USA. Participants Adult smokers [n = 1245; 61% female, mean age = 50.7, standard deviation (SD) = 13.5] both motivated and unmotivated to quit, seen during routine clinical visit. Interventions were provider‐delivered SC (n = 652, 12 clinics) cessation advice or SC + a 2‐week supply of both nicotine patch and lozenge, with minimal instructions on use (n = 593; 10 clinics). Measurements The primary outcome was 7‐day point prevalence smoking abstinence at 6‐month follow‐up, using intent‐to‐treat. Additional outcomes included NRT use and quit attempts, assessed at 1, 3 and 6 months following baseline. Findings Seven‐day point prevalence abstinence rates were significantly higher in the NRT sampling group throughout follow‐up, including at 6 months [12 versus 8%, odds ratio (OR) = 1.5, 95% confidence interval (CI) = 1.0–2.4]. NRT sampling increased prevalence of any use of NRT (65 versus 25%, OR = 5.8, 95% CI = 4.3–7.7), with higher prevalence of use at 6 months (25 versus 14%, OR = 2.0, 95% CI = 1.5–2.7). NRT sampling increased the rate of quit attempts in the initial month (24 versus 18%, OR = 1.5, 95% CI = 1.0–2.3) but had no significant effect on overall rate of quit attempts (48 versus 45%, OR = 1.2, 95% CI = 0.8–1.7). Conclusion Providing smokers with a free 2‐week starter kit of nicotine replacement therapy increased quit attempts, use of stop smoking medications and smoking abstinence compared with standard care in a primary care setting.