The issue of harm reduction has long been controversial in the public health practice of tobacco control. Health advocates have been reluctant to endorse a harm reduction approach out of fear that tobacco companies cannot be trusted to produce and market products that will reduce the risks associated with tobacco use. Recently, companies independent of the tobacco industry introduced electronic cigarettes, devices that deliver vaporized nicotine without combusting tobacco. We review the existing evidence on the safety and efficacy of electronic cigarettes. We then revisit the tobacco harm reduction debate, with a focus on these novel products. We conclude that electronic cigarettes show tremendous promise in the fight against tobacco-related morbidity and mortality. By dramatically expanding the potential for harm reduction strategies to achieve substantial health gains, they may fundamentally alter the tobacco harm reduction debate.

The continuing high prevalence of cigarette smoking among specific subpopulations, many of them vulnerable, is one of the most pressing challenges facing the tobacco control community. These populations include individuals in lower education and/or socioeconomic groups; from certain racial/ethnic groups; in the lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender community; with mental illness; and in the military, particularly among those in the lowest pay grades. Although traditional tobacco control measures are having positive health effects for most groups, the effects are not sufficient for others. More attention to and support for promising novel interventions, in addition to new attempts at reaching these populations through conventional interventions that have proven to be effective, are crucial going forward to find new ways to address these disparities. CA Cancer J Clin 2018;68:106-115. © 2018 American Cancer Society.

Answer questions and earn CME/CNE Over the last decade, the use of electronic nicotine delivery systems (ENDS), including the electronic cigarette or e-cigarette, has grown rapidly. More youth now use ENDS than any tobacco product. This extensive research review shows that there are scientifically sound, sometimes competing arguments about ENDS that are not immediately and/or completely resolvable. However, the preponderance of the scientific evidence to date suggests that current-generation ENDS products are demonstrably less harmful than combustible tobacco products such as conventional cigarettes in several key ways, including by generating far lower levels of carcinogens and other toxic compounds than combustible products or those that contain tobacco. To place ENDS in context, the authors begin by reviewing the trends in use of major nicotine-containing products. Because nicotine is the common core-and highly addictive-constituent across all tobacco products, its toxicology is examined. With its long history as the only nicotine product widely accepted as being relatively safe, nicotine-replacement therapy (NRT) is also examined. A section is also included that examines snus, the most debated potential harm-reduction product before ENDS. Between discussions of NRT and snus, ENDS are extensively examined: what they are, knowledge about their level of "harm," their relationship to smoking cessation, the so-called gateway effect, and dual use/poly-use. CA Cancer J Clin 2017;67:449-471. © 2017 American Cancer Society.

No abstract

BackgroundPhilip Morris International, one of the largest transnational cigarette manufacturers, has heavily invested in its new heated tobacco product, IQOS, marketing it aggressively as a less harmful alternative to cigarette smoking. The company’s assertions that the product replaces cigarettes in a market have never been independently tested. The objective of this study is to determine whether introduction of IQOS affected cigarette sales in a large economy.Data and MethodsUsing 2014 to 2018 monthly retailer panel data from Japan, we analyse whether different dates of IQOS introduction across Japan’s regions are reflected in the patterns of cigarette sales in those regions. A series of placebo models are estimated to test if events other than IQOS introduction could have better explained the observed trends in cigarette sales.ResultsCigarette sales begin to substantially decline at the time of the introduction of IQOS in each of 11 Japanese regions (Chow tests p<0.001). IQOS introduction, which varied across regions, better predicted the timing of cigarette sales decline than any one time applied to all regions simultaneously (a national-level exogenous shock) and than nearly all possible rearrangements of the true IQOS introduction months among the regions (exact permutation test’s p value from 0.02 to 0.13, depending on the study approach).ConclusionsThe introduction of IQOS likely reduced cigarette sales in Japan. The net population health impact, however, cannot be assessed without resolving several key uncertainties related to the direct harms of IQOS and the precise patterns of both smoking and IQOS use.

Objectives. To describe the evolution of flavored e-cigarette sales since the expansion of the JUUL brand, and to describe the effect of JUUL’s November 2018 decision to self-regulate the flavors it sold in stores on flavored e-cigarette sales. Methods. We used Scantrack data on sales of e-cigarettes in the United States from January 2015 to October 2019 provided by The Nielsen Company. National sales values were aggregated monthly in 5 flavor categories (fruit, menthol/mint, sweet, tobacco, and other). Results. The expansion of JUUL sales coincided with an expansion in fruit-flavor sales through October 2018. Once JUUL withdrew fruit and sweet flavors from stores, menthol/mint came to dominate the e-cigarette market, but through 2019, a new surge in fruit-flavor sales by non-JUUL brands was observed. Conclusions. After a decline in sales following JUUL’s decision to withdraw some flavored products from stores, JUUL sales recovered within weeks and surpassed their previous maximum in those same channels, as consumption shifted to the menthol/mint and tobacco flavors that remained on shelves. Public Health Implications. These trends suggest shortcomings of self-regulation and highlight the utility of government regulation.

Regulatory authorities have devoted increasing attention and resources to a range of issues surrounding the regulation of novel nicotine and tobacco products. This review highlights the inherent complexity of evaluating prospective policies that pertain to products that heat solutions containing nicotine but not tobacco leaf, sometimes referred to as electronic nicotine delivery systems (ENDS). The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is compelled to incorporate a set of public health criteria in their decision-making, collectively referred to as the Population Health Standard. Adherence to this standard is necessary to estimate the impact of prospective ENDS policy decisions on net population harm associated with non-therapeutic nicotine products. For policies that are expected to decrease or increase ENDS use, application of the Population Health Standard requires a comprehensive assessment of the status quo impact of ENDS use on population health. Accordingly, this review first assesses the state of the evidence on the direct harms of ENDS and the indirect effects of ENDS use on smoking, particularly rates of initiation and cessation. After that, the example of flavor restrictions is used to demonstrate the further considerations that are involved in applying the Population Health Standard to a prospective ENDS policy. Implications This narrative review aims to inform regulatory considerations about ends through the prism of the population health standard. More specifically, this review: 1) describes and explains the importance of this approach; 2) provides guidance on evaluating the state of the evidence linking ends to the net population harm associated with non-therapeutic nicotine products; and 3) illustrates how this framework can inform policymaking using the example of flavor restrictions.

Richard B Saltman and Zachary Cahn argue that efficiency savings are unlikely to enable health systems to cope with long term budget constraints and suggest that countries need to shift responsibility for substantial parts of health activity away from the public sector