Search

Introduction The current study sought to examine trends in indicators of dependence for youth vaping and smoking during a period of rapid evolution in the e-cigarette market. Aims and Methods Data are from repeat cross-sectional online surveys conducted between 2017 and 2022 among youth aged 16–19 in Canada, England, and the United States (US). Participants were 23 145 respondents who vaped and/or smoked in the past 30 days. Four dependence indicators were assessed for smoking and vaping (perceived addiction, frequent strong urges, time to first use after waking, days used in past month) and two for vaping only (use events per day, e-cigarette dependence scale). Regression models examined differences by survey wave and country, adjusting for sex, age, race, and exclusive/dual use. Results All six indicators of dependence increased between 2017 and 2022 among youth who vaped in the past 30 days (p  < .001 for all). For example, more youth reported strong urges to vape at least most days in 2022 than in 2017 (Canada: 26.5% to 53.4%; England: 25.5% to 45.4%; US: 31.6% to 50.3%). In 2017, indicators of vaping dependence were substantially lower than for smoking; however, by 2022, youth vaping was associated with a greater number of days used in the past month (Canada, US), shorter time to first use (all countries), and a higher likelihood of frequent strong urges (Canada, US) compared to youth smoking. Conclusions From 2017 to 2022, indicators of vaping dependence increased substantially. By 2022, vaping dependence indices were comparable to those of smoking. Implications Indicators of vaping dependence among youth have increased substantially since 2017 to levels that are comparable to cigarette dependence among youth who smoke. Future research should examine factors underlying the increase in dependence among youth who vape, including changes to the nicotine profile and design of e-cigarette products. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Introduction: This study examined menthol cigarette use among youth who smoked, after menthol cigarette bans were implemented in England (May 2020) and Canada (October 2017). Aims and Methods: Cross-sectional data come from 2021 ITC Youth Tobacco and Vaping Survey respondents aged 16-19 who smoked in the past 30 d in England (N = 715) and Canada (N = 419). Adjusted logistic regression models, estimated separately for each country, examined sociodemographic correlates of usually smoking menthol cigarettes (reporting currently most often smoking menthol cigarettes) overall, and by past 30-d use of any menthol accessories (e.g., filters, capsules). Youth reported the cigarette variety they smoked most often, coded as menthol or nonmenthol. Results: Almost no youth who smoked in the past 30 d reported most often smoking a cigarette variety coded as menthol. However, 34.5% (95% CI: 30.4% to 38.9%) of youth who smoke in England and 30.9% (26.0%-36.3%) in Canada reported usually smoking menthol cigarettes, with greater odds of use among those identifying as black, or other race/ethnicity, respectively, compared to white in England (60.0%, aOR = 3.08, p = .001; 47.4%, aOR = 2.27, p = .011) and Canada (43.6%, aOR = 2.44, p = .046; 51.2%, aOR = 2.92, p = .001). Among those who reported usually smoking menthol cigarettes in England (N = 223) and Canada (N = 108), 71.7% (64.0%-78.2%) and 51.5% (41.1%-61.7%) reported using menthol accessories. Conclusions: After menthol cigarette bans in England and Canada, approximately one-third of youth who smoked reported usually smoking menthol cigarettes, with disproportionately higher use among those identifying as black and other race/ethnicity. Menthol accessories accounted for most menthol cigarette use. Closing regulatory loopholes is critical to advancing public health equity. Implications: Use of menthol cigarette accessories (eg, filters, cards, capsules) among youth who smoked was prevalent after implementation of menthol cigarette bans in England and Canada, and there was disproportionately higher use among those who identified as black and any other race/ethnicity. Efforts are therefore required to close regulatory loopholes of menthol cigarette bans. Findings further support countries, such as the United States, proposing menthol cigarette bans which extend coverage to accessories. More comprehensive menthol bans that also restrict accessories are likely to be more effective in reducing flavored tobacco use among young people and in advancing health equity. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background and aims Design Setting and participants Measurements Findings Conclusions Elf Bar is currently the leading e‐cigarette (vape) brand in Great Britain. This study examined youth and young adults’ use of Elf Bar, socio‐demographic characteristics and dependence indicators and reasons for use over other brands.Cross‐sectional survey.Online 2022 International Tobacco Control Project Youth Tobacco and Vaping Survey (N = 1355 16‐29‐year‐olds in England who had vaped in the past 30 days).Currently using Elf Bar most often (versus other brands) and associations with: socio‐demographics, owning a vaping device, dependence indicators and reasons for brand choice. Logistic regressions were used.Among 16–29‐year‐olds who vaped in the past 30 days, 48.4% (n = 732) reported Elf Bar as the brand they used most often. Among 16–17‐year‐olds, 40.7% used Elf Bar over other brands; this was lower than among 18–19‐year‐olds (60.1%) and 20–29‐year‐olds (47.4%) (P ≤ 0.002). Using Elf Bar over other brands was higher among those who were female (55.2 versus 41.5% male), identified as White (53.1 versus 30.9% other/mixed), a student (54.5 versus 44.3% not), did not own a vape (66.7 versus 44.4% who did) and typically vaped 5–8 hours after waking (62.7 versus 36.8% within 5 min) (P ≤ 0.044). Most who vaped but had never smoked used Elf Bar (64.3%), although use did not significantly differ from those who currently (45.4%), formerly (42.3%) or experimentally (48.7%) smoked (all P ≥ 0.060). Popular reasons for choosing Elf Bar over other brands were better flavour/taste (47.5%), less expensive (28.7%), easier to get (26.1%), smoother to inhale (24.0%) and popularity (23.1%). ‘Better for quitting smoking’ (10.1%) was least frequently selected reason for choosing Elf Bar over other brands.Elf Bar brand e‐cigarettes were used by approximately half of 16–29‐year‐olds who vaped in England in 2022 and was mainly chosen over other brands for subjective responses (e.g. flavour/taste), rather than for quitting smoking. [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 Smoking exposes people to high levels of Tobacco-Specific Nitrosamines (TSNAs), which include potent carcinogens. We systematically reviewed TSNA exposure between people smoking, vaping, and doing neither. Aims and Methods Databases were searched between August 2017–March 2022, using vaping-related terms. Peer-reviewed articles reporting TSNA metabolites (NNAL, NNN, NAB, and NAT) levels in bio-samples among adults exclusively vaping, exclusively smoking, or doing neither were included. Where possible, meta-analyses were conducted. Results Of 12 781 identified studies, 22 were included. TSNA levels fell substantially when people who smoke switched to vaping in longitudinal studies and were lower among people who vaped compared to smoked in cross-sectional studies. Levels of TSNAs were similar when comparing people who switched from smoking to vaping, to those who switched to no use of nicotine products, in longitudinal studies. Levels were higher among people who vaped compared to people who neither vaped nor smoked in cross-sectional studies. When comparing people who vaped to smoked: pooled urinary NNAL was 79% lower across three randomized controlled trials and 96% lower across three cross-sectional studies; pooled NAB was 87% lower and NAT 94% lower in two cross-sectional studies. When comparing people who neither vaped nor smoked to people who vaped, pooled urinary NNAL was 80%, NAB 26%, and NAT 27% lower in two cross-sectional studies. Other longitudinal data, and NNN levels could not be pooled. Conclusions Exposure to all TSNAs was lower among people who vaped compared to people who smoked. Levels were higher among people who vaped compared to people who neither vaped nor smoked. Implications As well as TSNAs, there are many other toxicant exposures from smoking and vaping that can increase the risk of disease. However, it is likely that the reduced exposure to TSNAs from vaping relative to smoking reduces the risk to health of those who use vaping products to quit smoking. Future high-quality research, with robust definitions of exclusive vaping and smoking, and accounting for TSNAs half-lives, is needed to fully assess exposure to TSNAs among people who vape. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]