Search

Introduction: On April 20, 2020, New Jersey (NJ) implemented a comprehensive ban on the sale of flavored e-cigarettes. This study compares sales of e-cigarettes, cigarettes, and cigars before and after the law., Aims and Methods: Data were biweekly retailer scanner sales in NJ convenience stores for e-cigarettes, cigarettes, and cigars between August 2019 and December 2020. We used Joinpoint regression to assess sales trends for cigarettes (non-menthol and menthol), cigars (unflavored and flavored), and e-cigarettes (unflavored, fruit or sweet or concept flavor, and menthol flavor) in the 36 weeks before and 36 weeks after a statewide ban on flavored e-cigarettes., Results: Flavored e-cigarette sales, not including menthol, significantly decreased over the study period while menthol e-cigarette sales significantly increased until the e-cigarette flavor ban took effect, after which these sales rapidly declined through May 2020, then slowed. Unflavored e-cigarette sales declined through September 2019, then grew modestly until the flavored e-cigarette ban, after which sales significantly increased. Flavored cigar sales increased between March and May 2020, then declined; non-flavored cigar sales increased between mid-February and early July 2020, then declined. Cigarette sales were decreasing before the flavored e-cigarette ban but after, significantly increased until June 2020. Overall, there was no significant trend in the average biweekly percent change for cigarette sales., Conclusions: Flavored e-cigarette sales were declining prior to the ban but the pace of the decline accelerated following federal and state restrictions on flavored e-cigarette sales, then slowed by the second half of 2020, with a brief period of increased cigarette and cigar sales immediately following the ban., Implications: NJ's 2020 statewide e-cigarette flavor ban offered the opportunity to observe how sales of e-cigarette, cigarette, and cigar products shifted after the change. The effect of the state law, at least in the short-term, was decreased sales of flavored e-cigarettes and increased sales of unflavored e-cigarettes. Research on long-term policy effects is needed., (© The Author(s) 2024. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the Society for Research on Nicotine and Tobacco. All rights reserved. For commercial re-use, please contact reprints@oup.com for reprints and translation rights for reprints. All other permissions can be obtained through our RightsLink service via the Permissions link on the article page on our site—for further information please contact journals.permissions@oup.com.)

Introduction: The present study empirically examined the association between price discounts and product attributes of e-liquids sold by online retailers., Methods: We analysed 14 000 e-liquid products from five major online e-cigarette retailers between April and May 2021 to determine the association between price discounts and product attributes such as nicotine level and form, flavour and vegetable glycerine/propylene glycol ratio. A fixed-effects model was used in the analysis and discounts were calculated in US cents/mL of e-liquid volume., Results: Out of 14 407 e-liquid products, 92.5% were offered at a discounted price. On average, the price discount for the 13 324 products that had discounts was 16.84 cents/mL across the five stores. Among the three forms of nicotine (salt, freebase and nicotine free), salt e-liquids had the highest average price discount., Conclusion: Our findings suggest that e-liquids with salt nicotine have a higher average price discount when sold online, which may influence consumer purchasing behaviour. Further research is needed to assess the potential impact of these discounts on youth and adult tobacco use. Policymakers may consider implementing measures to limit online price discounts for e-liquids as a means of reducing sales among young people., Competing Interests: Competing interests: None declared., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2024. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.)

Introduction: The 2019 outbreak of e-cigarette or vaping product use-associated lung injury (EVALI) is believed to have been caused by vitamin E acetate, an additive used in some cannabis vaporizer products. Previous studies have primarily focused on changes in sales of electronic nicotine delivery systems following the initial advisory issued by the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) on August 17, 2019. The present study is intended to examine variation by age groups in sales of regulated cannabis vape products in the state of California before, during, and after the outbreak. Methods: Weekly sales revenue of cannabis vape products (from January 1, 2018, to December 31, 2020) was obtained from a sample of recreational cannabis retailers licensed in California. An interrupted time series analysis, using AutoRegressive, Integrated, Moving Average methods, was employed to estimate changes in the sales and market share of cannabis vape products in the weeks following the CDC advisory. Results: The total volume of regulated cannabis vape product sales increased substantially over the 3-year study period (2018-2020). Sales and market share of cannabis vape products, however, declined in both young and older adults immediately following the advisory, rebounding to pre-EVALI levels only for the young adults. For sales, the potential EVALI effect following the CDC's advisory equates to an 8.0% and 2.2% decline below expected levels in the older and young adults, respectively. Conclusions: The differential age effect on sales may reflect concerns regarding health effects of cannabis vaping products and greater awareness of the outbreak among older adults. Findings highlight the importance of informing consumers about health risks associated with using cannabis vape products acquired from regulated versus illicit sources.

Introduction: While retail sales and retailer inspection studies generally indicate high compliance with state sales restrictions on Nicotine Vaping Products (NVPs) within the restricted area, studies using survey data generally indicate that most users could readily continue gaining access to restricted NVPs. Our study bridges a gap in the current literature and investigates the potential role of cross-state border purchases to evade state emergency NVP sales restrictions in 2019., Aims and Methods: The study sample was restricted to NVP sales from the states neighboring Massachusetts, Rhode Island, and Washington, three states that implemented all NVP or flavored NVP sales restrictions in 2019. Among these neighboring states, the 2019 weekly county-level NVP sales by flavors (tobacco, mint/menthol, and other flavors) were compiled using Nielsen Scanner data. A quasi-experimental, comparison group pre-post study design was used to study the impacts of NVP sales restrictions on cross-state border NVP purchases., Results: Weekly NVP sales for border counties significantly increased in response to the MA, RI, and WA bans for tobacco flavored (56%, 45%, 14%, respectively), menthol/mint flavored (51%, 2%, 41%, respectively), and other flavored (79%, 3%, 4%, respectively) products, compared to sales for non-border counties (all p-values < .01)., Conclusions: Our study identified significant cross-state border NVP purchases in all studied states to circumvent NVP emergency sales restrictions in response to the EVALI outbreak. Policymakers should factor in these purchasing behaviors to evade sales restrictions when evaluating any future potential policies at the state or local levels., Implications: While retail sales data and retailer inspections indicate high compliance with Nicotine Vaping Product (NVP) flavor sales restrictions from major retail outlets, survey data obtain mixed findings on the effects of sales restrictions on vaping behaviors. Our study identified a significant increase in cross-state border NVP purchases to circumvent NVP sales restrictions in 2019, consistent across all three settings of Massachusetts, Rhode Island, and Washington. Policymakers should factor in these cross-state border NVP purchases in response to sales restrictions when evaluating any future potential NVP sales restrictions., (© The Author(s) 2024. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the Society for Research on Nicotine and Tobacco. All rights reserved. For commercial re-use, please contact reprints@oup.com for reprints and translation rights for reprints. All other permissions can be obtained through our RightsLink service via the Permissions link on the article page on our site—for further information please contact journals.permissions@oup.com.)

Background: Governments around the world are considering regulating access to nicotine e-cigarettes to prevent uptake among youth however people that smoke tobacco may use them to assist with smoking cessation. The health and cost implications of regulating e-cigarette use among populations are unknown but have been explored in modelling studies. We reviewed health economic evaluation and simulation modelling studies that assessed long-term consequences and interpret their potential usefulness for decision-makers., Methods: A systematic review with a narrative synthesis was undertaken. Six databases were searched for modelling studies evaluating population-level e-cigarette control policies or interventions restricting e-cigarette use versus more liberalized use. Studies were required to report the outcomes of life years, quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) and/or healthcare costs. The quality of the studies was assessed using two quality assessment tools., Results: In total, 15 studies were included with nine for the United States and one each for the United Kingdom, Italy, Australia, Singapore, Canada, and New Zealand. Three studies included cost-utility analyses. Most studies involved health state transition (or Markov) closed cohort models. Many studies had limitations with their model structures, data input quality and transparency, and insufficient analyses handling model uncertainty. Findings were mixed with 11 studies concluding that policies permitting e-cigarette use lead to net benefits and 4 studies concluding net losses in life-years or QALYs and/or healthcare costs.Five studies had industry conflicts of interest., Conclusions: While authors did conclude net benefit than net harm in more of the studies so far conducted, the significant limitations that we identified with many of the studies in this review, make it uncertain whether or not countries can expect net population harms or benefits of restrictive versus unrestrictive e-cigarette policies. The generalizability of the findings is limited for decision-makers. In light of the deep uncertainty around the health and economic outcomes of e-cigarettes, simulation modelling methods and uncertainty analyses should be strengthened., Competing Interests: Declaration of competing interest AL receives an Early Career Fellowship from the Victorian Cancer Agency paid through her institution. MJ is supported by a National Health and Medical Research Council Investigator Grant (APP1194713). The other authors have no interests to declare., (Copyright © 2024. Published by Elsevier B.V.)

Competing Interests: Competing interests: None declared.

Background: While a growing number of studies examined the effect of e-cigarette (EC) excise taxes on tobacco use behaviors using cross-sectional surveys or sales data, there are currently no studies that evaluate the impact of EC taxes on smoking and vaping transitions., Methods: Using data from the US arm of the 2016-2020 International Tobacco Control Four Country Smoking and Vaping Survey (ITC 4CV), we employed a multinomial logit model with two-way fixed effects to simultaneously estimate the impacts of cigarette/EC taxes on the change in smoking and vaping frequencies., Results: Our benchmark model suggests that a 10 % increase in cigarette taxes led to an 11 % reduction in smoking frequencies (p < 0.01), while EC taxes did not have a significant effect on smoking frequencies., Conclusion: Our findings suggest that increasing cigarette taxes may serve as an effective means of encouraging people who smoke to cut back on smoking or quit smoking. The impact of increasing EC taxes on smoking transitions is less certain at this time., Competing Interests: Declaration of competing interest KMC has served as a paid expert witness in litigation filed against cigarette manufacturers. GTF has served as an expert witness/consultant for governments defending their country's policies/regulations in litigation. All other authors have no conflict of interest to declare., (Copyright © 2024 The Authors. Published by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.)

Background: Financial debt and associated stress might increase the risk of substance use problems or exacerbate existing ones. Little evidence is available about the degree of debt stress and its association with substance use. The objective of this study was to examine the associations of the frequency of worry about debt with heavy episodic drinking (HED), daily smoking, e-cigarette use, and cannabis use in the past 30 days., Methods: Data were utilized from the 2020/2022 Monitor study, a repeated cross-sectional survey of adults 18 years and older in Ontario, Canada. The surveys employed a web-based panel survey of 6038 adults and collected data on debt-related stress, HED, tobacco smoking, e-cigarettes, and cannabis use in the past 30 days. Odds ratios (OR) were estimated from logistic regression models accounting for sociodemographic factors., Results: Overall, 18.4% of respondents reported that they were worried about their debt most or all of the time. Accounting for household income, educational status, employment status, and other factors, the results revealed that there was a dose-response relationship between the frequency of worry about debt and substance use including daily smoking, e-cigarette use, and cannabis use in the past 30 days compared to those who were not worried at all about their debt. Sex differences were also found in the association between worry about debt and e-cigarette use., Conclusions: The frequency of worry about debt might have an important role in substance use, which suggests that financial well-being is vital in substance use prevention and harm reduction.

Background: Personal vaporisers are gaining popularity as an alternative route of administration for a range of substances. Online cryptomarkets are becoming increasingly popular among people who use substances due to their perceived anonymity, ease of use, and reduced risk of violence compared to traditional face-to-face dealers. We examined the diversity of substances marketed for use in a personal vaporiser on these marketplaces., Methods: Vaping related listings were extracted from three online cryptomarkets ('Agartha', 'Cryptonia', and 'Tochka') using The Onion Router browser. Data collection occurred between October and November 2019., Results: We identified 1929 listings from 201 unique sellers. The top product on Agartha, Cryptonia, and Tochka were vape cartridges prefilled with the e-liquid (70.4 %, 39.4 %, 52.3 % respectively). The most common substance in these products was cannabis oil (96.1 %, 82.1 %, 87.8 %), followed by synthetic cannabinoids (3.7 %, 9.7 %, 9.8 %) and psychedelic substances (0.2 %, 6.4 %, 1.2 %). Vendors were primarily from the USA. Many products offered worldwide shipping (96.3 %, 42.4 %, 51.2 %)., Conclusion: Vaping products listed on online cryptomarkets in 2019 primarily contained cannabis oils. Future studies should continue to examine cryptomarkets to identify emerging trends of substances that can be used in personal vaporisers., (Copyright © 2020 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.)

Introduction: Behavioral economic purchase tasks are used to estimate the reinforcing value of drugs by asking participants how much they would purchase across a range of increasing prices. We sought to validate such a task for e-cigarettes in experienced users of advanced generation, tank-style devices., Methods: Dual users of cigarettes and e-cigarettes (N = 54) and exclusive e-cigarette users (N = 59) attended one session during which they completed assessments including two versions of the E-cigarette Purchase Task: one that asked how many puffs of their e-cigarette they would purchase in 24 hours at varying prices and one that asked how many mLs of e-liquid they would purchase. We correlated purchase task outcomes with other measures of e-cigarette use. We also compared the tasks across dual and exclusive users., Results: Indices derived from the mLs-based task were more likely to be correlated with self-reported use rates, e-cigarette dependence, and cotinine levels than the puffs-based task. Exclusive users showed greater demand on than dual users only on the mLs version when using an F-test comparison method, while multivariate analysis of variance (MANOVA) results showed that dual users showed greater demand only on the puffs task., Conclusions: Results indicate that the mLs version had greater validity than the puffs version in terms of clinical indices. Dual users may still be on a trajectory to fully switching to e-cigarettes; thus, puffs as a measure may be more intuitive, as this measure is shared by cigarettes and e-cigarettes. For exclusive users, the unit they purchase their e-liquid in may be the most relevant unit and better capture their demand for that product., Implications: Behavioral economic purchase tasks have been widely used to understand nicotine use. We have developed two versions of a purchase task for e-cigarette use and compared the two versions in users of advanced generation e-cigarette devices. We found that the mLs version of the task better-reflected use patterns relative to a puffs version, which suggests that participants struggle to place monetary value on a unit of consumption (ie, puffs). Validated measures of e-cigarette reinforcement will be important as researchers and regulators determine which features of these products contribute to reinforcing efficacy., (© The Author(s) 2020. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the Society for Research on Nicotine and Tobacco. All rights reserved. For permissions, please e-mail: journals.permissions@oup.com.)

In the 10 years that the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has been regulating tobacco products, the agency has been plagued with setbacks, some of its own making, and some the result of outside forces. What has been consistently true is that the public health community has not had as much of a voice as it should have until public health groups began filing lawsuits against the FDA. This article examines four areas of FDA regulation over the last decade in an attempt to qualitatively describe the work of the Center for Tobacco Products and identify opportunities for public health groups to have greater advocacy success in the future.

Introduction: Understanding the impact of prices for tobacco and nicotine products is critical for creating policies to prevent use among young people. This study examines the impact of electronic cigarette (e-cigarette) and cigarette prices on current e-cigarette and cigarette use among youth and young adults., Methods: Data were from a national probability-based sample aged 15-21 collected in 2014 and followed every 6 months for 2.5 years through 2016. We conducted separate conditional likelihood logistic regression models with past 30-day e-cigarette use and past 30-day cigarette use outcomes on the sample of individuals who participated in at least two survey waves (n=11 578) with linked Nielsen market-level price data for rechargeable e-cigarettes and cigarettes. Models controlled for time-varying variables at the individual and state policy levels, and fixed effects at the individual, wave and market levels., Results: Higher cigarette prices were associated with increased past 30-day e-cigarette use, indicating e-cigarettes may serve as a substitute for cigarettes. We did not find a statistically significant relationship between rechargeable e-cigarette prices and past 30-day e-cigarette use; neither did we find a significant relationship between rechargeable e-cigarette prices and past 30-day cigarette smoking., Conclusion: This is the first study to examine e-cigarette and cigarette prices on e-cigarette and cigarette behaviour longitudinally among young people. Findings suggest the need for better measuring the costs associated with e-cigarette use among this population, as well as a careful assessment of price and tax policies that takes into account cross-product impact to sufficiently discourage e-cigarette and cigarette use among young people., Competing Interests: Competing interests: None declared., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2020. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.)

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.

Objective: To examine the sources of vaping products reported by adolescents, and the characteristics of adolescents who reported purchasing a vaping product in the past year in the United States (US), Canada (CA), and England (EN)., Methods: Data were from the 2017 ITC Youth Tobacco and Vaping Survey, a web-based survey of 12,128 respondents aged 16-19 years recruited from commercial panels in the US, CA, and EN. Respondents who have vaped in the past 12 months were asked whether they had purchased a vaping product, and from where (vape shop, online, retail), as well as whether anyone refused to sell them a vaping product because of their age. Respondents who reported vaping in the past 30 days were asked where they had obtained their vaping product from a social and/or commercial source., Results: Only about 7.5% of respondents reported having purchased a vaping product in the past year. Among those who had vaped in the past year, 32.6% reported having purchased a vaping product in the past year. Purchasing prevalence was significantly higher among US respondents compared to those from CA and EN; purchase prevalence was also higher among Canadian adolescents than respondents from England. The most commonly reported purchase location for vaping products in all counties was vape shops. Among past 30-day vapers, 42.5% reported getting their vaping products only from social sources, 41.4% only from commercial sources, and 13.4% from both types of sources. Purchasing a vaping product in the past year was associated with being male, of legal age to buy tobacco and vaping products, and greater frequency of smoking and vaping in the past 30 days., Conclusions: Most adolescents have not purchased a vaping product, but among those who had, vape shops were the mostly commonly reported location for buying a vaping product. Purchasing of a vape product was more commonly reported by those who vape more frequently and by those of legal age to buy a vaping product., (Copyright © 2020 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Neighborhood-level socioeconomic variables, such as the proportion of minority and low-income residents, have been associated with a greater density of tobacco retail outlets (TROs), though less is known about the degree to which these neighborhood indicators are related to vape shop outlet (VSO) density. Many studies of TROs and neighborhood characteristics include only a small set of variables and also fail to take into account the correlation among these variables. Using a carefully curated database of all TROs and VSOs in Virginia (2016-2018), we developed a Bayesian model to estimate a neighborhood disadvantage index and examine its association with rates of outlets across census tracts while also accounting for correlations among variables. Models included 12 census tract variables from the American Community Survey. Results showed that increasing neighborhood disadvantage was associated with a 63% and 64% increase in TRO and VSO risk, respectively. Important variables associated with TRO rates included % renter occupied housing, inverse median gross rent, inverse median monthly housing costs, inverse median monthly housing costs, and % vacant housing units. Important variables associated with VSO rates were % renter occupied housing and % Hispanic population. There were several spatial clusters of significantly elevated risk for TROs and VSOs in western and eastern Virginia.

Importance: Millions of Americans use electronic cigarettes (e-cigarettes). A growing number of state and local governments have started to draft and implement laws regarding the sale, marketing, and use of e-cigarettes. The association of US state regulations regarding e-cigarettes with e-cigarette use remains unknown., Objective: To examine the association of US state regulations regarding e-cigarettes with current e-cigarette use among adults in the United States., Design, Setting, and Participants: This cross-sectional study included adults aged 18 years or older from the 2016 and 2017 Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System, which is a nationwide, telephone-administered survey that collects state-representative data on health-related risk behaviors, chronic health conditions, and use of preventive services. Data analysis was performed from February 1, 2019, to April 31, 2019., Exposures: United States state laws regulating e-cigarette use, including prohibiting e-cigarette use in indoor areas of private workplaces, restaurants, and bars; requiring retailers to purchase a license to sell e-cigarettes; prohibiting self-service displays of e-cigarettes; prohibiting sales of tobacco products, including e-cigarettes, to persons younger than 21 years; and e-cigarette taxes., Main Outcomes and Measures: Current use of e-cigarettes., Results: Among 894 997 participants aged 18 years or older (503 688 women [51.3%], 679 443 non-Hispanic white [62.6%], 71 730 non-Hispanic black [16.3%], 69 823 Hispanic [11.4%], and 74 001 non-Hispanic other races [9.8%]), 28 907 (weighted prevalence, 4.4%) were currently using e-cigarettes. The age-standardized weighted prevalence of current e-cigarette use varied across US states and territories, from 1.0% in Puerto Rico to 6.2% in Guam. After adjustment for demographic, socioeconomic, and lifestyle factors, including conventional cigarette use, the odds ratios of current e-cigarette use were 0.90 (95% CI, 0.83-0.98) for state laws prohibiting e-cigarette use in indoor areas of private workplaces, restaurants, and bars; 0.90 (95% CI, 0.85-0.95) for state laws requiring retailers to purchase a license to sell e-cigarettes; 1.04 (95% CI, 0.99-1.09) for state laws prohibiting self-service displays of e-cigarettes; 0.86 (95% CI, 0.74-0.99) for state laws prohibiting sales of tobacco products, including e-cigarettes, to persons younger than 21 years; and 0.89 (95% CI, 0.83-0.96) for state laws applying taxes to e-cigarettes., Conclusions and Relevance: These findings suggest that several state regulations regarding e-cigarettes may be associated with reduced e-cigarette use among US adults.

We conducted an environmental justice assessment examining the distribution of specialty vape shops in relation to where minority and low-income youth live and attend school. We collated and examined the density of vape shops in public school districts in 2018 throughout the conterminous United States using geographic information systems. We calculated the proximity of vape shops to public middle and high schools through nearest neighbor analysis in QGIS software. We examined the statistical relationships between the density of vape shops in school districts, and proximity to schools, with the proportion of racial/ethnic minorities and those living in poverty. We found that vape shops are more densely distributed, and are in closer proximity to schools, in school districts with higher proportions of Asian and Black or African American populations. However, vape shops were further away from schools in school districts with higher proportions of the population in poverty. The proximity and higher density of vape shops in relationship to schools in Asian and Black or African American communities may result in disproportionate health impacts due to greater access and exposure to vape products and advertisements. Our results may help school district administrators prioritize and target efforts to curb youth vaping (e.g., health education curricula) in these school districts with high density and closer proximity of vape shops to schools. Policy efforts, such as local ordinances restricting the promotion and sale of vaping products close to schools, could help prevent disproportionate human and environmental health impacts to minorities.

Background: Delay discounting (DD) research has improved our understanding of important behavioral processes associated with tobacco use. Little research has explored DD among e-cigarette users, and these studies have exclusively examined money as the only available commodity. This secondary analysis of a laboratory study explored discounting for money and e-liquid among e-cigarette users using two single-commodity discounting (SCD) tasks and one cross-commodity discounting (CCD) task. A secondary goal was to explore the extent to which results from the SCD and CCD tasks were correlated to each other and with measures of e-cigarette use., Methods: E-cigarette users (N = 27) completed two SCD tasks and one CCD task. The SCD tasks assessed choices between various amounts of either money now versus money later (M-M) or e-liquid now versus e-liquid later (mL-mL). The CCD task assessed choices between e-liquid now versus money later (mL-M). Discounting results were compared using logk and AUClog., Results: Discounting was greatest in the mL-mL task, followed by the M-M task, and then the mL-M task. AUClog and logk were significantly correlated across all discounting tasks. Attempts to quit vaping was positively associated with logk and negatively associated with AUClog and in both SCD tasks., Conclusions: E-cigarette users discount e-liquid more than money in a SCD task. However, when the two commodities, money and e-liquid (CCD), are compared the substance of abuse is discounted to a lesser extent. Interventions that provide alternative reinforcers to compete with the reinforcing effects of nicotine intake may be especially indicated for treating e-cigarette dependence., (Copyright © 2019 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.)

Background: Dual use of e-cigarettes and cigarettes is common among young adults. Earlier research has used an internet panel to assess anticipated effects of eliminating nicotine, flavors (except menthol), and customizable e-cigarettes on predicted changes in e-cigarette and cigarette consumption. This earlier analysis showed that all these policies were predicted to lower e-cigarette consumption and increase cigarette consumption among these dual users. The earlier analysis, did not, however, estimate the net effect of these policies considering both lowered and increased consumption. Methods: We computed the net effects of these policies as the difference between people predicting quitting or using cigarettes less and those predicting that they would use them more. The same calculations were done for e-cigarettes. Significance testing was done with z -tests. Results: As expected, the net effect of all three policies was to significantly lower e-cigarette consumption. The net effect was to also lower cigarette consumption for eliminating nicotine and flavors in e-cigarettes, with no significant net effect of eliminating modifiable e-cigarettes. Conclusion: Eliminating nicotine and flavors from e-cigarettes is predicted to lower cigarette as well as e-cigarette consumption.

Background: Prior to the final deeming rule, federal law in the USA prohibited electronic cigarettes (e-cigarettes) from being marketed as smoking cessation products; for other therapeutic purposes and in ways that conveyed Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approval/endorsement. After August 2016, additional federal prohibitions were added including false/misleading and unauthorised modified risk tobacco product (MRTP) claims. No systematic investigation of e-cigarette health claims has been conducted in the retail environment. We sought to document and characterise claims made in vape shops., Methods: Between November 2015 and February 2016, before final deeming rule implementation, two trained data collectors conducted unannounced observational assessments of 46 vape shops in North Carolina. Data collectors used wearable imaging technology to document health claims about e-cigarettes. Photos were coded for five claim types: (1) cessation device; (2) drug effect/device; (3) FDA-approved/endorsed; (4) false/misleading and (5) MRTP. Photos were double coded; differences between coders were adjudicated and reviewed by an expert panel., Results: At least one health claim was displayed in 41.3% (n=19) of retailers, ranging from 0 to 27 claims per retailer. All claim types were found. Cessation device claims were the most prevalent (62.2%, n=84), followed by MRTP (27.4%, n=37), drug effect/device (8.1%, n=11), false/misleading (1.5%, n=2), and FDA approved/endorsed (0.7%, n=1). Retail chains made the majority of claims compared with independent shops (88.9% vs 11.1%)., Conclusions: Many vape shops displayed e-cigarette health claims, which are all now FDA prohibited. These claims could mislead consumers and influence behaviour. Findings highlight the need for retailer education, continued surveillance, enforcement specific to advertising and research on consumer perceptions of claims., Competing Interests: Competing interests: None declared., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2019. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.)

Background and Aims: The expense associated with using non-combustible nicotine products as an alternative to smoking may deter smoking reduction or cessation. This study aimed to estimate (i) how much adults in England spend each week on smoking and alternative nicotine products and (ii) the potential cost saving that could be achieved by switching from smoking to using an alternative nicotine delivery product., Design and Setting: Data came from September to November 2018 waves of the Smoking Toolkit Study, a series of national household surveys of the adult population in England., Participants: A total of 859 adults (aged ≥ 16 years) who reported current smoking or current use of an alternative nicotine product., Measurements: Participants reported their average weekly expenditure on smoking and alternative nicotine products [nicotine replacement therapy (NRT) or e-cigarettes]., Findings: Current smokers who did not use any alternative nicotine delivery products (n = 602) reported spending on average £23.09 [95% confidence interval (CI) = £21.64-24.54] on smoking each week. Ex-smokers who used alternative nicotine products (n = 91) reported spending on average £8.59 (95% CI = £6.80-10.39) on these products each week; £8.03 (95% CI = £6.03-10.03) on e-cigarettes and £10.05 (95% CI = £5.62-14.47) on NRT. People who both smoked and used alternative nicotine products (dual users, n = 166) spent on average £24.54 (95% CI = £21.78-27.29) on smoking and £7.49 (95% CI = £6.00-8.99) on alternative nicotine products each week. Expenditure on smoking was higher among heavier, more addicted smokers and lower among those with routine/manual occupations, non-daily smokers and roll-your-own tobacco users. Expenditure on e-cigarettes was higher among men, users from central and southern versus northern England and smokers who had tried to quit in the past year, and lower among current smokers. Expenditure on NRT was lower among roll-your-own tobacco users., Conclusions: In England, expenditure among e-cigarette and nicotine replacement therapy users is approximately one-third of the expenditure of smokers. The average smoker may save an estimated £15.06 per week by switching completely to e-cigarettes or £13.04 per week by switching to nicotine replacement therapy, although this is likely to differ according to individual usage patterns., (© 2019 Society for the Study of Addiction.)

Background and Aims: Government regulations of nicotine vaping products (NVP) have evolved rapidly during the past decade. The impact of NVP regulatory environment and vaping on cigarette demand is unknown. The current study aims to investigate whether or not respondents' reported cigarette demand, as measured by a hypothetical cigarette purchase task, varies with (1) smoking status, (2) vaping status or (3) NVP regulatory environment (country used as proxy)., Design: Cross-sectional survey data from wave 1 of the International Tobacco Control (ITC) Four Country Smoking and Vaping (4CV) Survey (2016)., Setting: Australia, Canada, England and the United States., Participants: A total of 10 316 adult smokers., Measurements: A hypothetical purchase task asked smokers to estimate how many cigarettes they would purchase for consumption in a single day across multiple cigarette prices. Responses were used to derive measures of cigarette demand. Overall sensitivity of cigarette consumption to price increases was quantified to index cigarette demand elasticity, whereas estimated consumption when cigarettes are free was used to index cigarette demand intensity., Findings: A majority of the non-daily smokers had previously smoked daily (72.3%); daily vapers were more likely to be former daily smokers (89.9%) compared to non-daily vapers (70.1%) and non-vapers (69.2%) (P < 0.001). The smoking status × vaping status interaction was significant for cigarette demand intensity (F = 4.93; P = 0.007) and elasticity (F = 7.30; P = 0.001): among non-daily smokers, vapers reported greater intensity but lower elasticity (i.e. greater demand) relative to non-vapers (Ps < 0.05). Among daily smokers, daily vapers reported greater intensity relative to non-vapers (P = 0.005), but vaping status did not impact elasticity (Ps > 0.38). Intensity was higher in Australia compared with all other countries (Ps < 0.001), but elasticity did not vary by country (F = 2.15; P = 0.09)., Conclusions: In a hypothetical purchase task, non-daily smokers showed lower price elasticity if they used e-cigarettes than if they did not, while there was no clear difference in elasticity between e-cigarette users and non-users among daily smokers or according to regulatory environment of their country with regard to e-cigarettes., (© 2018 Society for the Study of Addiction.)

Aims: To determine if there are associations between changes in the explicit (i.e. price) and implicit (i.e. use restrictions in public places) costs of cigarettes and nicotine vaping products (NVPs) and their use patterns in the United States., Methods: Data came from wave 1 (2016) US data of the ITC Four Country Smoking and Vaping Survey (ITC US 4CV1) and Nielsen Scanner Track database. A multiple logistic regression model was applied to estimate the likelihoods of NVP use (vaping at least monthly), cigarette/NVP concurrent use (vaping and smoking at least monthly) and switch from cigarettes to NVPs (had quit smoking < 24 months and currently vape) among ever smokers, conditioning upon cigarette/NVP prices, use restrictions and socio-demographics., Results: Living in places where vaping is allowed in smoke-free areas was significantly associated with an increase in the likelihood of vaping [marginal effect (ME) = 0.17; P < 0.05] and the concurrent use of cigarettes and NVPs (ME = 0.11; P < 0.05). Higher NVP prices were associated with decreased likelihood of NVP use, concurrent use, and complete switch (P > 0.05). Higher cigarette prices were associated with greater likelihood of cigarette and NVP concurrent use (P > 0.05). Working in places where vaping is banned is associated with lower likelihood of vaping and NVP and cigarette concurrent use (P > 0.05)., Conclusions: Higher prices for nicotine vaping products (NVPs) and vaping restrictions in public places are associated with less NVP use and less concurrent use of vaping and smoking. Public policies that increase prices for vaping devices and supplies (i.e. regulations, taxes) and restrict where vaping is allowed are likely to suppress vaping., (© 2019 Society for the Study of Addiction.)

Introduction: The availability of electronic cigarettes (e-cigarettes) has profoundly changed the tobacco product landscape. In the United States, almost 6 million adults use both combustible and e-cigarettes (ie, dual users). The goal of this study was to understand how smokers and dual users differ in terms of demographics, cigarette dependence, and exposure to carcinogens., Methods: An observational cohort (smokers, n = 166, ≥5 cigarettes/day for 6 months and no e-cigarette use in 3 months; dual users, n = 256, smoked daily for 3 months and used e-cigarettes at least once/week for the past 3 months) completed baseline assessments of demographics, tobacco use, and dependence. They also provided breath samples for carbon monoxide (CO) assay and urine samples for cotinine, 3-hydroxycotinine, and 4-(methylnitrosamino)-1-(3-pyridyl)-1-butanol (NNAL) assays., Results: Compared to smokers, dual users (mean e-cigarette use = 5.5 days/week [SD = 1.9]) were significantly younger and more likely to be white, have more education, report a history of psychiatric co-morbidity, and smoke fewer cigarettes per day. There were no differences in CO, cotinine, or 3-hydroxycotinine levels; however, dual users had significantly lower levels of NNAL than did smokers. Most smokers and dual users had no plans to quit smoking within the next year; 91% of dual users planned to continue using e-cigarettes for at least the next year., Conclusions: In this community sample, dual users are supplementing their smoking with e-cigarette use. Dual users, versus smokers, smoked fewer cigarettes per day and delayed their first cigarette of the day, but did not differ in quitting intentions., Implications: This comparison of a community sample of established dual users and exclusive smokers addresses key questions of dependence and health risks of dual use in real-world settings. Dual users were more likely to be white, younger, have more than a high school education and have a psychiatric history. Dual users also smoked significantly fewer cigarettes and had lower levels of NNAL (a carcinogen), but they did not differ from exclusive smokers in CO or cotinine levels, suggesting that they supplemented their nicotine intake via e-cigarettes., (© The Author(s) 2018. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the Society for Research on Nicotine and Tobacco. All rights reserved. For permissions, please e-mail: journals.permissions@oup.com.)

Background: While national surveys showed declines in e-cigarette use in the USA between 2015 and 2016, recent reports indicate that JUUL, a sleekly designed e-cigarette that looks like a USB drive, is increasingly being used by youth and young adults. However, the extent of JUUL's growth and its marketing strategy have not been systematically examined., Methods: A variety of data sources were used to examine JUUL retail sales in the USA and its marketing and promotion. Retail store scanner data were used to capture the retail sales of JUUL and other major e-cigarette brands for the period 2011-2017. A list of JUUL-related keywords was used to identify JUUL-related tweets on Twitter; to identify JUUL-related posts, hashtags and accounts on Instagram and to identify JUUL-related videos on YouTube., Results: In the short 3-year period 2015-2017, JUUL has transformed from a little-known brand with minimum sales into the largest retail e-cigarette brand in the USA, lifting sales of the entire e-cigarette category. Its US$150 million retail sales in the last quarter of 2017 accounted for about 40% of e-cigarette retail market share. While marketing expenditures for JUUL were moderate, the sales growth of JUUL was accompanied by a variety of innovative, engaging and wide-reaching campaigns on Twitter, Instagram and YouTube, conducted by JUUL and its affiliated marketers., Conclusions: The discrepancies between e-cigarette sales data and the prevalence of e-cigarette use from surveys highlight the challenges in tracking and understanding the use of new and emerging tobacco products. In a rapidly changing media environment, where successful and influential marketing campaigns can be conducted on social media at little cost, marketing expenditures alone may not fully capture the influence, reach and engagement of tobacco marketing., Competing Interests: Competing interests: None declared., (© Article author(s) (or their employer(s) unless otherwise stated in the text of the article) 2019. All rights reserved. No commercial use is permitted unless otherwise expressly granted.)

Background: Restricting youth access to tobacco is a central feature of US tobacco regulatory policy, but impact of local tobacco retail licensing (TRL) regulation on cigarette smoking rates remains uncertain. Effects of TRL on other tobacco product use and use as adolescents reach the age to legally purchase tobacco products has not been investigated., Methods: Prevalences of ever and past 30-day cigarette, electronic cigarette (e-cigarette), cigar, and hookah use were assessed in a survey of a cohort of 1553 11th- and 12th-grade adolescents (mean age: 17.3 years); rates of initiation were evaluated 1.5 years later. An American Lung Association (2014) youth access grade was assigned to each of 14 political jurisdictions in which participants lived on the basis of the strength of the local TRL ordinance., Results: At baseline, participants living in 4 jurisdictions with "A" grades (ie, with most restrictive ordinances) had lower odds of ever cigarette use (odds ratio [OR] 0.61; 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.41-0.90) and of past 30-day use (OR 0.51; 95% CI 0.29-0.89) than participants in 10 D- to F-grade jurisdictions. At follow-up at legal age of purchase, lower odds of cigarette use initiation (OR 0.67; 95% CI 0.45-0.99) occurred in jurisdictions with stronger TRL policy. Lower odds of e-cigarette initiation at follow-up (OR 0.74; 95% CI 0.55-0.99) and of initiation with past 30-day use (OR 0.45; 95% CI 0.23-0.90) were also associated with better regulation., Conclusions: Strong local TRL ordinance may lower rates of cigarette and e-cigarette use among youth and young adults., Competing Interests: POTENTIAL CONFLICT OF INTEREST: The authors have indicated they have no potential conflicts of interest to disclose., (Copyright © 2019 by the American Academy of Pediatrics.)

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.

Background: Understanding the relations between e-cigarette prices and e-cigarette/cigarette use may shed light on the possible impact of e-cigarette regulations on public health. Objectives: This study aimed to assess potential impacts of e-cigarette price changes on vaping and smoking behaviors by smoking status (current, former, and never smokers) and e-cigarette type (pre-filled only vs. refillable). Methods : A total of 918 US-based adult e-cigarette users completed an online survey, designed to assess behavioral intention of e-cigarette/cigarette use in hypothetical situations with varying prices of e-cigarettes, in 2017. Results : With reduction in e-cigarette prices, more than 50% of current smokers reported they would reduce or quit smoking, but with greater increases in price, the rates of not only those who would quit (12.5-19.4%), but also those who would increase smoking rose (15.1-25.1%). Current smokers (vs. former/never) were more likely to increase e-cigarette use at reduced e-cigarette prices. Among current smokers, pre-filled users were less likely to quit smoking with reduced prices. At higher prices, pre-filled users were more likely to quit e-cigarettes (former smokers), but also more likely to start smoking (never smokers). Among former smokers, recent quitters were more likely to restart smoking with any e-cigarette price changes, and less likely to reduce or quit e-cigarettes with increased prices. Conclusions : Both smoking and e-cigarette use seem to be sensitive to e-cigarette price changes. Increases in e-cigarette price may have both positive and negative effects on smoking behavior, and e-cigarette price changes may disproportionately affect pre-filled users and recent quitters.

Objective: Retailers that primarily or exclusively sell electronic cigarettes (e-cigarettes) or vaping products represent a new category of tobacco retailer. We sought to identify (a) how vape shops can be identified and (b) sales and marketing practices of vape shops., Data Sources: A medical librarian iteratively developed a search strategy and in February 2017 searched seven academic databases (ABI/INFORM Complete, ECONLit, Embase, Entrepreneurship, PsycINFO, PubMed/MEDLINE and Scopus). We hand searched Tobacco Regulatory Science and Tobacco Prevention & Cessation ., Study Selection: We used dual, independent screening. Records were eligible if published in 2010 or later, were peer-reviewed journal articles and focused on vape shops., Data Extraction: We used dual, independent data abstraction and assessed risk of bias. Of the 3605 records identified, 22 were included., Data Synthesis: We conducted a narrative systematic review. Researchers relied heavily on Yelp to identify vape shops. Vape shop owners use innovative marketing strategies that sometimes diverge from those of traditional tobacco retailers. Vape shop staff believe strongly that their products are effective harm-reduction products. Vape shops were more common in areas with more White residents., Conclusions: Vape shops represent a new type of retailer for tobacco products. Vape shops have potential to promote e-cigarettes for smoking cessation but also sometimes provide inaccurate information and mislabelled products. Given their spatial patterning, vape shops may perpetuate inequities in tobacco use. The growing literature on vape shops is complicated by researchers using different definitions of vape shops (eg, exclusively selling e-cigarettes vs also selling traditional tobacco products)., Competing Interests: Competing interests: KMR serves as an expert consultant in litigation against cigarette manufacturers. JGLL and KMR have a royalty interest in store mapping and audit systems owned by the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, but these systems were not used in this study., (© Article author(s) (or their employer(s) unless otherwise stated in the text of the article) 2018. All rights reserved. No commercial use is permitted unless otherwise expressly granted.)

Background: 'Vape shops' are a popular source for buying electronic cigarettes (e-cigarettes) and related products. The products that vape shops sell, their marketing techniques and the extent to which they provide information or encouragement to smokers to quit tobacco use, as well as the patterns of tobacco and e-cigarette use of their customers are not well understood., Methods: We conducted cross-sectional surveys in vape shops in the East Midlands region of the United Kingdom, one with shop staff (n = 41), and one with customers (n = 197)., Results: The majority of customers (84%) currently used e-cigarettes. Among current vapers, 19% were dual users and 78% had quit smoking. Over half of vapers reported using a lower level of nicotine in their current e-liquid than when they started using e-cigarettes. There was a wide variety in products and price ranges between the shops. Many staff reported that customers ask for information about quitting smoking (90%). Less than half reported providing smoking cessation advice, although 76% of staff reported feeling confident about delivering cessation advice to customers who ask for it. Just under half of customers and shop staff said they thought it was appropriate to deliver formal in-store smoking cessation support., Conclusions: The majority of vape shop customers are vapers who have quit smoking. Shop staff play a central role in providing customers with product information, and many provide smoking cessation advice. Further research is needed to investigate the potential for smoking cessation interventions in vape shops, including the extent to which these would appeal to non-vapers.

Celebrities endorsing e-cigarette brands on social media may exert a strong influence on e-cigarette uptake. Using a between-subject experiment, this study examines the effects of endorser type (celebrities, non-celebrities and products only) in e-cigarette brand Instagram advertisements on e-cigarette attitudes and smoking intentions. Results showed that celebrity endorsers significantly increased positive attitudes towards e-cigarettes and smoking intentions, compared to non-celebrities or products only. Celebrity endorsers also rated significantly higher on trustworthiness, expertise, goodwill and attractiveness, compared to non-celebrities. Additionally, identification, social comparison, health consciousness and social networking site use moderated between endorser type and key dependent measures. Implications for e-cigarette marketing regulation are discussed.

Background: Vape shops have been spreading rapidly in the USA since 2008, catering to the fast-growing market for electronic cigarettes. Little is known about the geographic density and proximity of vape shops near colleges., Methods: Names and addresses of vape shops were collected from 3 online directories: Yelp.com, Yellowpages.com and Guidetovaping.com. We identified the prevalence of US-based vape shops and their density and proximity to colleges using a geographic information system. General linear model and negative binomial regression were performed to examine the factors associated with proximity and density of vape shops near colleges., Results: We identified 9945 vape shops in the USA as of December 2015, a nearly threefold increase from 2013. Among the 2755 colleges included in this study, 66.5% had at least 1 vape shop within a 3-mile radius. The median proximity of the nearest vape shop to each college/university was 1.8 miles. Proximity increased by student population, private as compared to public institutions, and location (city vs rural). Within a 1-mile radius, colleges with smoke-free campus policies had a lower density of vape shops (RR=0.6, p=0.002) than those without smoke-free campus policies. Private institutions had a higher density of vape shops (RR=7.8, p<0.0001) than did public institutions. Colleges with campus housing had a lower density of vape shops (RR=0.4, p<0.0001) than those without campus housing, and colleges located in cities had a much higher density of vape shops than those located in rural areas (RR=6.6, p<0.0001). Smoke-free and e-cigarette-free campus policies had significant interactions with college type (private vs public) and campus housing in reducing vape shop density., Conclusions: Vape shops are more likely to be located near private institutions and colleges in cities as opposed to rural areas. Smoke-free and e-cigarette-free campus policies have had significant effects in reducing the density of vape shops but have not reduced the proximity of vape shops to colleges. Regulations on the sale and advertisement of e-cigarettes to youth and young adults are critically needed., (Published by the BMJ Publishing Group Limited. For permission to use (where not already granted under a licence) please go to http://www.bmj.com/company/products-services/rights-and-licensing/.)

Background: Some scholars suggest that price differences between combustible cigarettes and e-cigarettes could be effective in moving current combustible smokers to e-cigarettes, which could reduce tobacco-related death and disease. Currently, in most jurisdictions, e-cigarettes are not subject to the same excise taxes as combustible cigarettes, potentially providing the category with a price advantage over combustible cigarettes. This paper tests whether e-cigarettes tax advantage has translated into a price advantage., Methods: In a sample of 45 countries, the price of combustible cigarettes, disposable e-cigarettes and rechargeable cigarettes were compared., Results: Comparable units of combustible cigarettes cost less than disposable e-cigarettes in almost every country in the sample. While the e-liquids consumed in rechargeable e-cigarettes might cost less per comparable unit than combustible cigarettes, the initial cost to purchase a rechargeable e-cigarette presents a significant cost barrier to switching from smoking to vaping., Discussion: Existing prices of e-cigarettes are generally much higher than of combustible cigarettes. If policymakers wish to tax e-cigarettes less than combustibles, forceful policy action-almost certainly through excise taxation-must raise the price of combustible cigarettes beyond the price of using e-cigarettes., (Published by the BMJ Publishing Group Limited. For permission to use (where not already granted under a licence) please go to http://www.bmj.com/company/products-services/rights-and-licensing/.)

Context: Rapid developments in e-cigarettes, or electronic nicotine delivery systems (ENDS), and the evolution of the overall tobacco product marketplace warrant frequent evaluation of the published literature. The purpose of this article is to report updated findings from a comprehensive review of the published scientific literature on ENDS., Evidence Acquisition: The authors conducted a systematic review of published empirical research literature on ENDS through May 31, 2016, using a detailed search strategy in the PubMed electronic database, expert review, and additional targeted searches. Included studies presented empirical findings and were coded to at least one of nine topics: (1) Product Features; (2) Health Effects; (3) Consumer Perceptions; (4) Patterns of Use; (5) Potential to Induce Dependence; (6) Smoking Cessation; (7) Marketing and Communication; (8) Sales; and (9) Policies; reviews and commentaries were excluded. Data from included studies were extracted by multiple coders (October 2015 to August 2016) into a standardized form and synthesized qualitatively by topic., Evidence Synthesis: There were 687 articles included in this systematic review. The majority of studies assessed patterns of ENDS use and consumer perceptions of ENDS, followed by studies examining health effects of vaping and product features., Conclusions: Studies indicate that ENDS are increasing in use, particularly among current smokers, pose substantially less harm to smokers than cigarettes, are being used to reduce/quit smoking, and are widely available. More longitudinal studies and controlled trials are needed to evaluate the impact of ENDS on population-level tobacco use and determine the health effects of longer-term vaping., (Copyright © 2016 American Journal of Preventive Medicine. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Stores that sell electronic nicotine delivery systems (ENDS) as their primary product are a new phenomenon and often termed "vape shops". While vape shops are now regulated by state and federal agencies, not all states maintain lists of vape shops in operation. Standard ways of identifying tobacco retailers through off-premise alcohol permits and business listing services may not identify vape shops. We used four online business listing services (i.e., Google Maps, ReferenceUSA, YellowPages.com, Yelp) to identify vape shops in two counties in North Carolina (NC). In one county, we also assessed four vaping web sites. We drove primary and secondary roads to physically validate the identified stores and attempt to identify stores not listed online. To assess the accuracy of the online searches, we calculated sensitivity and positive predictive values (PPVs). This research was conducted in spring and summer 2016 and identified 28 vape shops online. We confirmed 16 vape shops (seven in Pitt County, NC, USA, and nine in Durham County, NC, USA). Online searches ranged in sensitivity, 62.5%-81.3%, and PPVs ranged from 73.3% to 92.3%. Because of the range of sensitivity found among the business listing services, state policymakers should consider uniform licensing requirements for vape and tobacco retailers to more easily track retailers and ensure compliance with regulations., Competing Interests: Research reported in this publication was supported by the National Cancer Institute of the U.S. National Institutes of Health under Award Number U01CA154281. The content is solely the responsibility of the authors and does not necessarily represent the official views of the National Institutes of Health. The funding sponsors had no role in the design of the study; in the collection, analyses, or interpretation of data; in the writing of the manuscript, and in the decision to publish the results. Joseph G. L. Lee receives licensing royalties from a store audit/compliance and mapping system, Counter Tools (http://countertools.org), owned by the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. The tools and audit mapping system were not used in this study. Heather D’Angelo serves as an expert consultant in litigation against cigarette manufacturers.

At least three factors may be driving the evolution of the vape shop industry, a rapidly growing market sector that specializes in the sales of electronic cigarettes: (1) the tobacco industry, (2) the public health sector and its diverse stakeholders, and (3) consumer demand. These influences and the responses of the vape shop sector have resulted in a rapidly changing landscape. This commentary briefly discusses these three factors and the implications for the health professions, as they address the vape shop industry and its consequences for public health., Competing Interests: Declaration of Conflicting Interests The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article., (© The Author(s) 2015.)

Introduction: Public perceptions of electronic nicotine delivery systems (ENDS) remain poorly understood because surveys are too costly to regularly implement and, when implemented, there are long delays between data collection and dissemination. Search query surveillance has bridged some of these gaps. Herein, ENDS' popularity in the U.S. is reassessed using Google searches., Methods: ENDS searches originating in the U.S. from January 2009 through January 2015 were disaggregated by terms focused on e-cigarette (e.g., e-cig) versus vaping (e.g., vapers); their geolocation (e.g., state); the aggregate tobacco control measures corresponding to their geolocation (e.g., clean indoor air laws); and by terms that indicated the searcher's potential interest (e.g., buy e-cigs likely indicates shopping)-all analyzed in 2015., Results: ENDS searches are rapidly increasing in the U.S., with 8,498,000 searches during 2014 alone. Increasingly, searches are shifting from e-cigarette- to vaping-focused terms, especially in coastal states and states where anti-smoking norms are stronger. For example, nationally, e-cigarette searches declined 9% (95% CI=1%, 16%) during 2014 compared with 2013, whereas vaping searches increased 136% (95% CI=97%, 186%), even surpassing e-cigarette searches. Additionally, the percentage of ENDS searches related to shopping (e.g., vape shop) nearly doubled in 2014, whereas searches related to health concerns (e.g., vaping risks) or cessation (e.g., quit smoking with e-cigs) were rare and declined in 2014., Conclusions: ENDS popularity is rapidly growing and evolving. These findings could inform survey questionnaire development for follow-up investigation and immediately guide policy debates about how the public perceives the health risks or cessation benefits of ENDS., (Copyright © 2016 American Journal of Preventive Medicine. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Due to their similarity to tobacco cigarettes, electronic cigarettes (e-cigarettes) could play an important role in tobacco harm reduction. However, the public health community remains divided concerning the appropriateness of endorsing a device whose safety and efficacy for smoking cessation remain unclear. We identified the major ethical considerations surrounding the use of e-cigarettes for tobacco harm reduction, including product safety, efficacy for smoking cessation and reduction, use among non-smokers, use among youth, marketing and advertisement, use in public places, renormalization of a smoking culture, and market ownership. Overall, the safety profile of e-cigarettes is unlikely to warrant serious public health concerns, particularly given the known adverse health effects associated with tobacco cigarettes. As a result, it is unlikely that the population-level harms resulting from e-cigarette uptake among non-smokers would overshadow the public health gains obtained from tobacco harm reduction among current smokers. While the existence of a gateway effect for youth remains uncertain, e-cigarette use in this population should be discouraged. Similarly, marketing and advertisement should remain aligned with the degree of known product risk and should be targeted to current smokers. Overall, the available evidence supports the cautionary implementation of harm reduction interventions aimed at promoting e-cigarettes as attractive and competitive alternatives to cigarette smoking, while taking measures to protect vulnerable groups and individuals.

Introduction: Rates of electronic cigarette (e-cigarette) use have increased quickly among US adults (3.3% in 2010 to 8.5% in 2013) and youth (4.5% in 2013 to 13.4% in 2014). As state and local governments consider regulatory policies, understanding what smokers believe about e-cigarettes and how they value e-cigarettes is important., Methods: Using data from a convenience sample of Florida adult smokers (N=765), we investigated the value smokers place on specific attributes of e-cigarettes (availability of flavours, effectiveness of e-cigarettes as a cessation aid, healthier alternative to regular cigarettes, ability to use e-cigarettes in public places) by asking smokers how much they would be willing to pay for e-cigarettes with and without each of these attributes., Results: For cigarette-only and dual users, losing the ability to use an e-cigarette as a quit aid and losing the harm reduction of an e-cigarette significantly reduced the price respondents were willing to pay for an e-cigarette. For cigarette-only users, not being able to use an e-cigarette indoors and losing flavours also significantly reduced the price respondents were willing to pay for an e-cigarette., Conclusion: Our results suggest that smokers value multiple attributes of e-cigarettes. Our valuation measures also appear to align with smokers' beliefs about e-cigarettes., (Published by the BMJ Publishing Group Limited. For permission to use (where not already granted under a licence) please go to http://www.bmj.com/company/products-services/rights-and-licensing/)

Background: Three categories of e-cigarette brands have emerged within the US market: e-cigarette brands developed by cigarette manufacturers, brands acquired by cigarette manufacturers and brands with no cigarette manufacturer affiliation. In the absence of federal regulatory oversight of e-cigarettes, we assessed differences in e-cigarette products and sales practices across these categories., Methods: Brand websites for top-selling e-cigarette brands from each of these categories were examined in October of 2015 to compare website access restrictions, online sales practices and products sold, including e-cigarette model type (eg, 'cigalike' vs advanced systems) and options available (eg, flavoured, nicotine free)., Results: Website access to brands developed by cigarette manufacturers was restricted to users aged 21 years or older, and one website required user registration. In addition, these brands were exclusively reusable/rechargeable 'cigalikes.' Limited flavour options were available for these products, and nicotine-free options were not sold. In contrast, brands acquired by cigarette manufacturers and brands with no cigarette manufacturer affiliation generally required website visitors to be 18, offered a nicotine-free option, and most offered disposable products and an array of flavoured products (eg, fruit/candy flavours)., Conclusions: This exploratory study finds differences in e-cigarette products and sales practices across these three e-cigarette brand categories, with brands developed by cigarette manufacturers adopting a particularly distinctive product and sales strategy. Anticipated regulation of e-cigarettes in the USA may be influencing these product and sales decisions., (Published by the BMJ Publishing Group Limited. For permission to use (where not already granted under a licence) please go to http://www.bmj.com/company/products-services/rights-and-licensing/)