The Influence of Dietary Isothiocyanates on the Effectiveness of Mitomycin C and Bacillus Calmette-Guérin in Treating Nonmuscle-Invasive Bladder Cancer.

PURPOSE: Nonmuscle-invasive bladder cancer (NMIBC) has high recurrence rates and is often treated with mitomycin C (MMC) and bacillus Calmette-Guérin (BCG). Their efficacy relies on phase 2 enzyme metabolism and immune response activation, respectively. Dietary isothiocyanates, phytochemicals in cruciferous vegetables, are phase 2 enzyme inducers and immunomodulators, and may impact treatment outcomes. We investigated the modifying effects of cruciferous vegetable and isothiocyanate intake on recurrence risk following MMC or BCG treatment. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Self-reported cruciferous vegetable intake, estimated isothiocyanate intake, and urinary isothiocyanate metabolites were collected from 1158 patients with incident NMIBC in the prospective Be-Well Study. Hazard ratios (HRs) and 95% CIs were calculated from Cox proportional hazards regression models for risk of first recurrences, and random effects Cox shared frailty models for multiple recurrences. RESULTS: Over median follow-up of 23 months, 343 (30%) recurrences occurred. Receipt of MMC and BCG was associated with decreased risks of first recurrence (MMC: HR = 0.58; 95% CI: 0.46-0.73; BCG: HR = 0.66; 95% CI: 0.49-0.88) and multiple recurrences (MMC: HR = 0.55; 95% CI: 0.44-0.68; BCG: HR = 0.72; 95% CI: 0.55-0.95). Patients receiving BCG and having high intake (>2.4 servings/mo), but not low intake, of raw cruciferous vegetables had reduced risk of recurrence (HR: 0.56; 95% CI: 0.36-0.86; P for interaction = .02) and multiple recurrences (HR: 0.51; 95% CI: 0.34-0.77; P for interaction < .001). The inverse association between MMC receipt and recurrence risk was not modified. CONCLUSIONS: For NMIBC patients who receive induction BCG, increasing consumption of raw cruciferous vegetables could be a promising strategy to attenuate recurrence risk.

The Potential Impact of Oral Nicotine Pouches on Public Health: A Scoping Review.

INTRODUCTION: Oral nicotine pouches (ONPs) are a new class of nicotine products. This scoping review summarizes evidence on ONPs and explores their potential public health impact. AIMS AND METHODS: We conducted a structured literature search for empirical studies across three electronic databases through January 10, 2024. Outcomes included ONP product characteristics, use patterns, beliefs and perceptions, toxicity, and marketing and sales. RESULTS: Sixty-two studies were included, 17 were industry-funded. Most studies were from the United States. While large variations across studies were observed in ONP youth prevalence estimates, nationally representative U.S. studies find current use at 1.5% and lifetime use below 2.5% through 2023. Between 35% and 42% of U.S. adolescents and young adults have heard of ONPs, and 9-21% of tobacco-naïve youth were susceptible to trying them. U.S. adult-use estimates varied widely (0.8%-3% current; 3%-16% lifetime use) and were limited to populations with a history of tobacco use. The chemical composition of ONPs suggests fewer harmful/potentially harmful compounds at lower levels than cigarettes and smokeless tobacco (SLT), except formaldehyde. Industry-funded studies find substantially less cytotoxicity compared to cigarettes and suggest that higher nicotine-strength ONPs can deliver nicotine at levels comparable to or higher than SLT or cigarettes, although with slower nicotine release than cigarettes. Evidence on the cytotoxicity of ONPs relative to SLT is mixed. CONCLUSIONS: ONPs appear to be less toxic than cigarettes and deliver comparable nicotine, presenting an alternative for combustible product users, although key data are mainly available from industry-funded studies. Data from independent research is critically needed. Industry marketing of ONPs may encourage initiation in youth and situational and dual use in adults. IMPLICATIONS: The review provides an initial assessment of the potential role of ONPs in harm reduction and aims to determine unintended consequences of their use (youth uptake and dual-use) and identify populations that disproportionately use the product. This information is essential for tobacco regulatory bodies in determining the net public health impact of nicotine pouches.

Comparison of indicators of dependence for vaping and smoking: Trends between 2017 and 2022 among youth in Canada, England and the United States.

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. METHODS: Data are from repeat cross-sectional online surveys conducted between 2017 and 2022 among youth aged 16-19 in Canada, England, and the USA. 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%; USA: 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, USA), shorter time to first use (all countries), and a higher likelihood of frequent strong urges (Canada, USA) 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.

A review of the toxicity of ingredients in e-cigarettes, including those ingredients having the FDA's "Generally Recognized as Safe (GRAS)" regulatory status for use in food.

INTRODUCTION: Some firms and marketers of electronic cigarettes (e-cigarettes; a type of electronic nicotine delivery system (ENDS)) and refill liquids (e-liquids) have made claims about the safety of ingredients used in their products based on the term "GRAS or Generally Recognized As Safe" (GRAS). However, GRAS is a provision within the definition of a food additive under section 201(s) (21 U.S.C. 321(s)) of the U.S. Federal Food Drug and Cosmetic Act (FD&C Act). Food additives and GRAS substances are by the FD&C Act definition intended for use in food, thus safety is based on oral consumption; the term GRAS cannot serve as an indicator of the toxicity of e-cigarette ingredients when aerosolized and inhaled (i.e., vaped). There is no legal or scientific support for labeling e-cigarette product ingredients as "GRAS". This review discusses our concerns with the GRAS provision being applied to e-cigarette products and provides examples of chemical compounds that have been used as food ingredients but have been shown to lead to adverse health effects when inhaled. The review provides scientific insight into the toxicological evaluation of e-liquid ingredients and their aerosols to help determine the potential respiratory risks associated with their use in e-cigarettes. IMPLICATIONS: The rise in prevalence of e-cigarette use and emerging evidence of adverse effects, particularly on lung health, warrant assessing all aspects of e-cigarette toxicity. One development is manufacturers' stated or implied claims of the safety of using e-cigarette products containing ingredients determined to be "Generally Recognized As Safe" (GRAS) for use in food. Such claims, typically placed on e-cigarette product labels and used in marketing, are unfounded, as pointed out by the United States Food and Drug Administration (FDA)1 and the Flavor and Extract Manufacturers Association (FEMA)2. Assessment of inhalation health risks of all ingredients used in e-liquids, including those claimed to be GRAS, is warranted.

Self-reported knowledge of tetrahydrocannabinol and cannabidiol concentration in cannabis products among cancer patients and survivors.

PURPOSE: Cannabis use may introduce risks and/or benefits among people living with cancer, depending on product type, composition, and nature of its use. Patient knowledge of tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) or cannabidiol (CBD) concentration could provide information for providers about cannabis use during and after treatment that may aide in risk and benefit assessments. This study aimed to examine knowledge of THC or CBD concentration among patients living with cancer who consume cannabis, and factors associated with knowledge of cannabinoid concentrations. METHODS: People living with cancer who consumed cannabis since their diagnosis (n = 343) completed an anonymous, mixed-mode survey. Questions assessed usual mode of delivery (MOD), knowledge of THC/CBD concentration, and how source of acquisition, current cannabis use, and source of instruction are associated with knowledge of THC/CBD concentration. Chi-square and separate binary logistic regression analyses were examined and weighted to reflect the Roswell Park patient population. RESULTS: Less than 20% of people living with cancer had knowledge of THC and CBD concentration for the cannabis products they consumed across all MOD (smoking- combustible products, vaping- vaporized products (e-cigarettes), edibles-eating or drinking it, and oral- taking by mouth (pills)). Source of acquisition (smoking-AOR:4.6, p < 0.01, vaping-AOR:5.8, p < 0.00, edibles-AOR:2.6, p < 0.04), current cannabis use (edibles-AOR:5.4, p < 0.01, vaping-AOR: 11.2, p < 0.00, and oral-AOR:9.3, p < 0.00), and source of instruction (vaping only AOR:4.2, p < 0.05) were found to be variables associated with higher knowledge of THC concentration. CONCLUSION: Self-reported knowledge of THC and CBD concentration statistically differed according to MOD, source of acquisition, source of instruction, and current cannabis use.

Not all vaping is the same: differential pulmonary effects of vaping cannabidiol versus nicotine.

RATIONALE: Vaping has become a popular method of inhaling various psychoactive substances. While evaluating respiratory effects of vaping have primarily focused on nicotine-containing products, cannabidiol (CBD)-vaping is increasingly becoming popular. It currently remains unknown whether the health effects of vaping nicotine and cannabinoids are similar. OBJECTIVES: This study compares side by side the pulmonary effects of acute inhalation of vaporised CBD versus nicotine. METHODS: In vivo inhalation study in mice and in vitro cytotoxicity experiments with human cells were performed to assess the pulmonary damage-inducing effects of CBD or nicotine aerosols emitted from vaping devices. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: Pulmonary inflammation in mice was scored by histology, flow cytometry, and quantifying levels of proinflammatory cytokines and chemokines. Lung damage was assessed by histology, measurement of myeloperoxidase activity and neutrophil elastase levels in the bronchoalveolar lavage fluid and lung tissue. Lung epithelial/endothelial integrity was assessed by quantifying BAL protein levels, albumin leak and pulmonary FITC-dextran leak. Oxidative stress was determined by measuring the antioxidant potential in the BAL and lungs. The cytotoxic effects of CBD and nicotine aerosols on human neutrophils and human small airway epithelial cells were evaluated using in vitro air-liquid interface system. Inhalation of CBD aerosol resulted in greater inflammatory changes, more severe lung damage and higher oxidative stress compared with nicotine. CBD aerosol also showed higher toxicity to human cells compared with nicotine. CONCLUSIONS: Vaping of CBD induces a potent inflammatory response and leads to more pathological changes associated with lung injury than vaping of nicotine.

Do alternative tobacco products induce less adverse respiratory risk than cigarettes?

RATIONALE: Due to the relatively short existence of alternative tobacco products, gaps exist in our current understanding of their long-term respiratory health effects. We therefore undertook the first-ever side-by-side comparison of the impact of chronic inhalation of aerosols emitted from electronic cigarettes (EC) and heated tobacco products (HTP), and combustible cigarettes (CC) smoke. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the potential differential effects of alternative tobacco products on lung inflammatory responses and efficacy of vaccination in comparison to CC. METHODS: Mice were exposed to emissions from EC, HTP, CC, or air for 8 weeks. BAL and lung tissue were analyzed for markers of inflammation, lung damage, and oxidative stress. Another group was exposed for 12 weeks and vaccinated and challenged with a bacterial respiratory infection. Antibody titers in BAL and sera and pulmonary bacterial clearance were assessed. MAIN RESULTS: EC- and HTP-aerosols significantly augmented lung immune cell infiltrates equivalent to that achieved following CC-exposure. HTP and CC significantly increased neutrophil numbers compared to EC. All products augmented numbers of B cells, T cells, and pro-inflammatory IL17A+ T cells in the lungs. Decreased lung antioxidant activity and lung epithelial and endothelial damage was induced by all products. EC and HTP differentially augmented inflammatory cytokines/chemokines in the BAL. Generation of immunity following vaccination was impaired by EC and HTP but to a lesser extent than CC, with a CC > HTP > EC hierarchy of suppression of pulmonary bacterial clearance. CONCLUSIONS: HTP and EC-aerosols induced a proinflammatory pulmonary microenvironment, lung damage, and suppressed efficacy of vaccination.

Common Measures to Evaluate Flavored Tobacco Products: Recommendations From the Tobacco Centers for Regulatory Science (TCORS) Flavored Tobacco Products Measurement Subcommittee.

INTRODUCTION: Flavored electronic nicotine delivery systems (ENDS) and tobacco products are associated with the initiation and progression of tobacco use. With recent restrictions around flavored products, it is critical to measure both the product and the flavor being used. The Tobacco Centers of Regulatory Science (TCORS) Flavored Tobacco Products Measurement Subcommittee (FTPMS) was established to develop core measures to assess flavored tobacco and ENDS product usage, facilitate data harmonization, replicability, and comparisons across studies. AIMS AND METHODS: The FTPMS used a mixed-method approach to inform the development of recommended measures (first use, current use, reasons for use) to assess tobacco and ENDS product flavors. This included reviewing existing surveys, identifying priority areas, developing new measures, cognitive testing, and finalization of recommended measures. RESULTS: Recommended measures were selected from national surveys (e.g. PATH study) and survey items used in TCORS studies to evaluate first use, current use, and reasons for use of tobacco and ENDS products. Response options were expanded for questions about specific flavors and adapted to allow for assessments relevant to recent federal policies. Supplemental measures were developed for researchers conducting more in-depth research around flavored products. CONCLUSIONS: Using an expert consensus process supplemented with cognitive testing, the FTPMS developed recommendations for core and supplemental measures for flavored tobacco and ENDS products. Harmonizing data on these factors for flavored tobacco and ENDS products are critical for researchers and may provide actionable evidence to federal, state, and local regulators and policymakers, as well as support evaluations of policies restricting flavors in these products. IMPLICATIONS: The development of core measures to assess first use, current use, and reasons for use of flavored tobacco and ENDS products will facilitate data harmonization, replicability, and comparisons across studies conducted in different samples or across communities with varying levels of regulation for these products. Use of these standardized measures will allow for a greater understanding of the role of flavors and helps to build a more robust evidence base to inform regulatory decisions to reduce tobacco and ENDS use at the population level.

Comparing POD and MOD ENDS Users' Product Characteristics, Use Behaviors, and Nicotine Exposure.

INTRODUCTION: POD electronic nicotine delivery systems (ENDS), often containing high concentrations of nicotine salts, have replaced MODs (ie, open/modifiable devices) as the most popular devices. The purpose of this study was to compare device/liquid characteristics, use behavior, and nicotine exposure between POD and MOD users. METHODS: Data from the initial visit of a prospective observational study of exclusive ENDS users compared MOD (n = 48) and POD (n = 37) users. Participants completed questionnaires on demographic characteristics, patterns of ENDS use, and ENDS features. A urine sample was collected to test for cotinine and an ENDS liquid sample was collected to test for nicotine and salts. Puff topography was captured during an ad libitum bout at the end of the session. RESULTS: MOD and POD users did not differ on demographic characteristics. MOD users reported purchasing more liquid in the past month than POD users (180.4 ±â€…28.0 vs. 50.9 ±â€…9.0 ml, p < .001). Differences in characteristics of devices used by MOD and POD users included flavor type (p = .029), nicotine concentration (liquids used by MOD users contained less nicotine than those used by POD users: 8.9 ±â€…2.0 vs. 41.6 ±â€…3.2 mg/ml, p < .001), and presence of the nicotine salt (fewer MOD liquids had salts present than POD liquids: 11.9% vs. 77.4%, p < .001). User groups did not differ on urinary cotinine levels or puff topography (ps > .05). CONCLUSIONS: Despite different characteristics of MOD and POD ENDS, users of those products are exposed to similar amounts of nicotine, likely due to using more liquid among MOD users. IMPLICATIONS: This study directly compares ENDS product characteristics, user behavior, and nicotine exposure between MOD and POD ENDS users. Although POD products contained higher nicotine concentrations compared to MOD products, users of PODs reported consuming less liquid than MOD users. Ultimately, MOD and POD users were exposed to similar levels of nicotine, suggesting users behaviorally compensate for differences in product characteristics.

Chemicals in cigarette flavor capsules from Guatemala and Mexico.

BACKGROUND: The global market share for cigarettes with flavor capsules has grown exponentially over the last decade, particularly in Latin America. When smoking, consumers crush a liquid capsule in the filter that flavors the smoke. Little is known about the chemical constituents of the liquids in capsules or their potential health risks. METHODS: Based on consumer data and availability in Mexico and Guatemala, 31 flavor capsule brands were purchased (19 and 12, respectively) in 2020. Since some cigarettes included multiple capsules in a stick (up to 2) or pack (up to 4), the final analytic sample included 50 capsules. We conducted qualitative and quantitative analysis using gas chromatography with mass spectrometry (GC-MS, Agilent Technologies, Inc.). RESULTS: The qualitative analysis detected 296 compounds (range=9 to 67 per capsule), and all capsules contained menthol. Among the compounds detected in more than half the sample were limonene, menthone, benzaldehyde, eucalyptol and triacetin. Traces of nicotine were found in 22% of the capsules. In the quantitative analysis, menthol concentrations were 33 times greater than the next most common compound (limonene). Benzyl alcohol and vanillin were also found in high concentrations. Comparing same brand varieties across countries showed substantial variability in the concentration of menthol and other compounds. CONCLUSION: Menthol is an omnipresent constituent in capsule cigarettes, perhaps because of its anesthetizing and reinforcing addictive properties. Other compounds found are toxic, potentially carcinogenic, and may enhance addictiveness. Variance in the presence and concentrations of such compounds highlights the importance of product standards to regulate capsule content. IMPLICATIONS: This study evaluated the chemical content of capsule cigarettes from two Latin American countries that have two of the highest market shares for capsule cigarettes worldwide. Compared to other studies, our assessment included brand varieties from two countries to compare the differences in chemical content by country. Our results yield that menthol is found in all capsules, and that other chemicals found may prolong nicotine exposure and therefore reinforce the addictive properties of cigarettes.

Predictors of E-cigarette and Cigarette Use Trajectory Classes from Early Adolescence to Emerging Adulthood Across Four Years (2013-2017) of the PATH Study.

INTRODUCTION: This study examines predictors of trajectories of cigarette and e-cigarette use among a cohort of US adolescents transitioning into young adulthood. Comparing trajectories of each tobacco product is important to determine if different intervention targets are needed to prevent progression to daily use. METHODS: Latent trajectory class analyses identified cigarette and e-cigarette use (never, ever excluding past 12-month, past 12-month (excluding past 30-day (P30D)), P30D 1-5 days, P30D 6+ days) trajectory classes, separately, among US youth (12-17; N = 10,086) using the first 4 waves (2013-2017) of data from the nationally representative PATH Study. Weighted descriptive analyses described the class characteristics. Weighted multinomial logistic regression analyses examined demographic, psychosocial, and behavioral predictors of class membership. RESULTS: Younger adolescents 12-15 years had lower tobacco use compared to 16-17 year olds and less stable classes. In the 16-17 year group, there were five unique trajectories of cigarette smoking, including a Persistent High Frequency class. Four e-cigarette use trajectories were identified; but not a persistent use class. Shared predictors of class membership for cigarettes and e-cigarettes included mental health problems, other tobacco use, marijuana use, and poorer academic achievement. Male sex and household tobacco use were unique e-cigarette trajectory class predictors. CONCLUSIONS: There was no evidence that initiation with e-cigarettes as the first product tried was associated with cigarette progression (nor cigarettes as first product and e-cigarette progression). Interventions should focus on well-established risk factors such as mental health and other substance use to prevent progression of use for both tobacco products. IMPLICATIONS: Using nationally representative data and definitions of use that take into account frequency and recency of use, longitudinal 4-year trajectories of e-cigarette and cigarette use among US adolescents transitioning into young adulthood were identified. Results among 16-17-year olds revealed a class of persistent high frequency cigarette smoking that was not identified for e-cigarette use. Cigarette use progression was not associated with e-cigarettes as the first product tried. Risk factors for progression of use of both products included mental health and other substance use, which are important prevention targets for both tobacco products.

Trends in e-cigarette brands, devices and the nicotine profile of products used by youth in England, Canada and the USA: 2017-2019.

BACKGROUND: The e-cigarette market has rapidly evolved, with a shift towards higher nicotine concentration and salt-based products, such as JUUL; however, the implications for youth vaping remain unclear. METHODS: Repeat cross-sectional online surveys were conducted in 2017, 2018 and 2019, with national samples of youth aged 16-19 years recruited from commercial panels in Canada (n=12 018), England (n=11 362) and the USA (n=12 110). Regression models examined differences between countries and over time in the types of e-cigarette products used (design and nicotine content), reasons for using brands and differences in patterns of use, sociodemographics and dependence symptoms by brand/nicotine content. RESULTS: In 2019, the use of pod- or cartridge-style e-cigarettes was greater in Canada and the USA than England, with Smok and JUUL the leading brands in all countries. In 2019, youth vapers in England were less likely to report using e-cigarettes with ≥2% nicotine (12.8%) compared with Canada (40.5%; adjusted OR (AOR)=4.96; 95% CI 3.51 to 7.01) and the USA (37.0%; AOR=3.99, 95% CI 2.79 to 5.71) and less likely to report using nicotine salt-based products (12.3%) compared with Canada (27.1%; AOR=2.77, 95% CI 1.93 to 3.99) and the USA (21.9%; AOR=2.00, 95% CI 1.36 to 2.95). In 2019, self-reported use of products with higher nicotine concentration was associated with significantly greater frequency of vaping, urges to vape and perceived vaping addiction (p<0.05 for all). CONCLUSIONS: The use of high-nicotine salt-based products is associated with greater symptoms of dependence, including JUUL and other higher-nicotine brands. Greater use of high-nicotine salt-based products may account for recent increases in the frequency of vaping among youth in Canada and the USA.

Heavy metals in ENDS: a comparison of open versus closed systems purchased from the USA, England, Canada and Australia.

INTRODUCTION: Electronic nicotine delivery systems (ENDS) are known to contain heavy metals such as lead (Pb), nickel (Ni) and chromium (Cr). The presence of heavy metals in ENDS may be due to contamination of e-liquids or leaching from elements of the ENDS device. This study investigates differences in ENDS metal concentrations between product type, year of purchase, country of purchase and e-liquid flavour. METHODS: Various open-system (refill e-liquids; n=116) and closed-system (prefilled with e-liquid; n=120) products were purchased in 2017 and 2018 from the USA, England, Canada and Australia. Electrothermal atomic absorption spectroscopy was used to analyse each product for Pb, Ni and Cr. Multiple linear regression and Kruskal-Wallis non-parametric statistical tests were conducted using GraphPad. RESULTS: Linear regression showed system type, year of purchase (not supported by Kruskal-Wallis), country of purchase and flavour type each had significant impacts on heavy metal concentrations. Open-system e-liquid samples showed no quantifiable levels of heavy metals. Closed-system samples contained concerningly high concentrations of Pb, Ni and Cr. Closed-system samples from the USA commonly displayed higher average heavy metal concentrations than those from England. Some fruit and mint-flavoured closed-system products showed higher heavy metal concentrations than tobacco-flavoured products. CONCLUSION: The presence of heavy metals only in closed-system products suggests that metals may be leaching from ENDS device parts. Highly variable heavy metal concentrations between ENDS products demonstrate that various product characteristics may affect the degree of leaching and that there is a need for further regulation of these products.

Characterisation of vaping liquids used in vaping devices across four countries: results from an analysis of selected vaping liquids reported by users in the 2016 ITC Four Country Smoking and Vaping Survey.

OBJECTIVES: This study presents an analysis of vaping products (VPs) purchased in the USA, Canada, England and Australia and assesses whether differences in regulations were associated with differences in the chemical composition of the VPs. METHODS: April-September 2017, a total of 234 VP refill liquids and prefilled cartridges were purchased in convenience samples of retail locations in each country. Products were chosen from brands and styles most commonly reported by current VP users in the 2016 ITC Four Country Smoking and Vaping Survey. All products were tested for nicotine, tobacco-specific nitrosamines (TSNAs), minor tobacco alkaloids, organic acids and flavouring chemicals. RESULTS: Consistent with the laws in Canada and Australia at the time of product purchase, nicotine was not detected in any of the VPs (n=10 in Canada; n=15 in Australia). US liquids (n=54) had a mean nicotine concentration of 16.2 mg/mL, (range=0.0-58.6) and English liquids (n=166) had a mean concentration of 11.9 mg/mL ((range=0.0-31.2) F(3244)=12.32, p<0.001). About 5% of English samples exceeded the UK's 20 mg/mL nicotine limit. Substantial country differences were observed in levels ofTSNAs, with the USA being higher than elsewhere. Of all products tested, 18.8% contained at least one organic acid. Liquids purchased in England contained far more identifiable flavouring chemicals than those in the other countries. CONCLUSIONS: VP composition, particularly with respect to nicotine and flavouring, varies by country, likely reflecting both marketplace preferences and country-specific regulations. There are differences between nicotine levels claimed on the package and actual levels, particularly in England.

Still 'Cool': tobacco industry responds to state-wide menthol ban with synthetic coolants.

INTRODUCTION: In December 2022, California (CA) enforced a voter-approved regulation restricting the retail sale of flavoured tobacco products, including menthol cigarettes. Shortly after, new products emerged on the market containing similar blue and green package colours yet with 'non-menthol' descriptors. Using chemical analyses, we measured the content of menthol and 15 other cooling chemicals in Californian cigarettes with 'non-menthol' descriptors and compared concentrations to similar 'menthol'-labelled counterparts available in New York State (NY). METHODS: A convenience sample of 10 brands and types of cigarettes in CA were purchased based on package colours suggesting a cooling effect and/or 'non-menthol' descriptors. The exact brand and type of cigarettes (with menthol descriptors) were purchased in NY. Cigarettes from CA were compared with equivalent cigarettes from NY on package design and colours, cigarette physical characteristics and the presence of cooling additives. RESULTS: Menthol was not detected in any CA cigarette, except for Maverick-green box type, while its presence was confirmed in most NY counterpart products. A synthetic cooling chemical WS-3 was not detected in any NY cigarettes but was detected in four CA brands and types with implied cooling effect, ranging from 1.24±0.04 to 1.97±0.05 mg/cigarette. CONCLUSION: While manufacturers have removed menthol descriptors from CA packaging and the menthol ingredient from cigarettes, synthetic cooling chemicals detected in several CA brands suggest that cooling sensory effects may still be sustained. Policymakers must consider both the chemical ingredients themselves and sensory effects in future regulatory approaches.

Effects of 'Ice' flavoured e-cigarettes with synthetic cooling agent WS-23 or menthol on user-reported appeal and sensory attributes.

BACKGROUND: This clinical experiment tested the effects of exposure to e-cigarettes with WS-23 or menthol cooling additives on user appeal and sensory attributes, and, secondarily, whether WS-23 effects generalised across base characterising flavour, nicotine concentration, or nicotine/tobacco product use status. METHODS: In this within-participant double-blind experiment, adult tobacco/nicotine users administered standardised puffs of 18 different e-cigarette solutions in randomised sequences using a pod-style device. Each of three base characterising e-cigarette flavour solutions ('bold tobacco', 'mango,' 'wintergreen') in both 2% and 4% concentrations of nicotine benzoate salt were manipulated by adding either: (1) Menthol (0.5%), (2) WS-23 (0.75%) or (3) No cooling agent. After each administration, participants rated 3 appeal and 5 sensory attributes (0-100 scales). RESULTS: Participants (n=84; M(SD)=38.6 (13.6) years old) were either exclusive e-cigarette (25.0%), cigarette (36.9%) or dual (38.1%) users. WS-23 versus no coolant products produced higher liking, willingness to use again, smoothness, and coolness and lower disliking, bitterness, and harshness ratings (|B|difference range: 4.8 to 20.1; ps<0.005). Menthol (vs no coolant) increased willingness to use again and reduced harshness and coolness (ps<0.05). Flavours with WS-23 (vs menthol) were rated as smoother, cooler and less harsh (ps<0.05). Coolant effects did not differ by base flavour, nicotine concentration, or tobacco use status. CONCLUSIONS: Adding synthetic coolant WS-23 to e-cigarettes appears to make the vaping user experience more appealing, regardless of characterising base flavour. Regulatory agencies should be aware that the manufacturing process of adding synthetic coolants may increase the attractiveness of various e-cigarette products.Cite Now.

Effects of flavour and modified risk claims on nicotine pouch perceptions and use intentions among young adults who use inhalable nicotine and tobacco products: a randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Availability of flavours and potential modified risk tobacco product (MRTP) claims may influence young adults' (YAs') perceptions of and intentions to use nicotine pouches ('pouches'). METHODS: YAs aged 21-34 years (N=47, M age=24.5, SD=3.1) with past-month nicotine/tobacco use (10.6% cigarette-only, 51.1% e-cigarette-only, 38.3% dual use) and no intention to quit were randomised to self-administer four Zyn 3 mg nicotine pouches in a 4 (flavour; within-subjects: smooth, mint, menthol, citrus) × 2 (MRTP claim on packaging; between subjects: present or absent) mixed-factorial design. After self-administering each pouch, participants reported appeal, use intentions and perceived harm compared with cigarettes and e-cigarettes. Three mixed-factorial analysis of variances (ANOVAs) examined main and interactive effects of flavour and MRTP claim on appeal, use intentions and comparative harm perceptions. RESULTS: Mint (M=55.9, SD=26.4), menthol (M=49.7, SD=26.8) and citrus (M=46.6, SD=24.8) flavours were significantly more appealing than smooth (M=37.6, SD=25.4; p<0.001). MRTP claim did not significantly affect product appeal (p=0.376). Use intentions were greater for mint (M=2.6, SD=1.3) and menthol (M=2.0, SD=1.1) flavours than smooth (M=1.8, SD=1.0; p=0.002). Flavour did not affect comparative harm perceptions (p values>0.418). MRTP claims increased use intention (p=0.032) and perceptions of pouches as less harmful than cigarettes (p=0.011), but did not affect perceived harm relative to e-cigarettes (p=0.142). Flavour × MRTP claim interactions were not significant. CONCLUSIONS: Flavoured (vs smooth) pouches were more appealing to YAs. MRTP claims reduced perceived harm of pouches compared with cigarettes; however, intentions to switch were low. To protect YAs' health, regulatory restrictions could target flavours and MRTP claims.

A Randomized Trial of E-Cigarettes versus Nicotine-Replacement Therapy.

BACKGROUND: E-cigarettes are commonly used in attempts to stop smoking, but evidence is limited regarding their effectiveness as compared with that of nicotine products approved as smoking-cessation treatments. METHODS: We randomly assigned adults attending U.K. National Health Service stop-smoking services to either nicotine-replacement products of their choice, including product combinations, provided for up to 3 months, or an e-cigarette starter pack (a second-generation refillable e-cigarette with one bottle of nicotine e-liquid [18 mg per milliliter]), with a recommendation to purchase further e-liquids of the flavor and strength of their choice. Treatment included weekly behavioral support for at least 4 weeks. The primary outcome was sustained abstinence for 1 year, which was validated biochemically at the final visit. Participants who were lost to follow-up or did not provide biochemical validation were considered to not be abstinent. Secondary outcomes included participant-reported treatment usage and respiratory symptoms. RESULTS: A total of 886 participants underwent randomization. The 1-year abstinence rate was 18.0% in the e-cigarette group, as compared with 9.9% in the nicotine-replacement group (relative risk, 1.83; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.30 to 2.58; P<0.001). Among participants with 1-year abstinence, those in the e-cigarette group were more likely than those in the nicotine-replacement group to use their assigned product at 52 weeks (80% [63 of 79 participants] vs. 9% [4 of 44 participants]). Overall, throat or mouth irritation was reported more frequently in the e-cigarette group (65.3%, vs. 51.2% in the nicotine-replacement group) and nausea more frequently in the nicotine-replacement group (37.9%, vs. 31.3% in the e-cigarette group). The e-cigarette group reported greater declines in the incidence of cough and phlegm production from baseline to 52 weeks than did the nicotine-replacement group (relative risk for cough, 0.8; 95% CI, 0.6 to 0.9; relative risk for phlegm, 0.7; 95% CI, 0.6 to 0.9). There were no significant between-group differences in the incidence of wheezing or shortness of breath. CONCLUSIONS: E-cigarettes were more effective for smoking cessation than nicotine-replacement therapy, when both products were accompanied by behavioral support. (Funded by the National Institute for Health Research and Cancer Research UK; Current Controlled Trials number, ISRCTN60477608 .).

Changes in e-cigarette and cigarette use during pregnancy and their association with small-for-gestational-age birth.

BACKGROUND: Despite increased e-cigarette use, limited research has focused on changes in e-cigarette and combustible cigarette use around pregnancy and the subsequent effects on infant health. OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to characterize changes in e-cigarette and cigarette use from before to during pregnancy and examine their associations with small-for-gestational-age birth. STUDY DESIGN: This was a secondary data analysis of 2016-2018 data of the US Pregnancy Risk Assessment Monitoring System. We analyzed women aged ≥18 years who had a recent live birth (unweighted: n=105,438; weighted: n=5,446,900). Women were grouped on the basis of their self-reported e-cigarette and/or cigarette use 3 months before pregnancy (exclusive e-cigarette users, exclusive cigarette smokers, dual users, and nonusers) and change in e-cigarette and cigarette use during pregnancy (continuing use, quitting, switching, and initiating use). Small-for-gestational-age was defined as a birthweight below the 10th percentile for infants of the same sex and gestational age. We described the distributions of women's sociodemographic and pregnancy characteristics in both weighted and unweighted samples. We used multivariable log-binomial regression models to estimate the relative risks for the associations between changes in e-cigarette and cigarette use during pregnancy and risk of small-for-gestational-age, adjusting for significant covariates. RESULTS: The rates of cessation during pregnancy were the highest among exclusive e-cigarette users (weighted percentage, 80.7% [49,378/61,173]), followed by exclusive cigarette users (54.4% [421,094/773,586]) and dual users (46.4% [69,136/149,152]). Among exclusive e-cigarette users, continued users of e-cigarettes during pregnancy had a higher risk of small-for-gestational-age than nonusers (16.5% [1849/11,206]) vs 8.8% [384,338/4,371,664]; confounder-adjusted relative risk, 1.52 [95% confidence interval, 1.45-1.60]), whereas quitters of e-cigarettes had a similar risk of small-for-gestational-age with nonusers (7.7% [3730/48,587] vs 8.8% [384,338/4,371,664]; relative risk, 0.84 [95% confidence interval, 0.82-0.87]). Among exclusive cigarette users, those who completely switched to e-cigarettes during pregnancy also had a similar risk of small-for-gestational-age with nonusers (7.6% [259/3412] vs 8.8% [384,338/4,371,664]; relative risk, 0.83 [95% confidence interval, 0.73-0.93]). Among dual users before pregnancy, the risk of small-for-gestational-age decreased from 23.2% (7240/31,208) (relative risk, 2.53 [95% confidence interval, 2.47-2.58]) if continuing use to 16.9% (6617/39,142) (relative risk, 1.88 [95% confidence interval, 1.83-1.92]) if only quitting e-cigarettes or 15.1% (1254/8289) (relative risk, 1.61 [95% confidence interval, 1.52-1.70]) if only quitting cigarettes and further to 11.2% (7589/67,880) (relative risk, 1.23 [95% confidence interval, 1.20-1.25]) if both quitting e-cigarettes and cigarettes during pregnancy, compared with nonusers. CONCLUSION: Among exclusive e-cigarette users, quitting e-cigarettes during pregnancy normalized the risk of small-for-gestational-age. Among exclusive cigarette users, quitting smoking or completely switching to e-cigarettes normalized small for gestational age risk. Among dual users, smoking cessation has a greater effect than quitting e-cigarettes only, although discontinuing the use of both may lead to the greatest reduction in the risk of small-for-gestational-age.

Characterizing Heated Tobacco Product Use Among Adult Cigarette Smokers and Nicotine Vaping Product Users in the 2018 ITC Four Country Smoking & Vaping Survey.

INTRODUCTION: Heated tobacco products (HTP) have diversified global tobacco markets, and user characteristics remain understudied. This study evaluated sociodemographic characteristics, nicotine-related perceptions, and behaviors of current HTP users within a sample of adult (18+ years) nicotine users across four countries. AIMS AND METHODS: Data were from current smokers or nicotine vaping product (NVP; known as "e-cigarettes") users from Canada, England, the United States, and Australia (n = 11 421) who participated in the 2018 ITC Four Country Smoking and Vaping Survey. Current (at-least-monthly) HTP users were characterized (n = 441), and weighted multivariable logistic regressions examined correlates of HTP use. RESULTS: Compared to nonusers, current HTP users were younger (mean age: 44.4 vs 31.0 years; p < .001) and had higher socioeconomic status (p < .001). A majority of current HTP users used HTPs nondaily (daily: 40.3% vs nondaily: 59.7%). Most HTP users concurrently used both cigarettes and NVPs (90.5%). Among concurrent cigarette-HTP-NVP users, 36.2% used all three products daily. Use of other combusted tobacco products (cigars, cigarillos, pipe, waterpipe/hookah), cannabis, and binge drinking were each associated with current HTP use. HTP use was more common among smokers intending to quit within 6 months or reporting a quit attempt in the past 18 months, and vapers who had experienced negative side effects. CONCLUSION: HTP users in this sample tended to be younger and more affluent. Most reported concurrent use of multiple nicotine products and other substances. Those cigarette smokers who used HTPs appeared more interested in smoking cessation, while some characteristics of concurrent HTP-NVP users were suggestive of dissatisfaction with NVPs. IMPLICATIONS: Few studies have scrutinized characteristics of HTP early adopters in emerging markets. Our results indicate that in 2018, characteristics of established nicotine users who adopted HTP use in four high-income Western countries mirror those of HTP users in East Asian markets (South Korea and Japan) where HTPs are popular. HTP users reported high levels of concurrent use of noncigarette-combusted tobacco products (e.g., cigars, pipe tobacco). These findings point to the need for future longitudinal studies of HTP use given the implications of those use patterns on the harm reduction potential of HTPs. HTP user characteristics may yield important information to consider in regulation of these products.