Sociodemographic and Temporal Differences in Menthol Cigarette Use Among US Adults Who Smoke, 1999-2018.

Introduction: Monitoring menthol cigarette use allows for identification of potential health disparities. We examined sociodemographic and temporal differences in menthol cigarette use among US adults who smoke. Methods: We analyzed data from the 1999-2018 National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey for adults aged 20 years or older who smoke (N = 11,431) using binary logistic regression. Results: Among US adults who smoke, 28.8% used menthol cigarettes. After adjusting for age, sex, race and ethnicity, education, income-to-poverty ratio, and health status, the prevalence of menthol use among adults who smoke increased on average by 3.8% (95% CI, 2.7%-4.9%) annually. Non-Hispanic Black adults had the highest average prevalence of menthol cigarette use, 73.0% (95% CI, 70.9%-75.2%), and Mexican American adults had higher average annual increase in menthol cigarette use, 7.1% (95% CI, 4.0%-10.3%). Adults with fair or poor health status had a 4.3% annual increase in menthol cigarette use (95% CI, 2.5%-6.1%). The adjusted prevalence ratios of menthol cigarette use were 1.61 (95% CI, 1.39-1.83) for adults aged 20-29 years compared with those aged 65 years or older, 1.41 (95% CI, 1.32-1.49) for female adults compared with male adults, and 1.17 (95% CI, 1.07-1.27) for high school graduates or higher compared with those with no high school diploma. Conclusion: Non-Hispanic Black adults who smoke had the highest prevalence of menthol cigarette use among all racial and ethnic groups; the prevalence of menthol cigarette use among adults who smoke increased especially among Mexican American adults, younger adults, and adults who reported fair to poor health status.

Rapid-response surveillance of the first US test market for VLN cigarettes.

INTRODUCTION: VLN King menthol and non-menthol are the first combustible cigarettes to receive US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) authorisation as modified risk tobacco products. Focusing on the first retail test market, this study characterised VLN advertising, product placement, discounts and price. METHODS: All Chicago-area Circle K stores (n=133) were telephoned to assess whether they sold VLN. Single-pack price of non-menthol was obtained in 57 of 100 stores that sold VLN. In fall 2022, trained data collectors visited those 57 stores to assess VLN product placement, advertising, discounts and prices. Paired t-tests compared observed VLN price with telephone price and to price of other cigarette brands. RESULTS: Nearly all stores (91.1%) displayed exterior advertisements for VLN, and 41.1% displayed interior advertising, with 8.9% of stores advertising VLN in the power wall but never in the header row. VLN cigarettes were displayed in the power wall exclusively and among high-nicotine cigarettes. Some VLN marketing claims were not FDA-authorised. VLN advertised a sweepstakes offer and rewards programme. Most stores (85.7%) offered VLN discounts. VLN was priced like a premium brand (mean=$10.90, SD=$1.53), and prices obtained by telephone did not differ from observed prices several months later. CONCLUSIONS: Retail marketing strategies for VLN mimic those for high-nicotine cigarettes. Deviations from FDA-authorised marketing claims were evident. Surveillance in future test markets is recommended to assess compliance with marketing claims and examine relative price and discount offers. Of interest is how premium-priced, low-nicotine cigarettes stand to compete in a market dominated by cheaper high-nicotine cigarettes.

Support for Policies to Prohibit the Sale of Menthol Cigarettes and All Tobacco Products Among Adults, 2021.

This study assessed support for commercial tobacco retail policies among adults. Data came from SpringStyles 2021, a web panel survey of adults in the US aged 18 years or older (N = 6,455). Overall, 62.3% of adults supported a policy prohibiting the sale of menthol cigarettes, and 57.3% supported a policy prohibiting the sale of all tobacco products. A majority of adults supported tobacco retail policies aimed at preventing initiation, promoting quitting, and reducing tobacco-related disparities. These findings can help inform federal, state, and local efforts to prohibit the sale of tobacco products, including menthol cigarettes.

Tailoring dissemination of evidence to preferences of tobacco control partners: results from an academic-community partnership.

BACKGROUND: Tobacco control program leaders and their partners, who often present evidence to policymakers, can increase the use of evidence in program and policy development. However, up-to-date evidence from the scientific community about what works is slow to reach leaders. We describe efforts to understand and utilize tobacco control leaders' preferences for receiving evidence and report on resulting dissemination strategies, translational products, and outcomes. METHODS: This work is part of the Advancing Science and Practice in the Retail Environment (ASPiRE) Center, an interdisciplinary research center focused on understanding and evaluating tobacco retail policy. Participants were members of the ASPiRE Community Advisory Board (CAB), comprised of tobacco control leaders from 30 metropolitan areas representing all regions of the US plus nine representatives from leading national tobacco control organizations (N = 39). During meetings in February 2019 and October 2020, all CAB members were invited to participate in live polls consisting of six survey questions each. Questions addressed preferences for receiving scientific evidence and their anticipated use of ASPiRE translational products. Responses were analyzed descriptively and informed translational product development and communications with ASPiRE contact list members (N = 125). ASPiRE email and website interactions were tracked from March 2019 to May 2021 as a complementary indication of content use. RESULTS: Response rates for 2019 and 2020 CAB meetings were 66% (n = 26) and 59% (n = 23), respectively. CAB members indicated preferences for email communication (33%) and webinars (31%), communications once per month (46%), and short-format documents (28%). In response, the team developed translational short-format products including case studies, fact sheets, and research briefs. On average, 52% (SD = 14%) of recipients opened the newsletter and 17% (SD = 9%) clicked a link within the newsletter. Overall, 95% of responding CAB members found the products useful and all responding CAB members reported using them to communicate evidence to policymakers, staff, and coalition members. CONCLUSIONS: Our successful dissemination approach to making evidence more accessible and useable for tobacco control leaders could be adapted by researchers working with community partners to assess and respond to stakeholders' preferences for receiving evidence in other areas of health policy.

State Preemption: Impacts on Advances in Tobacco Control.

CONTEXT: Policy is an effective tool for reducing the health harms caused by tobacco use. State laws can establish baseline public health protections. Preemptive legislation at the state level, however, can prohibit localities from enacting laws that further protect their citizens from public health threats. APPROACH: Preemptive state tobacco control laws were assessed using the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's State Tobacco Activities Tracking and Evaluation System. Based on the assessments, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention quantified the number of states with certain types of preemptive tobacco control laws in place. In addition, 4 different case examples were presented to highlight the experiences of 4 states with respect to preemption. DISCUSSION: Tracking and reporting on preemptive state tobacco control laws through the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's State Tobacco Activities Tracking and Evaluation System provide an understanding of the number and scope of preemptive laws. Case examples from Hawaii, North Carolina, South Carolina, and Washington provide a detailed account of how preemption affects tobacco control governance at state and local levels within these 4 states.

State and Territorial Laws Prohibiting Sales of Tobacco Products to Persons Aged <21 Years - United States, December 20, 2019.

Raising the minimum legal sales age (MLSA) for tobacco products to 21 years (T21) is a strategy to help prevent and delay the initiation of tobacco product use (1). On December 20, 2019, Congress raised the federal MLSA for tobacco products from 18 to 21 years. Before enactment of the federal T21 law, localities, states, and territories were increasingly adopting their own T21 laws as part of a comprehensive approach to prevent youth initiation of tobacco products, particularly in response to recent increases in use of e-cigarettes among youths (2). Nearly all tobacco product use begins during adolescence, and minors have cited social sources such as older peers and siblings as a common source of access to tobacco products (1,3). State and territorial T21 laws vary widely and can include provisions that might not benefit the public's health, including penalties to youths for purchase, use, or possession of tobacco products; exemptions for military populations; phase-in periods; and preemption of local laws. To understand the landscape of U.S. state and territorial T21 laws before enactment of the federal law, CDC assessed state and territorial laws prohibiting sales of all tobacco products to persons aged <21 years. As of December 20, 2019, 19 states, the District of Columbia (DC), Guam, and Palau had enacted T21 laws, including 13 enacted in 2019. Compared with T21 laws enacted during 2013-2018, more laws enacted in 2019 have purchase, use, or possession penalties; military exemptions; phase-in periods of 1 year or more; and preemption of local laws related to tobacco product sales. T21 laws could help prevent and reduce youth tobacco product use when implemented as part of a comprehensive approach that includes evidence-based, population-based tobacco control strategies such as smoke-free laws and pricing strategies (1,4).

Differences in price of flavoured and non-flavoured tobacco products sold in the USA, 2011-2016.

BACKGROUND: Limited data exist on whether there is differential pricing of flavoured and non-flavoured varieties of the same product type. We assessed price of tobacco products by flavour type. METHODS: Retail scanner data from Nielsen were obtained for October 2011 to January 2016. Universal product codes were used to classify tobacco product (cigarettes, roll-your-own cigarettes (RYO), little cigars and moist snuff) flavours as: menthol, flavoured or non-flavoured. Prices were standardised to a cigarette pack (20 cigarette sticks) or cigarette pack equivalent (CPE). Average prices during 2015 were calculated overall and by flavour designation. Joinpoint regression and average monthly percentage change were used to assess trends. RESULTS: During October 2011 to January 2016, price trends increased for menthol (the only flavour allowed in cigarettes) and non-flavoured cigarettes; decreased for menthol, flavoured and non-flavoured RYO; increased for flavoured little cigars, but decreased for non-flavoured and menthol little cigars; and increased for menthol and non-flavoured moist snuff, but decreased for flavoured moist snuff. In 2015, average national prices were US$5.52 and US$5.47 for menthol and non-flavoured cigarettes; US$1.89, US$2.51 and US$4.77 for menthol, non-flavoured and flavoured little cigars; US$1.49, US$1.64 and US$1.78 per CPE for menthol, non-flavoured and flavoured moist snuff; and US$0.93, US$1.03 and $1.64 per CPE flavoured, menthol and non-flavoured RYO, respectively. CONCLUSION: Trends in the price of tobacco products varied across products and flavour types. Menthol little cigars, moist snuff and RYO were less expensive than non-flavoured varieties. Efforts to make flavoured tobacco products less accessible and less affordable could help reduce tobacco product use.

Tobacco-Free Pharmacies and U.S. Adult Smoking Behavior: Evidence From CVS Health's Removal of Tobacco Sales.

INTRODUCTION: Beginning September 3, 2014, CVS Health stopped selling tobacco products in all of its retail stores nationwide. This study assessed the impact of removing tobacco sales from CVS Health on cigarette smoking behaviors among U.S. adult smokers. METHODS: CVS Health retail location data (2012-2016) were linked with data from the Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System, a phone-based survey of the non-institutionalized civilian population aged ≥18 years. Using a difference-in-differences regression model, quit attempts and daily versus nondaily smoking were compared between smokers living in counties with CVS stores and counties without CVS stores, before and after CVS's removal of tobacco sales. Control variables included individuals' sociodemographic and health-related variables, state tobacco control variables, and urban status of counties. Analyses were conducted in 2018. RESULTS: During the 2-year period following the removal of tobacco sales from CVS Health, smokers living in counties with high CVS density (≥3.5 CVS stores per 100,000 people) had a 2.21% (95% CI=0.08, 4.33) increase in their quit attempt rates compared with smokers living in counties without CVS stores. This effect was greater in urban areas (marginal effect: 3.03%, 95% CI=0.81, 5.25); however, there was no statistically significant impact in rural areas. Additionally, there was no impact on daily versus nondaily smoking in either urban or rural areas. CONCLUSIONS: Removing tobacco sales in retail pharmacies could help support cessation among U.S. adults who are attempting to quit smoking, particularly in urban areas.

Modelling the impact of menthol sales restrictions and retailer density reduction policies: insights from tobacco town Minnesota.

INTRODUCTION: Tobacco control policies focused on the retail environment have the potential to reduce tobacco use and tobacco-related health disparities through increasing direct and indirect costs. Recently, national and subnational governments have begun to restrict the sale of menthol products and reduce tobacco retailer density. METHODS: We developed an agent-based model to project the impact of menthol cigarette sales restrictions and retailer density reduction policies for six types of communities and three priority populations. During each simulated day, agents smoke cigarettes, travel in the community and make purchase decisions-whether, where and which product type to purchase-based on a combination of their own properties and the current retail environment. RESULTS: Of the policies tested, restricting all cigarette sales or menthol cigarette sales to tobacco specialty shops may have the largest effect on the total (direct and indirect) costs of purchasing cigarettes. Coupling one of these policies with one that establishes a minimum distance between tobacco retailers may enhance the impact. Combining these policies could also make the costs of acquiring cigarettes more equal across communities and populations. DISCUSSION: Our simulations revealed the importance of context, for example, lower income communities in urban areas begin with higher retailer density and may need stronger policies to show impact, as well as the need to focus on differential effects for priority populations, for example, combinations of policies may equalise the average distance travelled to purchase. Adapting and combining policies could enhance the sustainability of policy effects and reduce tobacco use.

Exposure to Secondhand Smoke Among Nonsmokers - United States, 1988-2014.

Exposure to secondhand smoke from burning tobacco products can cause sudden infant death syndrome, respiratory infections, ear infections, and asthma attacks in infants and children, and coronary heart disease, stroke, and lung cancer in adult nonsmokers (1). There is no risk-free level of secondhand smoke exposure (2). CDC analyzed questionnaire and laboratory data from the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES) to assess patterns of secondhand smoke exposure among U.S. nonsmokers. The prevalence of secondhand smoke exposure among U.S. nonsmokers declined substantially during 1988-2014, from 87.5% to 25.2%. However, no change in exposure occurred between 2011-2012 and 2013-2014, and an estimated one in four nonsmokers, or approximately 58 million persons, were still exposed to secondhand smoke during 2013-2014. Moreover, marked disparities persisted across population groups. Exposure prevalence was highest among nonsmokers aged 3-11 years (37.9%), non-Hispanic blacks (50.3%), and those who were living in poverty (47.9%), in rental housing (38.6%), or with someone who smoked inside the home (73.0%), or among persons who had less than a high school education (30.7%). Comprehensive smoke-free laws and policies for workplaces and public places and smoke-free rules for homes and vehicles can further reduce secondhand smoke exposure among all nonsmokers.

"Will You Remember Me?": Talking with Adolescents About Death and Dying.

This article describes the preparation, rationale, and benefits of talking with adolescents who have life-threatening or life-limiting illness about advance care planning (ACP) and end-of-life concerns in a developmentally sensitive manner. The first step is to ensure that a health care provider is ready to work with adolescents in ACP discussions by taking a self-inventory, learning communication skills, and understanding individual barriers. The authors then outline how to assess patient and family readiness, including developmental, cultural, personal, and psychosocial considerations. Evidence-based techniques for respectfully and productively engaging adolescents in ACP conversations are discussed.

Tobacco Cessation Interventions and Smoke-Free Policies in Mental Health and Substance Abuse Treatment Facilities - United States, 2016.

Persons with mental or substance use disorders or both are more than twice as likely to smoke cigarettes as persons without such disorders and are more likely to die from smoking-related illness than from their behavioral health conditions (1,2). However, many persons with behavioral health conditions want to and are able to quit smoking, although they might require more intensive treatment (2,3). Smoking cessation reduces smoking-related disease risk and could improve mental health and drug and alcohol recovery outcomes (1,3,4). To assess tobacco-related policies and practices in mental health and substance abuse treatment facilities (i.e., behavioral health treatment facilities) in the United States (including Puerto Rico), CDC and the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (SAMHSA) analyzed data from the 2016 National Mental Health Services Survey (N-MHSS) and the 2016 National Survey of Substance Abuse Treatment Services (N-SSATS). In 2016, among mental health treatment facilities, 48.9% reported screening patients for tobacco use, 37.6% offered tobacco cessation counseling, 25.2% offered nicotine replacement therapy (NRT), 21.5% offered non-nicotine tobacco cessation medications, and 48.6% prohibited smoking in all indoor and outdoor locations (i.e., smoke-free campus). In 2016, among substance abuse treatment facilities, 64.0% reported screening patients for tobacco use, 47.4% offered tobacco cessation counseling, 26.2% offered NRT, 20.3% offered non-nicotine tobacco cessation medications, and 34.5% had smoke-free campuses. Full integration of tobacco cessation interventions into behavioral health treatment, coupled with implementation of tobacco-free campus policies in behavioral health treatment settings, could decrease tobacco use and tobacco-related disease and could improve behavioral health outcomes among persons with mental and substance use disorders (1-4).