A prospective cohort study of preconception COVID-19 vaccination and miscarriage.

STUDY QUESTION: To what extent is preconception maternal or paternal coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) vaccination associated with miscarriage incidence? SUMMARY ANSWER: COVID-19 vaccination in either partner at any time before conception is not associated with an increased rate of miscarriage. WHAT IS KNOWN ALREADY: Several observational studies have evaluated the safety of COVID-19 vaccination during pregnancy and found no association with miscarriage, though no study prospectively evaluated the risk of early miscarriage (gestational weeks [GW] <8) in relation to COVID-19 vaccination. Moreover, no study has evaluated the role of preconception vaccination in both male and female partners. STUDY DESIGN, SIZE, DURATION: An Internet-based, prospective preconception cohort study of couples residing in the USA and Canada. We analyzed data from 1815 female participants who conceived during December 2020-November 2022, including 1570 couples with data on male partner vaccination. PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS, SETTING, METHODS: Eligible female participants were aged 21-45 years and were trying to conceive without use of fertility treatment at enrollment. Female participants completed questionnaires at baseline, every 8 weeks until pregnancy, and during early and late pregnancy; they could also invite their male partners to complete a baseline questionnaire. We collected data on COVID-19 vaccination (brand and date of doses), history of SARS-CoV-2 infection (yes/no and date of positive test), potential confounders (demographic, reproductive, and lifestyle characteristics), and pregnancy status on all questionnaires. Vaccination status was categorized as never (0 doses before conception), ever (≥1 dose before conception), having a full primary sequence before conception, and completing the full primary sequence ≤3 months before conception. These categories were not mutually exclusive. Participants were followed up from their first positive pregnancy test until miscarriage or a censoring event (induced abortion, ectopic pregnancy, loss to follow-up, 20 weeks' gestation), whichever occurred first. We estimated incidence rate ratios (IRRs) for miscarriage and corresponding 95% CIs using Cox proportional hazards models with GW as the time scale. We used propensity score fine stratification weights to adjust for confounding. MAIN RESULTS AND THE ROLE OF CHANCE: Among 1815 eligible female participants, 75% had received at least one dose of a COVID-19 vaccine by the time of conception. Almost one-quarter of pregnancies resulted in miscarriage, and 75% of miscarriages occurred <8 weeks' gestation. The propensity score-weighted IRR comparing female participants who received at least one dose any time before conception versus those who had not been vaccinated was 0.85 (95% CI: 0.63, 1.14). COVID-19 vaccination was not associated with increased risk of either early miscarriage (GW: <8) or late miscarriage (GW: 8-19). There was no indication of an increased risk of miscarriage associated with male partner vaccination (IRR = 0.90; 95% CI: 0.56, 1.44). LIMITATIONS, REASONS FOR CAUTION: The present study relied on self-reported vaccination status and infection history. Thus, there may be some non-differential misclassification of exposure status. While misclassification of miscarriage is also possible, the preconception cohort design and high prevalence of home pregnancy testing in this cohort reduced the potential for under-ascertainment of miscarriage. As in all observational studies, residual or unmeasured confounding is possible. WIDER IMPLICATIONS OF THE FINDINGS: This is the first study to evaluate prospectively the relation between preconception COVID-19 vaccination in both partners and miscarriage, with more complete ascertainment of early miscarriages than earlier studies of vaccination. The findings are informative for individuals planning a pregnancy and their healthcare providers. STUDY FUNDING/COMPETING INTEREST(S): This work was supported by the Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development, the National Institute of Health [R01-HD086742 (PI: L.A.W.); R01-HD105863S1 (PI: L.A.W. and M.L.E.)], the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (R03-AI154544; PI: A.K.R.), and the National Science Foundation (NSF-1914792; PI: L.A.W.). The funders had no role in the study design, data collection, analysis and interpretation of data, writing of the report, or the decision to submit the paper for publication. L.A.W. is a fibroid consultant for AbbVie, Inc. She also receives in-kind donations from Swiss Precision Diagnostics (Clearblue home pregnancy tests) and Kindara.com (fertility apps). M.L.E. received consulting fees from Ro, Hannah, Dadi, VSeat, and Underdog, holds stock in Ro, Hannah, Dadi, and Underdog, is a past president of SSMR, and is a board member of SMRU. K.F.H. reports being an investigator on grants to her institution from UCB and Takeda, unrelated to this study. S.H.-D. reports being an investigator on grants to her institution from Takeda, unrelated to this study, and a methods consultant for UCB and Roche for unrelated drugs. The authors report no other relationships or activities that could appear to have influenced the submitted work. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: N/A.

Temporal trends and determinants of COVID-19 vaccine series initiation after recent pregnancy.

During the rapid deployment of COVID-19 vaccines in 2021, safety concerns may have led some pregnant individuals to postpone vaccination until after giving birth. This study aimed to describe temporal patterns and factors associated with COVID-19 vaccine series initiation after recent pregnancy in Ontario, Canada. Using the provincial birth registry linked with the COVID-19 vaccine database, we identified all individuals who gave birth between January 1 and December 31, 2021, and had not yet been vaccinated by the end of pregnancy, and followed them to June 30, 2022 (follow-up ranged from 6 to 18 months). We used cumulative incidence curves to describe COVID-19 vaccine initiation after pregnancy and assessed associations with sociodemographic, pregnancy-related, and health behavioral factors using Cox proportional hazards regression to estimate adjusted hazard ratios (aHR) and 95% confidence intervals (CI). Among 137,198 individuals who gave birth in 2021, 87,376 (63.7%) remained unvaccinated at the end of pregnancy; of these, 65.0% initiated COVID-19 vaccination by June 30, 2022. Lower maternal age (<25 vs. 30-34 y aHR: 0.73, 95%CI: 0.70-0.77), smoking during pregnancy (vs. nonsmoking aHR: 0.68, 95%CI: 0.65-0.72), lower neighborhood income (lowest quintile vs. highest aHR: 0.79, 95%CI: 0.76-0.83), higher material deprivation (highest quintile vs. lowest aHR: 0.74, 95%CI: 0.70-0.79), and exclusive breastfeeding (vs. other feeding aHR: 0.81, 95%CI: 0.79-0.84) were associated with lower likelihood of vaccine initiation. Among unvaccinated individuals who gave birth in 2021, COVID-19 vaccine initiation after pregnancy reached 65% by June 30, 2022, suggesting persistent issues with vaccine hesitancy and/or access to vaccination in this population.

Temporal trends and determinants of COVID-19 vaccine coverage and series initiation during pregnancy in Ontario, Canada, December 2020 to December 2021: A population-based retrospective cohort study.

BACKGROUND: Population-based COVID-19 vaccine coverage estimates among pregnant individuals are limited. We assessed temporal patterns in vaccine coverage (≥1 dose before or during pregnancy) and evaluated factors associated with vaccine series initiation (receiving dose 1 during pregnancy) in Ontario, Canada. METHODS: We linked the provincial birth registry with COVID-19 vaccination records from December 14, 2020 to December 31, 2021 and assessed coverage rates among all pregnant individuals by month, age, and neighborhood sociodemographic characteristics. Among individuals who gave birth since April 2021-when pregnant people were prioritized for vaccination-we assessed associations between sociodemographic, behavioral, and pregnancy-related factors with vaccine series initiation using multivariable regression to estimate adjusted risk ratios (aRR) and risk differences (aRD) with 95% confidence intervals (CI). RESULTS: Among 221,190 pregnant individuals, vaccine coverage increased to 71.2% by December 2021. Gaps in coverage across categories of age and sociodemographic characteristics decreased over time, but did not disappear. Lower vaccine series initiation was associated with lower age (<25 vs. 30-34 years: aRR 0.53, 95%CI 0.51-0.56), smoking (vs. non-smoking: 0.64, 0.61-0.67), no first trimester prenatal care visit (vs. visit: 0.80, 0.77-0.84), and residing in neighborhoods with the lowest income (vs. highest: 0.69, 0.67-0.71). Vaccine series initiation was marginally higher among individuals with pre-existing medical conditions (vs. no conditions: 1.07, 1.04-1.10). CONCLUSIONS: COVID-19 vaccine coverage among pregnant individuals remained lower than in the general population, and there was lower vaccine initiation by multiple characteristics.

Interpregnancy interval and adverse pregnancy outcomes among pregnancies following miscarriages or induced abortions in Norway (2008-2016): A cohort study.

BACKGROUND: The World Health Organization recommends to wait at least 6 months after miscarriage and induced abortion before becoming pregnant again to avoid complications in the next pregnancy, although the evidence-based underlying this recommendation is scarce. We aimed to investigate the risk of adverse pregnancy outcomes-preterm birth (PTB), spontaneous PTB, small for gestational age (SGA) birth, large for gestational age (LGA) birth, preeclampsia, and gestational diabetes mellitus (GDM)-by interpregnancy interval (IPI) for births following a previous miscarriage or induced abortion. METHODS AND FINDINGS: We conducted a cohort study using a total of 49,058 births following a previous miscarriage and 23,707 births following a previous induced abortion in Norway between 2008 and 2016. We modeled the relationship between IPI and 6 adverse pregnancy outcomes separately for births after miscarriages and births after induced abortions. We used log-binomial regression to estimate unadjusted and adjusted relative risk (aRR) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs). In the adjusted model, we included maternal age, gravidity, and year of birth measured at the time of the index (after interval) births. In a sensitivity analysis, we further adjusted for smoking during pregnancy and prepregnancy body mass index. Compared to births with an IPI of 6 to 11 months after miscarriages (10.1%), there were lower risks of SGA births among births with an IPI of <3 months (8.6%) (aRR 0.85, 95% CI: 0.79, 0.92, p < 0.01) and 3 to 5 months (9.0%) (aRR 0.90, 95% CI: 0.83, 0.97, p = 0.01). An IPI of <3 months after a miscarriage (3.3%) was also associated with lower risk of GDM (aRR 0.84, 95% CI: 0.75, 0.96, p = 0.01) as compared to an IPI of 6 to 11 months (4.5%). For births following an induced abortion, an IPI <3 months (11.5%) was associated with a nonsignificant but increased risk of SGA (aRR 1.16, 95% CI: 0.99, 1.36, p = 0.07) as compared to an IPI of 6 to 11 months (10.0%), while the risk of LGA was lower among those with an IPI 3 to 5 months (8.0%) (aRR 0.84, 95% CI: 0.72, 0.98, p = 0.03) compared to an IPI of 6 to 11 months (9.4%). There was no observed association between adverse pregnancy outcomes with an IPI >12 months after either a miscarriage or induced abortion (p > 0.05), with the exception of an increased risk of GDM among women with an IPI of 12 to 17 months (5.8%) (aRR 1.20, 95% CI: 1.02, 1.40, p = 0.02), 18 to 23 months (6.2%) (aRR 1.24, 95% CI: 1.02, 1.50, p = 0.03), and ≥24 months (6.4%) (aRR 1.14, 95% CI: 0.97, 1.34, p = 0.10) compared to an IPI of 6 to 11 months (4.5%) after a miscarriage. Inherent to retrospective registry-based studies, we did not have information on potential confounders such as pregnancy intention and health-seeking bahaviour. Furthermore, we only had information on miscarriages that resulted in contact with the healthcare system. CONCLUSIONS: Our study suggests that conceiving within 3 months after a miscarriage or an induced abortion is not associated with increased risks of adverse pregnancy outcomes. In combination with previous research, these results suggest that women could attempt pregnancy soon after a previous miscarriage or induced abortion without increasing perinatal health risks.

Prenatal influenza vaccination and allergic and autoimmune diseases in childhood: A longitudinal, population-based linked cohort study.

BACKGROUND: Few studies have evaluated the effect of maternal influenza vaccination on the development of allergic and autoimmune diseases in children beyond 6 months of age. We aimed to investigate the association between in utero exposure to seasonal inactivated influenza vaccine (IIV) and subsequent diagnosis of allergic and autoimmune diseases. METHODS AND FINDINGS: This longitudinal, population-based linked cohort study included 124,760 singleton, live-born children from 106,206 mothers in Western Australia (WA) born between April 2012 and July 2016, with up to 5 years of follow-up from birth. In our study cohort, 64,169 (51.4%) were male, 6,566 (5.3%) were Aboriginal and/or Torres Strait Islander children, and the mean age at the end of follow-up was 3.0 (standard deviation, 1.3) years. The exposure was receipt of seasonal IIV during pregnancy. The outcomes were diagnosis of an allergic or autoimmune disease, including asthma and anaphylaxis, identified from hospital and/or emergency department (ED) records. Inverse probability of treatment weights (IPTWs) accounted for baseline probability of vaccination by maternal age, Aboriginal and/or Torres Strait Islander status, socioeconomic status, body mass index, parity, medical conditions, pregnancy complications, prenatal smoking, and prenatal care. The models additionally adjusted for the Aboriginal and/or Torres Strait Islander status of the child. There were 14,396 (11.5%) maternally vaccinated children; 913 (6.3%) maternally vaccinated and 7,655 (6.9%) maternally unvaccinated children had a diagnosis of allergic or autoimmune disease, respectively. Overall, maternal influenza vaccination was not associated with diagnosis of an allergic or autoimmune disease (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR], 1.02; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.95 to 1.09). In trimester-specific analyses, we identified a negative association between third trimester influenza vaccination and the diagnosis of asthma (n = 40; aHR, 0.70; 95% CI, 0.50 to 0.97) and anaphylaxis (n = 36; aHR, 0.67; 95% CI, 0.47 to 0.95).We did not capture outcomes diagnosed in a primary care setting; therefore, our findings are only generalizable to more severe events requiring hospitalization or presentation to the ED. Due to small cell sizes (i.e., <5), estimates could not be determined for all outcomes after stratification. CONCLUSIONS: In this study, we observed no association between in utero exposure to influenza vaccine and diagnosis of allergic or autoimmune diseases. Although we identified a negative association of asthma and anaphylaxis diagnosis when seasonal IIV was administered later in pregnancy, additional studies are needed to confirm this. Overall, our findings support the safety of seasonal inactivated influenza vaccine during pregnancy in relation to allergic and autoimmune diseases in early childhood and support the continuation of current global maternal vaccine programs and policies.

Adverse Birth Outcomes Associated With Prepregnancy and Prenatal Electronic Cigarette Use.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the risk of adverse birth outcomes among adults who use electronic cigarettes (e-cigarettes) before and during pregnancy. METHODS: Data from the 2016-2018 PRAMS (Pregnancy Risk Assessment Monitoring System) were used to assess the association between e-cigarette use during the 3 months before and last 3 months of pregnancy among 79,176 individuals with a recent live birth and the following birth outcomes: preterm birth, small for gestational age, and low birth weight (LBW). Adjusted prevalence ratios were generated using average marginal predictions from multivariable logistic regression models. Models were stratified by prenatal combustible cigarette smoking and frequency of e-cigarette use (daily or less than daily use). RESULTS: In the 3 months before pregnancy, 2.7% (95% CI 2.6-2.9%) of respondents used e-cigarettes; 1.1% (95% CI 1.0-1.2%) used e-cigarettes during the last 3 months of pregnancy. Electronic cigarette use before pregnancy was not associated with adverse birth outcomes. Electronic cigarette use during pregnancy was associated with increased prevalence of LBW compared with nonuse (8.1% vs 6.1%; adjusted prevalence ratio 1.33; 95% CI 1.06-1.66). Among respondents who did not also smoke combustible cigarettes during pregnancy (n=72,256), e-cigarette use was associated with higher prevalence of LBW (10.6%; adjusted prevalence ratio 1.88; 95% CI 1.38-2.57) and preterm birth (12.4%; adjusted prevalence ratio 1.69; 95% CI 1.20-2.39). When further stratified by frequency of e-cigarette use, associations were seen only for daily users. CONCLUSION: E-cigarette use during pregnancy, particularly when used daily by individuals who do not also smoke combustible cigarettes, is associated with adverse birth outcomes.

Smoking Cessation and Preterm Birth in Second Pregnancy Among Women who Smoked in Their First.

INTRODUCTION: The benefit of smoking cessation in reducing the risk of preterm birth is well established. Relatively less well understood is the prevalence of smoking cessation maintenance at the next pregnancy and the associated preterm risk reduction. The aim of this study was to estimate the prevalence of maintenance of smoking cessation at second pregnancy and the associated relative risk of preterm birth. METHODS: This was a longitudinal study with retrospectively obtained records of births to multiparous women who smoked in the pregnancy of their first birth in New South Wales, 1994-2016 (N = 63 195 mothers). Relative risks (RR) of preterm birth of the second child were estimated for smoking cessation with adjustment for final gestational age of the first birth, maternal age at the first birth, change in socioeconomic disadvantage between the first and second pregnancy, interpregnancy interval, and calendar time. RESULTS: Approximately 34% (N = 21 540) of women who smoked during their first pregnancy did not smoke in the second pregnancy. Smoking cessation among women who smoked at first pregnancy was associated with a 26% (95% CI: 21%, 31%) decrease in risk of preterm birth at a second pregnancy. CONCLUSION: Despite smoking during the first pregnancy, smoking cessation was achieved and maintained by more than one-third of women in their second pregnancy with encouraging levels of preterm risk reduction. It is well-established that the period after birth provides an opportunity to reduce smoking-related morbidity for both the mother and neonate. Our results indicate that this period also offers an opportunity to prevent morbidity of future pregnancy. IMPLICATIONS: A considerable amount of research has been undertaken on the effects of smoking during pregnancy on birth outcomes, the influence of postpartum smoking on the health of the mother and newborn child, and postpartum smoking cessation. However, follow-up of women after giving birth does not tend to be long enough to observe smoking and outcomes of subsequent pregnancies. We show that smoking cessation in the subsequent pregnancy is achievable by a large proportion of women despite smoking in their first pregnancy, which translates to clear reductions in risk of preterm birth in the subsequent pregnancy.

Patterns of combustible and electronic cigarette use during pregnancy and associated pregnancy outcomes.

Although pregnant smokers may perceive electronic cigarettes (e-cigarettes) as safe alternatives to smoking combustible cigarettes, few studies have evaluated perinatal e-cigarette use and its associated health effects. We analyzed data from the Pregnancy Risk Assessment Monitoring System (PRAMS, 2016-2018) for 16,022 women who recently gave birth and reported smoking combustible cigarettes prior to pregnancy. Using average marginal predictive values from multivariable logistic regression to produce adjusted prevalence ratios (aPRs), we estimated the prevalence of combustible cigarette smoking during pregnancy and adverse birth outcomes associated with e-cigarette use. In total, 14.8% of smoking women reported using e-cigarettes prior to pregnancy. There was no association between e-cigarette use prior to pregnancy and combustible cigarette smoking during pregnancy (aPR 0.95; 95% CI 0.88, 1.02); however, e-cigarette use during pregnancy was associated with higher prevalence of combustible cigarette smoking during pregnancy (aPR 1.65; 95% CI 1.52, 1.80). In this sample, we did not observe evidence to support reduced risk of preterm birth, small-for-gestational age and low birthweight compared to combustible cigarette smoking during pregnancy. The prevalence of LBW was higher for those who used e-cigarettes, even exclusively, compared to women who quit smoking cigarettes entirely. These results suggest that e-cigarettes should not be considered a safe alternative to combustible cigarette smoking during pregnancy.

Seasonal Trivalent Influenza Vaccination During Pregnancy and the Incidence of Stillbirth: Population-Based Retrospective Cohort Study.

BACKGROUND: Although antenatal influenza vaccination is an important public health intervention for preventing serious infection in pregnant women and newborns, reported vaccine coverage is often <50%. Concern for the safety to the fetus is a commonly cited reason for vaccine hesitancy and refusal. The incidence of stillbirth following pandemic vaccination has been previously studied; however, no population-based study has evaluated the incidence of stillbirth following seasonal trivalent influenza vaccination. METHODS: We used probabilistic linking of perinatal and maternal vaccination records to establish a cohort of 58 008 births occurring between April 2012 and December 2013. Stillbirth was defined as birth ≥20 weeks' gestation with an Apgar score of zero at 1 and 5 minutes following delivery. Cox regression models adjusted for maternal smoking, Indigenous status, and propensity for vaccination were used to calculate adjusted hazard ratios (aHRs) in vaccinated and unvaccinated mothers. RESULTS: A total of 5076 (8.8%) pregnant women received trivalent influenza vaccine and 377 stillbirths occurred. There were 5.0 and 3.0 stillbirths per 100 000 pregnancy-days among unvaccinated and vaccinated women, respectively. After adjustment, stillbirth was 51% less likely among vaccinated vs unvaccinated mothers (aHR, 0.49; 95% confidence interval [CI], .29-.84). The largest relative reduction in stillbirths was observed for births occurring just after influenza season (aHR, 0.33; 95% CI, .12-.88). CONCLUSIONS: Mothers who received seasonal TIV during pregnancy were significantly less likely to experience stillbirth compared with unvaccinated mothers. These results support the safety of seasonal influenza immunization during pregnancy and suggest a protective effect.

Electronic nicotine delivery systems: adult use and awareness of the 'e-cigarette' in the USA.

BACKGROUND: Electronic nicotine delivery systems (ENDS), also referred to as electronic cigarettes or e-cigarettes, were introduced into the US market in 2007. Despite concerns regarding the long-term health impact of this product, there is little known about awareness and use of ENDS among adults in the USA. METHODS: A consumer-based mail-in survey (ConsumerStyles) was completed by 10,587 adults (≥ 18 years) in 2009 and 10,328 adults in 2010. Data from these surveys were used to monitor awareness, ever use and past month use of ENDS from 2009 to 2010 and to assess demographic characteristics and tobacco use of ENDS users. RESULTS: In this US sample, awareness of ENDS doubled from 16.4% in 2009 to 32.2% in 2010 and ever use more than quadrupled from 2009 (0.6%) to 2010 (2.7%). Ever use of ENDS was most common among women and those with lower education, although these were not the groups who had heard of ENDS most often. Current smokers and tobacco users were most likely to try ENDS. However, current smokers who had tried ENDS did not say they planned to quit smoking more often than smokers who had never tried them. CONCLUSIONS: Given the large increase in awareness and ever use of ENDS during this 1-year period and the unknown impact of ENDS use on cigarette smoking behaviours and long-term health, continued monitoring of these products is needed.

Smokeless and flavored tobacco products in the U.S.: 2009 Styles survey results.

BACKGROUND: A number of noncigarette tobacco products, including some novel products, recently have been marketed by the tobacco industry, which raises concerns from tobacco control authorities. PURPOSE: This study aimed to assess current popularity of several noncigarette tobacco products in the U.S. METHODS: In 2009, a total of 10,587 adults completed a consumer mail-in survey (ConsumerStyles). Based on survey results, the weighted percentages of adults who heard and tried snus, dissolvable tobacco products, flavored little cigars, and flavored cigarettes were computed in 2010. A subset of this sample (n=4556) completed the HealthStyles survey, which included items about health perceptions of these products and use in the past 30 days. RESULTS: The percentage of U.S. adults in the sample who were aware of these products ranged from 10.4% (dissolvable tobacco) to 44.6% (flavored little cigars). One third of adults who had heard of flavored little cigars tried them and 10.1% had used them in the past 30 days; among those who had heard of them, 27.4% tried flavored cigarettes and 12.6% tried snus. In general, young adults, men, and smokers were most likely to have heard of each product. At least one third of adults were uncertain if these products were as harmful as cigarettes (range=37.3% [snus] to 50.3% [dissolvable tobacco]). CONCLUSIONS: The awareness of these tobacco products in this sample varied. Groups with a higher prevalence of smoking and tobacco use (e.g., men, people with low levels of education) may be a target audience for marketing and promotions. As availability of products change, continued surveillance is warranted in the U.S.

Smokers who are also using smokeless tobacco products in the US: a national assessment of characteristics, behaviours and beliefs of 'dual users'.

BACKGROUND: Marketing and advertising of smokeless tobacco products towards cigarette smokers has increased recently. Because the use of multiple tobacco products is a growing public health concern, the present work assesses the use of smokeless tobacco among cigarette smokers, a behaviour termed as 'dual use', as well as attitudes and beliefs on their 'dual use' of tobacco. METHODS: Data were used from the 2008 Consumer Styles survey, a nationally representative, mail-in survey of consumers in the USA (n=10,108). RESULTS: 'Dual use' was more common among cigarette smokers who were young, white men living in the Midwest or South. The majority of 'dual users' reported using smokeless tobacco in places where they could not smoke (67.7%) and did not believe smokeless tobacco would help in quitting smoking (75.1%). 'Dual users' reported planning to quit within the next 6 months less often than adults who smoke cigarettes exclusively and close to half (42.3%) never plan to quit smoking. CONCLUSIONS: Tobacco use is attributed to a number of diseases and deaths worldwide, and cessation of tobacco use can reduce these health risks. The prevalent use of smokeless tobacco in places with smoking restrictions and lack of planning to quit by 'dual users' suggest the need to promote cessation among these users.

Perceptions of menthol cigarette use among U.S. adults and adult smokers: findings from the 2009 HealthStyles survey.

INTRODUCTION: Perceptions of menthol cigarette use may have implications for smoking initiation and cessation. This study explores harm and health perceptions of menthol cigarette use among a national sample of U.S. adults and current smokers. METHODS: We examined data from the 2009 HealthStyles survey (n = 4,556), an annual mail survey of adults ≥18 years of age that collects information on attitudes and behaviors, including smoking. Frequencies and weighted percentages were calculated by sex, race/ethnicity, age, education level, household income, and smoking status. Unadjusted odds ratios (OR) were used to compare perceptions of menthol cigarette use between demographic groups. RESULTS: Close to half of adults (45.8%) believed that menthol cigarettes are just as harmful as nonmenthol cigarettes, and 40.9% of adults did not know whether menthol cigarettes are more or less harmful than nonmenthol cigarettes. Few adults (0.6%), including smokers, perceived menthol cigarettes to be less harmful than nonmenthol cigarettes. Blacks (OR = 3.22, 95% CI = 1.80-5.76) were more likely to believe that menthol cigarettes have health benefits when compared with Whites. Almost half of current smokers believed menthol cigarettes are equally addictive as nonmenthol cigarettes and 74.9% believed menthol and nonmenthol cigarettes are equally hard to quit. CONCLUSIONS: Findings suggest directions for targeted public health messages for menthol cigarette use. Future research is needed among a nationally representative sample to capture more subtle differences in perceptions among menthol and nonmenthol smokers.