Use of 'Elf Bar' among youth and young adults who currently vape in England: cross-sectional associations with demographics, dependence indicators and reasons for use.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Elf Bar is currently the leading e-cigarette (vape) brand in Great Britain. This study examined youth and young adults' use of Elf Bar, socio-demographic characteristics and dependence indicators and reasons for use over other brands. DESIGN: Cross-sectional survey. SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS: Online 2022 International Tobacco Control Project Youth Tobacco and Vaping Survey (N = 1355 16-29-year-olds in England who had vaped in the past 30 days). MEASUREMENTS: Currently using Elf Bar most often (versus other brands) and associations with: socio-demographics, owning a vaping device, dependence indicators and reasons for brand choice. Logistic regressions were used. FINDINGS: Among 16-29-year-olds who vaped in the past 30 days, 48.4% (n = 732) reported Elf Bar as the brand they used most often. Among 16-17-year-olds, 40.7% used Elf Bar over other brands; this was lower than among 18-19-year-olds (60.1%) and 20-29-year-olds (47.4%) (P ≤ 0.002). Using Elf Bar over other brands was higher among those who were female (55.2 versus 41.5% male), identified as White (53.1 versus 30.9% other/mixed), a student (54.5 versus 44.3% not), did not own a vape (66.7 versus 44.4% who did) and typically vaped 5-8 hours after waking (62.7 versus 36.8% within 5 min) (P ≤ 0.044). Most who vaped but had never smoked used Elf Bar (64.3%), although use did not significantly differ from those who currently (45.4%), formerly (42.3%) or experimentally (48.7%) smoked (all P ≥ 0.060). Popular reasons for choosing Elf Bar over other brands were better flavour/taste (47.5%), less expensive (28.7%), easier to get (26.1%), smoother to inhale (24.0%) and popularity (23.1%). 'Better for quitting smoking' (10.1%) was least frequently selected reason for choosing Elf Bar over other brands. CONCLUSIONS: Elf Bar brand e-cigarettes were used by approximately half of 16-29-year-olds who vaped in England in 2022 and was mainly chosen over other brands for subjective responses (e.g. flavour/taste), rather than for quitting smoking.

Noticing education campaigns or public health messages about vaping among youth in the United States, Canada and England from 2018 to 2022.

Public health campaigns have the potential to correct vaping misperceptions. However, campaigns highlighting vaping harms to youth may increase misperceptions that vaping is equally/more harmful than smoking. Vaping campaigns have been implemented in the United States and Canada since 2018 and in England since 2017 but with differing focus: youth vaping prevention (United States/Canada) and smoking cessation (England). We therefore examined country differences and trends in noticing vaping campaigns among youth and, using 2022 data only, perceived valence of campaigns and associations with harm perceptions. Seven repeated cross-sectional surveys of 16-19 year-olds in United States, Canada and England (2018-2022, n = 92 339). Over half of youth reported noticing vaping campaigns, and noticing increased from August 2018 to February 2020 (United States: 55.2% to 74.6%, AOR = 1.21, 95% CI = 1.18-1.24; Canada: 52.6% to 64.5%, AOR = 1.13, 1.11-1.16; England: 48.0% to 53.0%, AOR = 1.05, 1.02-1.08) before decreasing (Canada) or plateauing (England/United States) to August 2022. Increases were most pronounced in the United States, then Canada. Noticing was most common on websites/social media, school and television/radio. In 2022 only, most campaigns were perceived to negatively portray vaping and this was associated with accurately perceiving vaping as less harmful than smoking among youth who exclusively vaped (AOR = 1.46, 1.09-1.97). Consistent with implementation of youth vaping prevention campaigns in the United States and Canada, most youth reported noticing vaping campaigns/messages, and most were perceived to negatively portray vaping.

Exposure to Tobacco-Specific Nitrosamines Among People Who Vape, Smoke, or do Neither: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

INTRODUCTION: Smoking exposes people to high levels of Tobacco-Specific Nitrosamines (TSNAs), which include potent carcinogens. We systematically reviewed TSNA exposure between people smoking, vaping, and doing neither. AIMS AND METHODS: Databases were searched between August 2017-March 2022, using vaping-related terms. Peer-reviewed articles reporting TSNA metabolites (NNAL, NNN, NAB, and NAT) levels in bio-samples among adults exclusively vaping, exclusively smoking, or doing neither were included. Where possible, meta-analyses were conducted. RESULTS: Of 12 781 identified studies, 22 were included. TSNA levels fell substantially when people who smoke switched to vaping in longitudinal studies and were lower among people who vaped compared to smoked in cross-sectional studies. Levels of TSNAs were similar when comparing people who switched from smoking to vaping, to those who switched to no use of nicotine products, in longitudinal studies. Levels were higher among people who vaped compared to people who neither vaped nor smoked in cross-sectional studies.When comparing people who vaped to smoked: pooled urinary NNAL was 79% lower across three randomized controlled trials and 96% lower across three cross-sectional studies; pooled NAB was 87% lower and NAT 94% lower in two cross-sectional studies. When comparing people who neither vaped nor smoked to people who vaped, pooled urinary NNAL was 80%, NAB 26%, and NAT 27% lower in two cross-sectional studies. Other longitudinal data, and NNN levels could not be pooled. CONCLUSIONS: Exposure to all TSNAs was lower among people who vaped compared to people who smoked. Levels were higher among people who vaped compared to people who neither vaped nor smoked. IMPLICATIONS: As well as TSNAs, there are many other toxicant exposures from smoking and vaping that can increase the risk of disease. However, it is likely that the reduced exposure to TSNAs from vaping relative to smoking reduces the risk to health of those who use vaping products to quit smoking. Future high-quality research, with robust definitions of exclusive vaping and smoking, and accounting for TSNAs half-lives, is needed to fully assess exposure to TSNAs among people who vape.

Impact of E-liquid Packaging on Vaping Product Perceptions Among Youth in England, Canada, and the United States: A Randomized Online Experiment.

INTRODUCTION: Vaping is not risk-free but can help those who smoke to reduce harm to health and stop smoking. However, packaging of vaping products, including e-liquids, appeals to youth and might facilitate vaping among nicotine-naïve people. Standardized packaging of vaping products could moderate the appeal of vaping among youth. This study assessed how youth interest in trying and perceived health harms of using e-liquids are associated with branded or standardized (white or olive) e-liquid packaging with different nicotine levels displayed. AIMS AND METHODS: A between-subject experiment with three packaging and two nicotine level conditions included youth (n = 13801) aged 16 to 19 from England, Canada, and the United States as a part of a cross-sectional online survey in August-September 2021. Participants' interest in trying and perceived harm of e-liquids were analyzed using logistic and multinomial regressions adjusted for age, sex, race or ethnicity, country, vaping, and smoking status. RESULTS: Compared with branded e-liquid packs, more youth reported no interest in trying e-liquids in white (aOR = 1.48, 95% CI = 1.34 to 1.64) or olive (aOR = 1.62, 95% CI: 1.47 to 1.80) standardized packs. Compared with branded e-liquid packs, more youth inaccurately perceived e-liquids in white (aOR = 1.22, 95% CI: 1.11 to 1.34) or olive (aOR = 1.29, 95% CI: 1.18 to 1.41) standardized packs as equally or more harmful than smoking. E-liquid nicotine levels displayed on packs were not associated with youth interest in trying or harm perceptions of using e-liquids. CONCLUSIONS: Among 16- to 19-year-old youth from England, Canada, and the United States, standardized packaging of e-liquids was associated with lower interest in trying and higher health risk perceptions. IMPLICATIONS: Branded packaging of vaping products appeal to youth and might prompt nicotine use among those who had never smoked. This study suggests that restricting branding elements on e-liquid packaging is associated with youth's lower interest in trying e-liquids and higher misperceptions that vaping is equally or more harmful than smoking. Standardized packaging might reduce appeal of vaping among youth, but its potential to discourage vaping for harm reduction should also be considered.

Marketing claims on the websites of leading e-cigarette brands in England.

INTRODUCTION: Exposure to electronic cigarette (EC) marketing is associated with EC use, particularly among youth. In England, the Tobacco and Related Products Regulations and Committee of Advertising Practice (CAP) regulate EC marketing to reduce appeal to youth; however, there are little published data on EC marketing claims used online. This study therefore provides an overview of marketing claims present on the websites of EC brands popular in England. METHODS: From January to February 2022, a content analysis of 10 of England's most popular EC brand websites was conducted, including violation of CAP codes. RESULTS: Of the 10 websites, all presented ECs as an alternative to smoking, 8 as a smoking cessation aid and 6 as less harmful than smoking. Four websites presented ECs as risk-free. All mentioned product quality, modernity, convenience, sensory experiences and vendor promotions. Nine featured claims about flavours, colours, customisability and nicotine salts. Seven featured claims concerning social benefits, personal identity, sustainability, secondhand smoke and nicotine strength. Six featured claims about fire safety. Some claimed ECs are cheaper than tobacco (n=5), cited health professionals (n=4) or featured collaborations with brands/icons (n=4). All were assessed by the research team to violate one or more CAP code(s) by featuring medicinal claims (n=8), contents which may appeal to non-smokers (n=7), associations with youth culture (n=6), depictions of youth using ECs (n=6) or media targeting youth (n=5). CONCLUSION: Among 10 top EC brand websites in England, marketing elements that might appeal to youth were commonly identified and CAP code compliance was low.

Heated tobacco products for smoking cessation and reducing smoking prevalence.

BACKGROUND: Heated tobacco products (HTPs) are designed to heat tobacco to a high enough temperature to release aerosol, without burning it or producing smoke. They differ from e-cigarettes because they heat tobacco leaf/sheet rather than a liquid. Companies who make HTPs claim they produce fewer harmful chemicals than conventional cigarettes. Some people report stopping smoking cigarettes entirely by switching to using HTPs, so clinicians need to know whether they are effective for this purpose and relatively safe. Also, to regulate HTPs appropriately, policymakers should understand their impact on health and on cigarette smoking prevalence. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the effectiveness and safety of HTPs for smoking cessation and the impact of HTPs on smoking prevalence.  SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Tobacco Addiction Group's Specialised Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, and six other databases for relevant records to January 2021, together with reference-checking and contact with study authors and relevant groups. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) in which people who smoked cigarettes were randomised to switch to exclusive HTP use or a control condition. Eligible outcomes were smoking cessation, adverse events, and selected biomarkers.  RCTs conducted in clinic or in an ambulatory setting were deemed eligible when assessing safety, including those randomising participants to exclusively use HTPs, smoke cigarettes, or attempt abstinence from all tobacco. Time-series studies were also eligible for inclusion if they examined the population-level impact of heated tobacco on smoking prevalence or cigarette sales as an indirect measure. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We followed standard Cochrane methods for screening and data extraction. Our primary outcome measures were abstinence from smoking at the longest follow-up point available, adverse events, serious adverse events, and changes in smoking prevalence or cigarette sales. Other outcomes included biomarkers of harm and exposure to toxicants/carcinogens (e.g. NNAL and carboxyhaemoglobin (COHb)). We used a random-effects Mantel-Haenszel model to calculate risk ratios (RR) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for dichotomous outcomes. For continuous outcomes, we calculated mean differences on the log-transformed scale (LMD) with 95% CIs. We pooled data across studies using meta-analysis where possible. MAIN RESULTS: We included 13 completed studies, of which 11 were RCTs assessing safety (2666 participants) and two were time-series studies. We judged eight RCTs to be at unclear risk of bias and three at high risk. All RCTs were funded by tobacco companies. Median length of follow-up was 13 weeks. No studies reported smoking cessation outcomes.  There was insufficient evidence for a difference in risk of adverse events between smokers randomised to switch to heated tobacco or continue smoking cigarettes, limited by imprecision and risk of bias (RR 1.03, 95% CI 0.92 to 1.15; I2 = 0%; 6 studies, 1713 participants). There was insufficient evidence to determine whether risk of serious adverse events differed between groups due to very serious imprecision and risk of bias (RR 0.79, 95% CI 0.33 to 1.94; I2 = 0%; 4 studies, 1472 participants). There was moderate-certainty evidence for lower NNAL and COHb at follow-up in heated tobacco than cigarette smoking groups, limited by risk of bias (NNAL: LMD -0.81, 95% CI -1.07 to -0.55; I2 = 92%; 10 studies, 1959 participants; COHb: LMD -0.74, 95% CI -0.92 to -0.52; I2 = 96%; 9 studies, 1807 participants). Evidence for additional biomarkers of exposure are reported in the main body of the review. There was insufficient evidence for a difference in risk of adverse events in smokers randomised to switch to heated tobacco or attempt abstinence from all tobacco, limited by risk of bias and imprecision (RR 1.12, 95% CI 0.86 to 1.46; I2 = 0%; 2 studies, 237 participants). Five studies reported that no serious adverse events occurred in either group (533 participants). There was moderate-certainty evidence, limited by risk of bias, that urine concentrations of NNAL at follow-up were higher in the heated tobacco use compared with abstinence group (LMD 0.50, 95% CI 0.34 to 0.66; I2 = 0%; 5 studies, 382 participants). In addition, there was very low-certainty evidence, limited by risk of bias, inconsistency, and imprecision, for higher COHb in the heated tobacco use compared with abstinence group for intention-to-treat analyses (LMD 0.69, 95% CI 0.07 to 1.31; 3 studies, 212 participants), but lower COHb in per-protocol analyses (LMD -0.32, 95% CI -1.04 to 0.39; 2 studies, 170 participants). Evidence concerning additional biomarkers is reported in the main body of the review. Data from two time-series studies showed that the rate of decline in cigarette sales accelerated following the introduction of heated tobacco to market in Japan. This evidence was of very low-certainty as there was risk of bias, including possible confounding, and cigarette sales are an indirect measure of smoking prevalence. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: No studies reported on cigarette smoking cessation, so the effectiveness of heated tobacco for this purpose remains uncertain. There was insufficient evidence for differences in risk of adverse or serious adverse events between people randomised to switch to heated tobacco, smoke cigarettes, or attempt tobacco abstinence in the short-term. There was moderate-certainty evidence that heated tobacco users have lower exposure to toxicants/carcinogens than cigarette smokers and very low- to moderate-certainty evidence of higher exposure than those attempting abstinence from  all tobacco. Independently funded research on the effectiveness and safety of HTPs is needed.  The rate of decline in cigarette sales accelerated after the introduction of heated tobacco to market in Japan but, as data were observational, it is possible other factors caused these changes. Moreover, falls in cigarette sales may not translate to declining smoking prevalence, and changes in Japan may not generalise elsewhere. To clarify the impact of rising heated tobacco use on smoking prevalence, there is a need for time-series studies that examine this association.

Smokers who have not tried alternative nicotine products: a 2019 survey of adults in Great Britain.

AIMS: Switching from smoking to using nicotine replacement therapy (NRT), electronic cigarettes (e-cigarettes) or heated tobacco products can reduce tobacco-related health risks. However, not all smokers in Great Britain have tried these products. This study aimed to identify and describe smokers who have never tried alternative nicotine products. METHODS: We analysed cross-sectional survey data of smokers (n = 1777) from a representative adult sample from Great Britain. The online survey was run in March 2019. The proportion of smokers who had never used alternative nicotine products was measured. A multivariate logistic regression assessed the association between never having used alternative nicotine products and sociodemographic and smoking characteristics and motivation to stop smoking. RESULTS: One in four smokers (27.8%, 95% CI 25.8-29.9%) had never tried NRT, e-cigarettes or heated tobacco products. These smokers were more commonly from Black and Minority than White ethnic groups (AOR = 1.55; 95% CI 1.02-2.31), were more likely to smoke up to 10 versus more cigarettes per day (AOR = 1.52; 95% CI 1.14-2.03) and to report low versus moderate or high motivation to stop smoking (AOR = 1.79; 95% CI 1.20-2.74). CONCLUSION: Light smokers, those unmotivated to stop and smokers from Black and Minority ethnic groups are less likely to have ever tried alternative nicotine products. Different approaches are needed to facilitate harm reduction and smoking cessation among these groups of smokers.

Transitions in smoking and nicotine use from 2016 to 2017 among a UK cohort of adult smokers and ex-smokers.

INTRODUCTION AND AIMS: Smokers differ in how they smoke and how they stop smoking. Use of nicotine replacement therapy (NRT) and e-cigarettes further diversifies smokers. We aimed to identify and compare latent groups of past-year smokers and to describe longitudinal transitions between the identified groups. DESIGN AND METHODS: Latent transition analysis of online UK past-year smokers' data (n = 2857) collected in June 2016 and followed-up in October 2017. Latent groups were identified based on participants' smoking, e-cigarette use, NRT use, urges to smoke and last quit attempt. Sociodemographic and smoking characteristics between the groups were compared using Pearson's χ2 test and Cramer's V. RESULTS: Four latent groups of smokers (heavy smokers, light smokers, smokers using NRT, smokers using e-cigarettes) and two recently quit smokers (abstinent ex-smokers, ex-smokers using e-cigarettes) were identified. Nearly half the participants (48.9%) were heavy or light smokers who did not use alternative nicotine products and largely had not tried quitting smoking. Latent groups were relatively stable and transitions to quitting smoking were more probable in groups of smokers using alternative nicotine products. Smokers using NRT transitioned mostly to abstinent ex-smokers, and smokers using e-cigarettes to ex-smokers using e-cigarettes' groups (11.2% and 11.4%, respectively). The abstinent ex-smokers group grew the most at follow-up (+6.3%). DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS: Nearly half of the participants continued smoking without having tried to reduce harm or quit. Of smokers who transitioned, the majority quit smoking and abstained from nicotine altogether. Use of alternative nicotine products alongside smoking was associated with higher probabilities of becoming an ex-smoker.

Heat-not-burn tobacco products: a systematic literature review.

OBJECTIVE: To review peer-reviewed evidence on heat-not-burn tobacco products (HnB), their secondhand emissions and use by humans; to identify differences between independent and industry-funded studies. DATA SOURCES: Medline, Embase, PsycINFO, ProQuest, Scopus and Web of Science databases were searched up to 6 November 2017 for studies on HnB published after December 2009; reference lists were screened and other researchers contacted, yielding 637 records. STUDY SELECTION: Thirty-one publications on HnB secondhand emissions (n=16) or use by humans (n=15) were selected by two reviewers with excellent agreement (k=0.75). DATA EXTRACTION: Data on authors' affiliations, HnB products, secondhand emissions and human exposure were extracted by one reviewer. Two reviewers assessed the quality of experimental HnB studies using the Effective Public Health Practice Project tool. DATA SYNTHESIS: Twenty out of 31 studies were affiliated with tobacco industry. Studies on secondhand emissions varied by methodology, products and comparators. Compared with cigarettes, HnB delivered up to 83% of nicotine and reduced levels of harmful and potentially harmful toxicants by at least 62% and particulate matter by at least 75%. Experimental HnB use studies were limited to one product, reductions of human exposure to toxicants varied between 42% and 96%. HnB use suppressed urges to smoke, but participants rated HnB less satisfying than cigarettes. While limited by methodological heterogeneity, findings were largely similar for independent and industry-funded studies. CONCLUSIONS: Studies on HnB secondhand emissions and human use were heterogeneous and largely affiliated with the manufacturers. HnB exposed users and bystanders to toxicants, although at substantially lower levels than cigarettes.

Cessation support for smokers with mental health problems: a survey of resources and training needs.

AIMS: Around thirty percent of smokers have a mental health problem. Smoking cessation has been associated with mental health benefits, but smoking prevalence remains high in populations with mental health problems. This study aimed to assess mental health related knowledge, practice, and training needs of practitioners supporting smoking cessation. METHODS: UK stop smoking practitioners (n=717) recruited via a database of a national provider of smoking cessation training in June 2016 sufficiently completed an online survey about available resources, knowledge, confidence, and training needs related to smoking cessation and mental health. Responses were described and compared between practitioners with a mental health lead and those without such a lead in their service using chi-square statistics and t-tests. RESULTS: A considerable proportion agreed (37%) or were undecided (28.9%) that smoking helped people with mental health problems feel better and agreed (17.2%) or were undecided (30.2%) that cessation would exacerbate mental health symptoms. Only 11.6% said their service had designated funding for smokers with mental health problems and 26.5% were or had a staff member who was a dedicated lead practitioner for mental health work. Practitioners from services that had a dedicated mental health lead were more confident in supporting smokers with different mental health problems and using different pharmacotherapies (all p<0.001) and were more likely to disagree that cessation was detrimental (p=0.001). A majority of practitioners were interested in training, particularly about smoking cessation effects on psychiatric medication (84.3% of n=632) and how to tailor stop smoking support to clients with mental health problems (82.4%). CONCLUSION: Practitioners who support smoking cessation have limited knowledge about mental health and smoking but are willing to learn and improve. However, they are hindered by a lack of resources.

What factors are associated with current smokers using or stopping e-cigarette use?

BACKGROUND: While some smokers use e-cigarettes and stop smoking, a substantial proportion try e-cigarettes and later discontinue or use them concurrently with smoking (current dual users). The aim was to assess factors associated with ongoing e-cigarette use and discontinuation among smokers. METHODS: Secondary analysis of data of 1489 currently smoking adults, 18 and above, from a GB population-based online survey conducted in March 2016. A multivariable logistic regression assessed motivation to stop smoking among never e-cigarette users, past triers (