Prevalence, lived experiences and user profiles in e-cigarette use: A mixed methods study among French college students.

BACKGROUND: Little is known about e-cigarette use in French students. Our aims were to estimate the prevalence of e-cigarette experimentation and current e-cigarette use; describe the reasons for using e-cigarettes; explore the vaping experience and identify the profiles of e-cigarette users. METHODS: We used a sequential, explanatory mixed methods design in a sample of French college students. Quantitative data was collected online for a cross-sectional analysis among 1698 students. Two separate analysis based on the thematic analysis and the Grounded Theory were also performed in 20 semi-structured interviews, focusing former and current smokers also current vapers. RESULTS: The prevalence of e-cigarette experimentation was 39.3% (95% CI: 35.2-44.0) and 5.1% (95% CI: 3.2-8.0) of students were current e-cigarette users. Experimentation was opportunistic while current usage was rational, requiring to acquire a personal electronic device, getting used to its technicality, appreciating its availability, discretion, and learning the practice. In this context, three distinct groups of e-cigarette users were identified, based on assumed identity, tobacco and e-cigarette use, the functions assigned to e-cigarettes, and intentions with regards to vaping in the future. CONCLUSION: Despite some limitations mainly related to the participants self-selection, this research showed that while many smokers and former smokers have tried e-cigarettes in this student population, few have continued to use them continuously. Moreover, these current e-cigarette users were a heterogeneous group. Longitudinal studies are needed in young adult smokers for a better understanding of how their tobacco and e-cigarette use affect each other and change over time.

Rapid investigation of BA.4/BA.5 cases in France.

Aim: We aimed to describe the characteristics of individuals infected by BA.4 or BA.5 in France in comparison to BA.1, and analyze the factors associated with hospitalization among BA.4 and BA.5 cases. Methods: A standardized questionnaire was used to collect information on confirmed and probable Omicron cases. Hospitalization risk factors among BA.4/BA.5 cases were analyzed using Poisson regression. Variables with a p-value below 0.2 in the univariate analysis and a priori confounders were included in the multivariable regression model. Results: The median age of the 301 cases investigated was 47 years and 97% of cases were symptomatic. The most common clinical signs were asthenia/fatigue (75.7%), cough (58.3%), fever (58.3%), headache (52.1%) and rhinorrhea (50.7%). Twelve cases were hospitalized, and 27.1% reported risk factors. No admissions to intensive care and no deaths were reported. Vaccination status was available for 292 cases, 20.9% were unvaccinated, 1.4% had received one dose, 38.3% two doses and 39.4% three doses. Cases presenting at least one risk factor were almost seventeen times more likely to be hospitalized than those with no risk factors (aRR = 16.72 [95% CI2.59-326.86]). Conclusion: Despite the longer duration of and the differences in symptoms and their possible immune escape, BA.4/BA.5 Omicron sub-lineages globally showed no severe clinical presentation. The presence of at least one risk factor for severe disease significantly increased the risk of hospitalization for those infected with BA.4 or BA.5.