Reasons for Initiation and Regular Use of Heated Tobacco Products among Current and Former Smokers in South Korea: Findings from the 2020 ITC Korea Survey.

South Korea is the world's second-largest heated tobacco product (HTP) market after Japan. HTP sales in South Korea have increased rapidly since May 2017, accounting for 10.6% of the total tobacco market in 2020. Despite this, little is known as to why HTP consumers who were current and former smokers started using HTPs and used them regularly. We analyzed cross-sectional data for 1815 adults (aged 19+) who participated in the 2020 International Tobacco Control (ITC) Korea Survey, of whom 1650 were HTP-cigarette consumers (those who reported smoking cigarettes and using HTPs ≥ weekly) and 165 were exclusive HTP consumers (using HTPs ≥ weekly) who were former or occasional smokers (smoking cigarette < weekly). Respondents were asked to report the reason(s) they used HTPs, with 25 possible reasons for HTP-cigarette consumers and 22 for exclusive HTP consumers. The most common reasons for initiating HTP use among all HTP consumers were out of curiosity (58.9%), family and friends use HTPs (45.5%), and they like the HTP technology (35.9%). The most common reasons for regularly using HTPs among all HTP consumers were that they were less smelly than cigarettes (71.3%), HTPs are less harmful to own health than cigarettes (48.6%), and stress reduction (47.4%). Overall, 35.4% of HTP-cigarette consumers reported using HTPs to quit smoking, 14.7% to reduce smoking but not to quit, and 49.7% for other reasons besides quitting or reducing smoking. In conclusion, several common reasons for initiating and regularly using HTPs were endorsed by all HTP consumers who were smoking, had quit smoking completely, or occasionally smoked. Notably, only about one-third of HTP-cigarette consumers said they were using HTPs to quit smoking, suggesting that most had no intention of using HTPs as an aid to quit smoking in South Korea.

'It's not what you'd term normal smoking': a qualitative exploration of language used to describe heated tobacco product use and associated user identity.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Tobacco and nicotine marketplaces have diversified over the past decade, including with the introduction of heated tobacco products (HTPs), such as the brand IQOS. HTPs typically heat tobacco to generate an aerosol that is inhaled. HTP nomenclature is lacking, and how HTP users define and identify themselves remains understudied. Research in this area is important because language can construct identity, and identity can shape behaviour. This study aimed to explore users' language choice when describing IQOS use, and how language relates to user identity. METHODS: Qualitative interviews in London, United Kingdom, with 30 adult current and former IQOS users. Analyses were guided by Iterative Categorization. RESULTS: Overall, participants expressed confusion and a lack of suitable terminology for how to describe IQOS use. Verbs such as heating and IQOSing were rarely endorsed. Most often, participants reverted to smoking when describing IQOS use and commonly referred to HEETS (tobacco sticks) as cigarettes. Yet the lack of combustion, electronic device, cleaner experience and perceived reductions in health risks led some to frame IQOS as distinct from smoking. Vaping was generally considered inappropriate for describing IQOS use. Participants also manipulated language to suit their circumstances and manage their identity, whereas some IQOS users embraced the terms smoking and smoker, most were eager to distinguish between using IQOS and being labelled a smoker because of the associated negative connotations and to align with perceptions of IQOS use as a better, less harmful behaviour. Instead, when describing their identity, IQOS users more willingly identified as vapers, or ex-smokers, or created new identities (e.g. HEET user). CONCLUSIONS: People who use or have used IQOS (a brand of heated tobacco product) are ambiguous about IQOS terminology. Participants in this study commonly referred to IQOS use as smoking for lack of a more suitable term, but also resisted being labelled as smokers, a choice that may influence smoking cessation. Clear terminology must be used in surveys and by healthcare professionals when asking about cigarette smoking and e-cigarette and heated tobacco product use.

Pediatric primary care immunization policies in New York State.

INTRODUCTION: Practice immunization policies may reflect how their physicians and nurses approach vaccine hesitant parents. This study utilized New York State primary care practices' websites to locate immunization policies for pediatric patients and collect practice-level data. METHODS: For this cross-sectional study, we extracted website data in February/March of 2019. We first conducted a qualitative content analysis using the policy text and developed definitions of practice policy types (i.e., formal, informal, or no policy). Two authors independently reviewed and coded the text, and employed consensus meetings and feedback from the third author to finalize the content analysis. We then examined associations between practice-level characteristics and immunization policy presence through categorical data analysis. RESULTS: Of the 254 practice websites identified, 36 referred to formal immunization policies that may include consequences (e.g., dismissal) for refusing to vaccinate or not fully vaccinating, and 64 referred to informal policy statements supporting immunization. Most (89%) policies included appeals to scientific and/or professional authority. Almost all (92%) contained language tailored to potential reasons for parents' vaccine hesitancy. Our categorical analyses indicate that majority-pediatrician practices are associated with the presence of either formal or informal immunization policies (p < 0.001). Our results also suggest regional variation in the presence of such policies across New York state, although statistical significance is not achieved. CONCLUSIONS: Vaccine hesitancy in the pediatric population has become a global concern due to infectious disease outbreaks, most recently the COVID-19 pandemic. Future studies may examine whether practice-level policies are effective in improving local immunization rates.

Awareness, trial and use of heated tobacco products among adult cigarette smokers and e-cigarette users: findings from the 2018 ITC Four Country Smoking and Vaping Survey.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate heated tobacco product (HTP) awareness, trial and current use among adult cigarette smokers and vaping product users in four countries with varying regulations governing HTP sales. DESIGN: Data came from Wave 2 of the ITC Four Country Smoking and Vaping Survey, collected from February to July 2018. Respondents were current and former smokers and/or users of vaping products (18 years or older) from Canada (CA; n=3778), England (EN; n=4848), the USA (US; n=2846) and Australia (AU; n=1515). At the time of the survey, only Canada and England permitted the sale of contemporary HTPs (eg, IQOS). RESULTS: Overall, 30.2% of respondents reported being aware of HTPs (CA=30.4%; EN=31.0%; US=30.2%; AU=27.4%; p=0.346), 2.4% had ever tried HTPs (CA=3.3%; EN=2.4%; US=2.0%; AU=0.9%; p=0.001) and 0.9% currently used HTPs at least monthly (CA=0.8%; EN=1.2%; US=0.7%; AU=0.2%; p<0.001). Trial and current use were higher among those who concurrently smoked and vaped (at least monthly) versus other nicotine use categories (trial: 10.9% v. 1.2%-2.0%, p<0.001; current use: 8.4% v. 0.1%-1.0%, p<0.001). In multivariable analyses, HTP awareness did not differ across countries, whereas odds of trial and current use were lower where HTPs were unavailable. Odds of HTP trial did not differ by regulatory environment when restricting analysis to HTP-aware concurrent smokers-vapers. CONCLUSION: Approximately one third of respondents were aware of HTPs, even in the USA and Australia, where contemporary HTPs were not yet on the market. Trial and use were uncommon, except among concurrent smokers-vapers. Restrictions on availability may have limited HTP use generally, but less so for concurrent smokers-vapers.

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.

Cross-Sectional Associations of Smoking and E-cigarette Use with Self-Reported Diagnosed Hypertension: Findings from Wave 3 of the Population Assessment of Tobacco and Health Study.

Following their introduction a decade ago, electronic cigarettes (e-cigarettes) have grown in popularity. Given their novelty, knowledge of the health consequences of e-cigarette use remains limited. Epidemiologic studies have not comprehensively explored associations between e-cigarette use and hypertension, a highly prevalent health condition and major contributor to cardiovascular disease burden. In this study, cross-sectional associations of cigarette smoking and e-cigarette use (vaping) with self-reported diagnosed hypertension were evaluated among 19,147 18-55 year old respondents in Wave 3 (2015-2016) of the Population Assessment of Tobacco and Health Study. Multivariable analyses first modeled smoking and vaping as separate 2-category variables, then as a 6-category composite variable accounting for former smoking. After adjusting for potential confounders, current vaping (aOR = 1.31; 95%CI: 1.05-1.63) and current smoking (aOR = 1.27; 95%CI: 1.10-1.47) were both associated with higher odds of hypertension. In analyses modeling smoking and vaping compositely, respondents who were concurrently smoking and vaping had the highest odds of hypertension (aOR = 1.77; 95%CI: 1.32-2.39 [referent: never smokers]). These results differ somewhat from prior epidemiologic studies of vaping and respiratory outcomes, which consistently report smaller point estimates for current vaping than for current smoking. Our findings reinforce the uncertainty surrounding long-term health consequences of vaping, as well as highlight important distinctions between respiratory and cardiovascular outcomes when considering the harm reduction potential of e-cigarettes.

Patterns of Non-Cigarette Tobacco and Nicotine Use Among Current Cigarette Smokers and Recent Quitters: Findings From the 2020 ITC Four Country Smoking and Vaping Survey.

INTRODUCTION: This study explores patterns of use of non-cigarette tobacco and nicotine products among adult cigarette smokers and recent ex-smokers. Along with cigarette smoking status we explore differences as a function of countries with different product regulations, gender, and age. METHODS: Data came from the ITC Four Country Smoking and Vaping Wave 3 Survey conducted between February-June 2020. The analytic sample consisted of 9112 current cigarette smokers (at least monthly) and 1184 recent ex-smokers (quit cigarettes ≤ 2 years) from Australia, Canada, England, and the United States. Respondents were asked about their cigarette smoking and current use of the following non-cigarette products: combustible tobacco (cigars, cigarillos, pipe, waterpipe); noncombustible tobacco (smokeless tobacco, and heated tobacco products [HTPs]); and non-tobacco nicotine products (nicotine vaping products [NVPs], nicotine replacement therapy [NRT], and nicotine pouches). RESULTS: Overall, NVPs (13.7%) and NRT (10.9%) were the most reported nicotine products used, followed by cigars (5.3%), cigarillos (4.2%), and HTPs (3.5%). More than 21% current and recent ex-smokers of cigarettes reported using a non-tobacco nicotine product and noncombustible product, with respondents in England reporting the highest levels of use (>26%). Males, younger respondents, and current non-daily cigarette smokers were more likely to use non-cigarette nicotine products. Notably, 11.6% of ex-cigarette smokers were using other combustible tobacco. CONCLUSION: Considerable percentages of current cigarette smokers and ex-smokers use non-cigarette nicotine products, and there are unexpectedly high levels of use of other combustible products by those recent ex-smokers of cigarettes which is concerning and has important implications for definitions of smoking cessation. IMPLICATIONS: The tobacco product market has evolved to include new products which add to existing non-cigarette tobacco products creating a much more diverse nicotine market. This brief report provides a snapshot of use of various combustible and noncombustible nicotine-containing products among current cigarette smokers and recent ex-smokers in four western countries. Our results indicate that use of non-cigarette tobacco and nicotine products among these cigarette smokers and recent ex-smokers is not low, particularly among males, younger and non-daily cigarette smokers. Use of other combustible tobacco among respondents that recently quit cigarette smoking is concerning and has important implications for definitions of smoking cessation. Increased emphasis on researching non-cigarette nicotine product use is warranted in tobacco control generally and smoking cessation in particular.

How effective are electronic cigarettes for reducing respiratory and cardiovascular risk in smokers? A systematic review.

BACKGROUND: Electronic cigarettes (e-cigarettes) are widely promoted as harm-reduction products for smokers, and smokers commonly perceive them as less harmful than combustible cigarettes. One of the key questions regarding public health consequences of e-cigarettes is the magnitude of harm reduction achievable by smokers who switch from combustible cigarettes to e-cigarettes. We conducted a systematic literature review of epidemiological studies that estimated odds of respiratory and cardiovascular outcomes among former smokers who use e-cigarettes compared to current smokers. METHODS: This systematic review was conducted in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis (PRISMA) statement. We searched the PubMed and Embase databases in September 2020 to identify epidemiological studies that compared odds of cardiovascular and respiratory outcomes among former smokers who transitioned to e-cigarettes relative to odds among current smokers not using e-cigarettes (current exclusive smokers). We included studies that provided direct estimates of relevant odds ratios (ORs). We also included studies where indirect estimates of relevant ORs could be calculated based on published results. Two reviewers independently extracted data and conducted quality appraisals. RESULTS: Six population-based studies with sample sizes ranging from 19,475 to 161,529 respondents met review inclusion criteria, five of which were cross-sectional and one longitudinal. Three studies reported respiratory outcomes and three reported cardiovascular outcomes. ORs of respiratory outcomes (including chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, chronic bronchitis, emphysema, asthma, and wheezing) in former smokers who transitioned to e-cigarettes versus current exclusive smokers were below 1.0, ranging from 0.58 (95%CI 0.36-0.94) to 0.66 (95%CI 0.50-0.87; all p < 0.05). All ORs for cardiovascular outcomes (including stroke, myocardial infarction, and coronary heart disease) did not differ significantly from 1.0. CONCLUSION: Though our review included a small number of studies, it provided consistent results. Former smokers who transitioned to e-cigarettes showed ~ 40% lower odds of respiratory outcomes compared to current exclusive smokers. Switching from smoking to e-cigarette does not appear to significantly lower odds of cardiovascular outcomes. Since the utility of cross-sectional studies for causal inference remains limited, both randomized controlled trials and prospective cohort studies are needed to better evaluate contributions of e-cigarettes as harm reduction tools for smokers.

Perceived relative harm of heated tobacco products (IQOS), e-cigarettes, and cigarettes among adults in Canada: Findings from the ITC Project.

INTRODUCTION: Tobacco companies have introduced heated tobacco products (HTPs), such as IQOS, which may compete with e-cigarettes among smokers interested in switching to potentially reduced-risk products. Non-smokers may also start using IQOS if they believe this product is less harmful than other nicotine products. Smokers' and non-smokers' decisions may be driven by relative harm perceptions of emerging nicotine products. We aimed to examine relative harm perceptions between IQOS, e-cigarettes, and cigarettes, among nicotine product users and non-users. METHODS: We conducted a web survey with Canadian respondents (aged ≥20 years; n=268) in September-October 2018. Perceptions about relative harm between IQOS (available for sale since 2017 and subject to the same comprehensive marketing restrictions as cigarettes in Canada), e-cigarettes, and cigarettes, were assessed among non-users (n=79), exclusive smokers (n=78), exclusive e-cigarette users (n=32), and dual users (n=79). Multiple logistic regression explored the association between relative harm perceptions and nicotine-use status, adjusting for sociodemographic variables. RESULTS: Over half of respondents perceived IQOS as equally or more harmful than e-cigarettes (53.7%), while almost a quarter either reported IQOS as less harmful than e-cigarettes or were uncertain (22.7% and 23.5%, respectively). Two-thirds of respondents (65.7%) perceived e-cigarettes as less harmful than cigarettes, yet only half (48.1%) perceived IQOS as less harmful than cigarettes. Both exclusive and dual e-cigarette users, but not exclusive smokers, had higher odds of perceiving IQOS as more harmful than e-cigarettes and less harmful than cigarettes compared to non-users. CONCLUSIONS: Most nicotine users and non-users perceive differential health risk across IQOS, e-cigarettes, and cigarettes. Although e-cigarettes are generally viewed as less harmful than cigarettes, the perceived harm of IQOS was unclear.

Walking Volume and Speed Are Inversely Associated With Incidence of Treated Hypertension in Postmenopausal Women.

Few studies have evaluated hypertension incidence in relation to walking, which is a common physical activity among adults. We examined the association between walking and hypertension incidence in 83 435 postmenopausal women who at baseline were aged 50 to 79 years, without known hypertension, heart failure, coronary heart disease, or stroke, and reported the ability to walk at least one block without assistance. Walking volume (metabolic equivalent hours per week) and speed (miles per hour) were assessed by questionnaire. Incident physician-diagnosed hypertension treated with medication was ascertained through annual questionnaires. During a mean 11-year follow-up, 38 230 hypertension cases were identified. After adjustment for covariates including nonwalking activities, a significant inverse association with hypertension was observed across categories of baseline walking volume (0 [referent], >0-3.5, 3.6-7.5, and >7.5 metabolic equivalent hours per week), hazard ratio: 1.00 (referent), 0.98, 0.95, 0.89; trend P<0.001. Faster walking speeds (<2, 2-3, 3-4, and >4 miles per hour) also were associated with lower hypertension risk, hazard ratio: 1.00 (referent), 1.07, 0.95, 0.86, 0.79; trend P<0.001. Further adjustment for walking duration (h/wk) had little impact on the association for walking speed (hazard ratio: 1.00 [referent], 1.08, 0.96, 0.86, 0.77; trend P<0.001). Significant inverse associations for walking volume and speed persisted after additional control for baseline blood pressure. Results for time-varying walking were comparable to those for baseline exposures. This study showed that walking at guideline-recommended volumes (>7.5 metabolic equivalent hours per week) and at faster speeds (≥2 miles per hour) is associated with lower hypertension risk in postmenopausal women. Walking should be encouraged as part of hypertension prevention in older adults.

Changes in Nicotine Product Use among Dual Users of Tobacco and Electronic Cigarettes: Findings from the Population Assessment of Tobacco and Health (PATH) Study, 2013-2015.

Background: Dual use of tobacco cigarettes and e-cigarettes ("dual use") is the most common poly-tobacco use pattern among U.S. adults. Whether dual use facilitates or inhibits smoking cessation is of concern, yet limited information exists regarding continuation of dual use over time. Purpose: This study examined variation in nicotine product use over a one-year period, and evaluated predictors of smoking abstinence among dual users. Methods: Data from 1,082 dual users of tobacco cigarettes and e-cigarettes were analyzed using Wave 1 (2013-2014) and Wave 2 (2014-2015) of the Population Assessment of Tobacco and Health Study. Descriptive analyses assessed variation in nicotine product use at Wave 2. Weighted logistic regression was used to identify correlates of smoking abstinence. Results: The majority of Wave 1 dual users (88.5%) continued using combustible tobacco at Wave 2: 59.2% were exclusive cigarette smokers, 25.5% remained dual users, and 3.8% reported some other combustible tobacco use pattern. The odds of being smoke-free at Wave 2 were higher among dual users who reported everyday (versus someday) e-cigarette use (aOR: 1.85; 95% CI: 1.18-2.89). Everyday use of tobacco cigarettes was inversely associated with smoking abstinence (aOR 0.33; 95% CI: 0.21-0.51). Conclusions: Over a one year period, most dual users still smoked tobacco cigarettes. Frequency of cigarette and e-cigarette use at Wave 1 were each associated with odds of smoking abstinence. Findings suggest that daily e-cigarette use may increase dual users' chances of becoming smoke free.