E-Cigarette Use Among US Adults in the 2021 Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System Survey.

Importance: After the initial disruption from the COVID-19 pandemic, it is unclear how patterns of e-cigarette use in the US have changed. Objective: To examine recent patterns in current and daily e-cigarette use among US adults in 2021. Design, Setting, and Participants: This cross-sectional study used data from the 2021 Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System (BRFSS) database. The BRFSS is the largest national telephone-based survey of randomly sampled adults in the US. Adults aged 18 years or older, residing in 49 US states (all except Florida), the District of Columbia, and 3 US territories (Guam, Puerto Rico, and the US Virgin Islands), were included in the data set. Data analysis was performed in January 2023. Main Outcomes and Measures: The main outcome was age-adjusted prevalence of current and daily e-cigarette use overall and by participant characteristics, state, and territory. Descriptive statistical analysis was conducted, applying weights to account for population representation. Results: This study included 414 755 BRFSS participants with information on e-cigarette use. More than half of participants were women (51.3%). In terms of race and ethnicity, 0.9% of participants were American Indian or Alaska Native, 5.8% were Asian, 11.5% were Black, 17.3% were Hispanic, 0.2% were Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander, 62.2% were White, 1.4% were of multiple races or ethnicities, and 0.6% were of other race or ethnicity. Individuals aged 18 to 24 years comprised 12.4% of the study population. The age-standardized prevalence of current e-cigarette use was 6.9% (95% CI, 6.7%-7.1%), with almost half of participants using e-cigarettes daily (3.2% [95% CI, 3.1%-3.4%]). Among individuals aged 18 to 24 years, there was a consistently higher prevalence of e-cigarette use, with more than 18.6% reporting current use and more than 9.0% reporting daily use. Overall, among individuals reporting current e-cigarette use, 42.2% (95% CI, 40.7%-43.7%) indicated former combustible cigarette use, 37.1% (95% CI, 35.6%-38.6%) indicated current combustible cigarette use, and 20.7% (95% CI, 19.7%-21.8%) indicated never using combustible cigarettes. Although relatively older adults (aged ≥25 years) who reported current e-cigarette use were more likely to report former or current combustible cigarette use, younger adults (aged 18-24 years) were more likely to report never using combustible cigarettes. Notably, the proportion of individuals who reported current e-cigarette use and never using combustible cigarettes was higher in the group aged 18 to 20 years (71.5% [95% CI, 66.8%-75.7%]) compared with those aged 21 to 24 years (53.0% [95% CI, 49.8%-56.1%]). Conclusion and Relevance: These findings suggest that e-cigarette use remained common during the COVID-19 pandemic, particularly among young adults aged 18 to 24 years (18.3% prevalence). Notably, 71.5% of individuals aged 18 to 20 years who reported current e-cigarette use had never used combustible cigarettes. These results underscore the rationale for the implementation and enforcement of public health policies tailored to young adults.

Psychosocial stressors and current e-cigarette use in the youth risk behavior survey.

BACKGROUND: This study explores the association between psychosocial stressors and current e-cigarette use among adolescents in the United States. METHODS: We used data from 12,767 participants in the 2019 National Youth Risk Behavioral Survey to examine the association between psychosocial stressors (bullying, sexual assault, safety-related absence from school, depressive symptoms, suicidal ideation, physical altercation, and weapon threats) and past-30-day e-cigarette use using multivariable-adjusted logistic regression models. We examined the association for each stressor and then as a burden score (0-7). To compare the strength of the association between stressors and current e-cigarette use to current combustible cigarette use, we additionally examined the association between each stressor and current combustible cigarette use. RESULTS: Approximately 32.7% reported current e-cigarette use. The weighted prevalence of current e-cigarette use was higher among individuals who experienced stressors than those who did not. For example, bullying (43.9% vs. 29.0%). Similar prevalence patterns were seen among other stressors. Individuals who experienced stressors had significantly higher adjusted odds of current e-cigarette use than those who did not (OR [Odds Ratio] range: 1.47-1.75). Similarly, individuals with higher burden scores had a higher prevalence (zero [20.5%], one [32.8%], two [41.4%], three [49.6%], four to seven [60.9%]) and higher odds of current e-cigarette use (OR range: 1.43-2.73) than those with a score of zero. The strength of the association between the stressors and e-cigarette use was similar to that between the stressors and combustible cigarette use. CONCLUSION: The study demonstrates a significant association between psychosocial stressors and adolescent e-cigarette use, highlighting the potential importance of interventions, such as targeted school-based programs that address stressors and promote stress management, as possible means of reducing adolescent e-cigarette use. Future research directions include exploring underlying mechanisms linking stressors to e-cigarette use and evaluating the effectiveness of interventions addressing stressors in reducing adolescent e-cigarette use.

Patterns of tobacco product use and substance misuse among adolescents in the United States.

Among adolescents, sole use is the most common pattern of e-cigarette use. However, concurrent use of e-cigarettes with other tobacco products is not uncommon and may be associated with high-risk behaviors. We used data from 12,767 participants in the 2019 Youth Risk Behavior Survey to examine the patterns of tobacco product use among youth in the US. First, we examined the prevalence of e-cigarette-specific patterns of tobacco use (nonuse[no tobacco product use], sole use[sole e-cigarette use], dual-use[e-cigarette and one other tobacco product], and poly use[e-cigarette and two or more other tobacco products]). Then, using multivariable Poisson regression, we assessed how the tobacco use patterns were associated with the misuse of nine substances of abuse (alcohol, marijuana, cocaine, ecstasy, hallucinogens, heroin, inhalants, injectables, and methamphetamines). 62.9% of youth reported nonuse of any tobacco product. The weighted prevalence of sole e-cigarette use, dual use, and poly use was 23.2%, 4.2%, and 3.3%, respectively. Across all the substances explored, the prevalence was highest among poly users, followed by dual users, sole users, and non-users. Compared to non-users, sole, dual, and poly users had 7.8(95 %CI:6.1-10.0), 14.3(95 %CI:10.8-18.8), and 19.7(95 %CI:15.0-25.9) times higher adjusted prevalence of reporting past-30-day binge drinking, after adjusting for age, sex, race/ethnicity, sexual orientation, and depressive symptoms. This pattern was seen across all the different substances explored. These findings highlight the high prevalence of substance misuse among youth who use tobacco products and the need to educate and counsel on substances of abuse among this population, particularly among poly-tobacco users.

Comparison of primary versus secondary prevention of cardiovascular disease in patients with type2 diabetes: Focus on achievement of ABC goals.

BACKGROUND: Primary and secondary prevention of cardiovascular disease is of utmost importance in the management of patients with diabetes. OBJECTIVES: We studied a group of Iranian patients with type2 diabetes to provide an overview of the current status of secondary prevention of cardiovascular disease in the Middle East. METHODS: This is a cross-sectional study of 2029 Patients with type2 diabetes including 323 patients with coronary artery disease (CAD) were recruited. Achievement of goals in HbA1c (A), blood pressure (B) and LDL-cholesterol(C) was assessed. RESULTS: The study showed 25.3% of CAD positive patients achieved HbA1c <7% compared to 30% in CAD negative patients. The achievement of blood pressure ≤140/90 mmHg was 53.2% and 52.8% in CAD positive and CAD negative patients respectively. There was no difference in the achievement of all three ABC goals between the two groups (p = 0.733). After logistic regression analysis, history of hypertension had the highest odds ratio for CAD. CONCLUSION: Although ABC control has an important impact on the prevention of cardiovascular outcomes, the ideal goal needs further efforts to be achieved.