Are people more likely to vape or smoke indoors? A population survey of adults in England.

BACKGROUND: Increasingly, people smoke cigarettes outdoors and avoid exposing bystanders to harm. People may not have the same motivation to vape outdoors since e-cigarettes, unlike cigarettes, do not create side stream emissions and exhaled aerosol contains fewer toxicants than secondhand smoke. This study aims to estimate the prevalence and correlates of vaping and smoking indoors among adults in England. METHODS: Data came from the Health Survey for England 2019, a cross-sectional household survey. Adults who vape or smoke (N=1,530) were asked whether they had vaped or smoked indoors inside the home, car, or other places within the past seven days. Logistic regression was used to estimate prevalence and key correlates of indoor use, including age, sex, presence of adults/children in home, housing tenure and nicotine dependence. RESULTS: People who exclusively vaped were much more likely to use their product indoors than those who exclusively smoked (87.0% versus 52.0%; odds ratio [OR]=6.16, 95% confidence interval [CI]=4.09-9.28). Similarly, people who dual used had higher odds of vaping than smoking indoors (62.1% versus 44.3%; within-person OR=3.76, 95%CI=2.06-6.84). The preference for vaping over smoking indoors was found across different locations, including at home and in cars. Those who were older, highly dependent on nicotine, and lived alone were most prone to use any product indoors. While housing tenure was not strongly associated with vaping indoors, those living in social housing were much more likely to smoke indoors than homeowners. CONCLUSIONS: Adults in England are much more likely to vape than smoke indoors. Age, nicotine dependence, and living alone are strongly associated with both behaviours. IMPLICATIONS: Our results show that people have a strong preference for vaping over smoking indoors, including in the home. Given the high prevalence of vaping indoors, policymakers, landlords and businesses must weigh up the ethics, benefits, and harms of extending smoke-free laws to include e-cigarettes.

Trends in Daily Cigarette Consumption Among Smokers: A Population Study in England, 2008-2023.

INTRODUCTION: This study aimed to estimate time trends in cigarette consumption among smokers in England between 2008 and 2023 and to explore differences by key potential moderators. AIMS AND METHODS: We used data from 57 778 adult cigarette smokers participating in a nationally representative monthly cross-sectional survey between January 2008 and September 2023. We estimated monthly time trends in mean daily consumption of (1) any, (2) manufactured, and (3) hand-rolled cigarettes among all smokers and by main type of cigarettes smoked, smoking frequency, age, gender, occupational social grade, region, nicotine replacement therapy use, and vaping status. RESULTS: Overall cigarette consumption fell from 13.6 [95% CI = 13.3 to 13.9] to 10.6 [10.5 to 10.8] per day between January 2008 and October 2019 (a 22% decrease), then remained stable up to September 2023. Over this period, the proportion mainly or exclusively smoking hand-rolled cigarettes increased (from 30.6% [29.1%-32.1%] in 2008 to 52.1% [49.7%-54.5%] in 2023). As a result, manufactured cigarette consumption fell by 47%, from 9.5 [9.2-9.8] per day in January 2008 to 5.0 [4.7-5.3] in September 2023, while hand-rolled cigarette consumption increased by 35%, from 4.2 [3.9-4.4] to 5.6 [5.3-5.9], respectively. The decline in overall cigarette consumption was observed across all subgroups, but was greater among non-daily smokers, younger smokers, and those who vaped. CONCLUSIONS: Over the last 15 years, the average number of cigarettes consumed each day by smokers in England has fallen by almost a quarter, but has plateaued since October 2019. There has been a sharp decline in the number of manufactured cigarettes consumed and an increase in the number of hand-rolled cigarettes consumed, as smokers have increasingly shifted towards using hand-rolled tobacco. IMPLICATIONS: While average cigarette consumption in England has fallen over the past 15 years, this declining trend has stalled (and reversed in some population groups) since 2019. The availability of cheap, hand-rolled tobacco appears to be undermining policies that aim to reduce smoking by raising the price of tobacco (eg, through taxation) and could be targeted to reignite the decline in cigarette consumption.

Smoking prevalence and purchasing of menthol cigarettes since the menthol flavour ban in Great Britain: a population-based survey between 2020 and 2023.

BACKGROUND: Menthol cigarettes have been banned in Great Britain (GB) since May 2020. Still, menthol accessories and unlabelled cigarettes perceived as mentholated are available, and people can buy menthol cigarettes overseas or illicitly. This study assessed: trends in smoking menthol cigarettes among all adults and 18-24-year-olds in GB between October 2020 and March 2023; trends in and differences between England, Scotland and Wales during the same period and purchase sources among people smoking menthol versus non-flavoured cigarettes. METHODS: Population-weighted data were from a monthly cross-sectional survey of adults in GB. Among people smoking cigarettes, we calculated the proportion smoking menthol cigarettes across all adults and 18-24-year-olds, and prevalence ratios (PR) between the first and last quarter. We also calculated the proportions of people smoking menthol/non-flavoured cigarettes by purchase source (including illicit sources). RESULTS: In the first quarter, 16.2% of adults smoking cigarettes reported menthol cigarette smoking with little to no decline throughout the study (PR 0.85, 95% CI 0.71 to 1.01), while it declined among 18-24-year-olds (PR 0.75, 95% CI 0.63 to 0.89). The prevalence of menthol cigarette smoking fell by two-thirds in Wales (PR 0.36, 95% CI 0.19 to 0.62) but remained relatively stable in England (PR 0.88, 95% CI 0.72 to 1.06) and Scotland (PR 0.94, 95% CI 0.59 to 1.53). The main purchasing sources were licit (93.9%), 14.8% reported illicit sources and 11.5% cross-border purchases, without notable differences from people smoking non-flavoured cigarettes. CONCLUSIONS: Roughly one million adults in GB still smoke menthol cigarettes and, with the exception of Wales and young people, there were no noteworthy changes in the post-ban period. There was no indication that the overall persistence of menthol smoking was driven by illicit purchases.

Brief interventions for smoking and alcohol associated with the COVID-19 pandemic: a population survey in England.

BACKGROUND: Following the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic, in March 2020 health care delivery underwent considerable changes. It is unclear how this may have affected the delivery of Brief Interventions (BIs) for smoking and alcohol. We examined the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on the receipt of BIs for smoking and alcohol in primary care in England and whether certain priority groups (e.g., less advantaged socioeconomic positions, or a history of a mental health condition) were differentially affected. METHODS: We used nationally representative data from a monthly cross-sectional survey in England between 03/2014 and 06/2022. Monthly trends in the receipt of BIs for smoking and alcohol were examined using generalised additive models among adults who smoked in the past-year (weighted N = 31,390) and those using alcohol at increasing and higher risk levels (AUDIT score 38, weighted N = 22,386), respectively. Interactions were tested between social grade and the change in slope after the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic, and results reported stratified by social grade. Further logistic regression models assessed whether changes in the of receipt of BIs for smoking and alcohol, respectively, from 12/2016 to 01/2017 and 10/2020 to 06/2022 (or 03/2022 in the case of BIs for alcohol), depended on history of a mental health condition. RESULTS: The receipt of smoking BIs declined from an average prevalence of 31.8% (95%CI 29.4-35.0) pre-March 2020 to 24.4% (95%CI 23.5-25.4) post-March 2020. The best-fitting model found that after March 2020 there was a 12-month decline before stabilising by June 2022 in social grade ABC1 at a lower level (~ 20%) and rebounding among social grade C2DE (~ 27%). Receipt of BIs for alcohol was low (overall: 4.1%, 95%CI 3.9-4.4) and the prevalence was similar pre- and post-March 2020. CONCLUSIONS: The receipt of BIs for smoking declined following March 2020 but rebounded among priority socioeconomic groups of people who smoked. BIs for alcohol among those who use alcohol at increasing and higher risk levels were low and there was no appreciable change over time. Maintaining higher BI delivery among socioeconomic and mental health priority groups of smokers and increasing and higher risk alcohol users is important to support reductions in smoking and alcohol related inequalities.

Who would be affected by a ban on disposable vapes? A population study in Great Britain.

OBJECTIVES: The UK government is consulting on banning disposable e-cigarettes. This study aimed to describe trends in disposable e-cigarette use among adults in Great Britain since 2021 and establish who would currently be affected by a ban on disposables. STUDY DESIGN: Nationally-representative monthly cross-sectional survey. METHODS: We analysed data from 69,973 adults surveyed between January 2021 and August 2023. We estimated monthly time trends in the weighted prevalence of current disposable e-cigarette use among adults and by sociodemographic characteristics and smoking status. RESULTS: From January 2021 to August 2023, the prevalence of disposable e-cigarette use grew from 0.1 % to 4.9 %. This rise was observed across all population subgroups but was most pronounced among younger adults (e.g. reaching 15.9 % of 18-year-olds compared with 1.3 % of 65-year-olds), those who currently smoke (16.3 %), and those who stopped smoking in the past year (18.2 %). Use among never smokers remained relatively rare (1.5 %), except among 18- to 24-year-olds (7.1 %). Use was significantly higher in England than Wales or Scotland (5.3 % vs. 2.0 % and 2.8 %) and among less (vs. more) advantaged social grades (6.1 % vs. 4.0 %), those with (vs. without) children (6.4 % vs. 4.4 %), and those with (vs. without) a history of mental health conditions (9.3 % vs. 3.1 %). CONCLUSIONS: A ban on disposable e-cigarettes would currently affect one in 20 adults in Great Britain (approximately 2.6 million people). The proportion who would be affected would be greatest among young people, including the 316,000 18-24 year-olds who currently use disposables but who have never regularly smoked tobacco, which may discourage uptake of vaping in this group. However, a ban would also affect 1.2 million people who currently smoke and a further 744,000 who previously smoked. It would also have a disproportionate impact on disadvantaged groups that have higher rates of smoking and typically find it harder to quit.

Have there been sustained impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic on trends in smoking prevalence, uptake, quitting, use of treatment, and relapse? A monthly population study in England, 2017-2022.

BACKGROUND: Studies conducted during the early stages of the pandemic documented mixed changes in smoking behaviour: more smokers quitting successfully but little change in prevalence. This study aimed to examine whether there have been sustained impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic on smoking patterns in England. METHODS: Data were from 101,960 adults (≥ 18 years) participating in the Smoking Toolkit Study, a monthly representative household survey, between June 2017 and August 2022. Interviews were conducted face-to-face until March 2020 and via telephone thereafter. Generalised additive models estimated associations of the pandemic onset (March 2020) with current smoking, uptake, cessation, quit attempts, and use of support. Models adjusted for seasonality, sociodemographic characteristics, and (where relevant) dependence and tobacco control mass-media expenditure. RESULTS: Before the COVID-19 pandemic, smoking prevalence fell by 5.2% per year; this rate of decline slowed to 0.3% per year during the pandemic (RRΔtrend = 1.06, 95% CI = 1.02, 1.09). This slowing was evident in more but not less advantaged social grades (RRΔtrend = 1.15, 1.08, 1.21; RRΔtrend = 1.00, 0.96, 1.05). There were sustained step-level changes in different age groups: a 34.9% (95% CI = 17.7, 54.7%) increase in smoking prevalence among 18-24-year-olds, indicating a potential rise in uptake, in contrast to a 13.6% (95% CI = 4.4, 21.9%) decrease among 45-65-year-olds. In both age groups, these step-level changes were followed by the pre-pandemic declines stopping, and prevalence remaining flat. There were sustained increases in quitting among past-year smokers, with a 120.4% (95% CI = 79.4, 170.9%) step-level increase in cessation and a 41.7% (95% CI = 29.7, 54.7%) increase in quit attempts. The main limitation was the change in modality of data collection when the pandemic started; while this may have contributed to the step-level changes we observed, it is unlikely to explain changes in the slope of trends. CONCLUSIONS: In England, the rate of decline in adult smoking prevalence stagnated during the COVID-19 pandemic through to 2022. At the start of the pandemic, a potential reduction in smoking prevalence among middle-aged adults and increases in quitting among smokers may have been offset by an increase in smoking among young adults. The slowing in the rate of decline was pronounced in more advantaged social grades.

How has Expenditure on Nicotine Products Changed in a Fast-Evolving Marketplace? A Representative Population Survey in England, 2018-2022.

INTRODUCTION: In the last 5 years, there has been a dramatic shift in the types of nicotine products being purchased. This study aimed to estimate how much users spend on types of cigarettes and alternative nicotine products (e-cigarettes, nicotine replacement therapy (NRT), heated tobacco, and nicotine pouches) and describe changes between 2018 and 2022. AIMS AND METHODS: Monthly representative cross-sectional survey in England. 10 323 adults who smoked cigarettes or used alternative nicotine reported their average weekly expenditure on these products, adjusted for inflation. RESULTS: Smokers spent £20.49 [95% CI = 20.09-20.91] on cigarettes each week (£27.66 [26.84-28.50] and £15.96 [15.49-16.28] among those who mainly smoked manufactured and hand-rolled cigarettes, respectively), e-cigarette users spent £6.30 [5.99-6.55] (£8.41 [7.17-9.78], £6.42 [5.58-7.39], and £5.93 [5.64-6.30] among those who mainly used disposable, pod, and refillable devices, respectively), NRT users £6.11 [5.53-6.69], and heated tobacco users £13.87 [9.58-20.09]. Expenditure on cigarettes grew by 10% from September 2018 to July 2020, then fell by 10% from July 2020 to June 2022. These changes coincided with a 13% reduction in cigarette consumption and a 14% increase in the proportion mainly smoking hand-rolled cigarettes. Expenditure on e-cigarettes was stable between 2018 and late 2020, then rose by 31% up to mid-2022. Expenditure on NRT increased slowly in 2018-2020 (+4%) and more quickly thereafter (+20%). CONCLUSIONS: Inflation-adjusted expenditure on cigarettes has fallen since 2020, such that the average smoker in England currently spends the same on cigarettes each week as in 2018. This has been achieved by smoking fewer cigarettes and switching to cheaper hand-rolled cigarettes. Expenditure on alternative nicotine has increased above inflation; users spent around a third more on these products in 2022 than between 2018-2020. IMPLICATIONS: People in England continue to spend substantially more on smoking cigarettes than using alternative nicotine products. The average smoker in England spends around £13 a week (~£670 a year) more than people using only e-cigarettes or NRT. The average expenditure on manufactured cigarettes is double that of hand-rolled cigarettes.

E-cigarettes to Augment Stop Smoking In-person Support and Treatment With Varenicline (E-ASSIST): A Pragmatic Randomized Controlled Trial.

AIM: To examine whether, in adults receiving behavioral support, offering e-cigarettes together with varenicline helps more people stop smoking cigarettes than varenicline alone. METHODS: A two-group, parallel arm, pragmatic randomized controlled trial was conducted in six English stop smoking services from 2019-2020. Adults enrolled onto a 12-week programme of in-person one-to-one behavioral smoking cessation support (N  =  92) were randomized to receive either (1) a nicotine e-cigarette starter kit alongside varenicline or (2) varenicline alone. The primary outcome was biochemically verified abstinence from cigarette smoking between weeks 9-to-12 post quit date, with those lost to follow-up considered not abstinent. The trial was stopped early due to COVID-19 restrictions and a varenicline recall (92/1266 participants used). RESULTS: Nine-to-12-week smoking abstinence rates were 47.9% (23/48) in the e-cigarette-varenicline group compared with 31.8% (14/44) in the varenicline-only group, a 51% increase in abstinence among those offered e-cigarettes; however, the confidence interval (CI) was wide, including the possibility of no difference (risk ratio [RR] = 1.51, 95% CI = 0.91-2.64). The e-cigarette-varenicline group had 43% lower hazards of relapse from continuous abstinence than the varenicline-only group (hazards ratio [HR] = 0.57, 95% CI =  0.34-0.96). Attendance for 12 weeks was higher in the e-cigarette-varenicline than varenicline-only group (54.2% vs. 36.4%; RR = 1.49, 95% CI = 0.95-2.47), but similar proportions of participants in both groups used varenicline daily for ≥8 weeks after quitting (22.9% versus 22.7%; RR = 1.01, 95% CI = 0.47-2.20). Estimates were too imprecise to determine how adverse events differed by group. CONCLUSION: Tentative evidence suggests that offering e-cigarettes alongside varenicline to people receiving behavioral support may be more effective for smoking cessation than varenicline alone. IMPLICATIONS: Offering e-cigarettes to people quitting smoking with varenicline may help them remain abstinent from cigarettes, but the evidence is tentative because our sample size was smaller than planned-caused by Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) restrictions and a manufacturing recall. This meant our effect estimates were imprecise, and additional evidence is needed to confirm that providing e-cigarettes and varenicline together helps more people remain abstinent than varenicline alone.

Inequalities in Smoking and Quitting-Related Outcomes Among Adults With and Without Children in the Household 2013-2019: A Population Survey in England.

INTRODUCTION: Smoking among those who live with children is an important influence on smoking initiation among children. This study assessed socioeconomic inequalities in smoking and quitting-related outcomes among all adults with and without children in the household. AIMS AND METHODS: Monthly repeat cross-sectional household survey of adults (16+) from 2013-2019 in England (N = 138 583). We assessed the association between cigarette smoking and quitting-related outcomes and having children in the household, and whether these relationships were moderated by occupational social grade (categories AB-E from most to least advantaged). Trends in smoking prevalence among adults with and without children in the household were explored. RESULTS: In adjusted analysis, the association of having children in the household with smoking prevalence depended on social grade: smoking prevalence was between 0.71 (95% confidence interval 0.66-0.77) and 0.93 (0.88-0.98) times lower among social grades AB-D with children in the household relative to those without. Conversely, it was 1.11 (1.05-1.16) times higher among social grade E. Yearly prevalence declined similarly among those with and without children (both prevalence ratio: 0.98, 95% confidence interval 0.97-0.99). Motivation to stop smoking was higher among those with children than those without, but lower among disadvantaged than more advantaged groups. Social grades D-E had greater heavy smoking, but higher prevalence of past-month quit attempts. CONCLUSIONS: Among the most disadvantaged social grade in England, smoking prevalence was higher in those with children in the household than without. To attenuate future smoking-related inequalities, there is an urgent need to target support and address barriers to quitting and promote longer-term quit success. IMPLICATIONS: In the most disadvantaged occupational social grade, having children in the household was associated with higher smoking prevalence compared with not having children. This contrasts with all other social grades in which there was lower comparative smoking prevalence among those with than without children in the household. Without attention this disparity could exacerbate existing and future health inequalities related to smoking.

Tobacco-free Nicotine Pouch Use in Great Britain: A Representative Population Survey 2020-2021.

INTRODUCTION: Tobacco-free nicotine pouches are products that are placed between the lip and gum, where they deliver nicotine to users. Little is known about nicotine pouch use in Great Britain since they entered the market in 2019. METHODS: Data came from a monthly representative survey of the adult (≥18 years) population in Great Britain (England, Scotland, and Wales) between November 2020 and October 2021 (n = 25 698). We estimated the weighted prevalence of pouch use, overall and stratified by demographics, smoking status, and other nicotine use. RESULTS: Nicotine pouch use was rare among adults, with a weighted prevalence of just 0.26% (95% compatibility interval [CI] = 0.19-0.35). Prevalence doubled from November 2020 to October 2021 (0.14%-0.32%; prevalence ratio [PR] = 2.22, 95% CI = 1.33-3.70). Pouch use was over four times more common among men than women (0.42% vs. 0.09%; PR = 4.55, 95% CI = 2.27-9.09) but less common in older age groups (p < .001). Pouch use was more prevalent among current smokers (0.87%; PR = 13.60, 95% CI = 5.46-33.89), recent former smokers (0.97%; PR = 15.21, 95% CI = 4.03-57.42), and long-term (>1 year) former smokers (0.24%; PR = 3.71, 95% CI = 1.36-10.15), compared with never smokers (0.06%). Prevalence was also elevated among e-cigarette (1.64% vs. 0.15%; PR = 10.59, 95% CI = 5.74-19.52) and nicotine replacement therapy users (2.02% vs. 0.21%; PR = 9.75, 95% CI = 4.64-20.49). CONCLUSIONS: One in 400 adults in Great Britain use nicotine pouches, but the prevalence increased from 2020 to 2021. IMPLICATIONS: Tobacco-free nicotine pouches were introduced to the market in Great Britain in 2019. We found that while pouch use is currently rare in Great Britain, these products have become more popular over time. Pouch use is largely concentrated among younger and middle-aged men who use other nicotine products and have a history of smoking. Continued monitoring of nicotine pouch use is needed.

Exposure to Negative News Stories About Vaping, and Harm Perceptions of Vaping, Among Youth in England, Canada, and the United States Before and After the Outbreak of E-cigarette or Vaping-Associated Lung Injury ('EVALI').

INTRODUCTION: Little is known about the international impact of E-cigarette or Vaping-Associated Lung Injury ('EVALI') on youth perceptions of vaping harms. METHODS: Repeat cross-sectional online surveys of youth aged 16-19 years in England, Canada, and the United States before (2017, 2018), during (2019 August/September), and after (2020 February/March, 2020 August) the 'EVALI' outbreak (N = 63380). Logistic regressions assessed trends, country differences, and associations between exposure to negative news stories about vaping and vaping harm perceptions. RESULTS: Exposure to negative news stories increased between 2017 and February-March 2020 in England (12.6% to 34.2%), Canada (16.7% to 56.9%), and the United States (18.0% to 64.6%), accelerating during (2019) and immediately after (February-March 2020) the outbreak (p < .001) before returning to 2019 levels by August 2020. Similarly, the accurate perception that vaping is less harmful than smoking declined between 2017 and February-March 2020 in England (77.3% to 62.2%), Canada (66.3% to 43.3%), and the United States (61.3% to 34.0%), again accelerating during and immediately after the outbreak (p < .001). The perception that vaping takes less than a year to harm users' health and worry that vaping will damage health also doubled over this period (p ≤ .001). Time trends were most pronounced in the United States. Exposure to negative news stories predicted the perception that vaping takes less than a year to harm health (Adjusted Odds Ratio = 1.55, 1.48-1.61) and worry that vaping will damage health (Adjusted Odds Ratio = 1.32, 1.18-1.48). CONCLUSIONS: Between 2017 and February-March 2020, youth exposure to negative news stories, and perceptions of vaping harms, increased, and increases were exacerbated during and immediately after 'EVALI'. Effects were seen in all countries but were most pronounced in the United States. IMPLICATIONS: This is the first study examining changes in exposure to news stories about vaping, and perceptions of vaping harms, among youth in England, Canada, and the United States before, during, and after 'EVALI'. Between 2017 and February-March 2020, youth exposure to negative news stories, and perceptions of vaping harms, increased, and increases were exacerbated during and immediately after 'EVALI'. By August 2020, exposure to negative news stories returned to 2019 levels, while perceptions of harm were sustained. Exposure to negative news stories also predicted two of the three harm perception measures. Overall, findings suggest that 'EVALI' may have exacerbated youth's perceptions of vaping harms internationally.

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.

Evaluation of the Impact of a Regional Educational Advertising Campaign on Harm Perceptions of E-Cigarettes, Prevalence of E-Cigarette Use, and Quit Attempts Among Smokers.

INTRODUCTION: We evaluated how effective an advertising campaign that was piloted by Cancer Research UK in January/February 2018 was at promoting quit attempts by increasing awareness of the relative harms of e-cigarettes compared with smoking. METHODS: Adults (≥16 years, n = 2217) living in Greater Manchester (campaign region), Yorkshire & Humber and the North East of England (control regions) completed cross-sectional surveys immediately before and after the campaign period. Surveys measured socio-demographics, perceptions and use of e-cigarettes, and motivation and attempts to quit smoking. We tested interactions between time (pre, post) and region (campaign, control). RESULTS: 36.7% (95% CI 33.0%-40.6%) of those in the intervention region recognized the campaign. In the general population, interactions were nonsignificant for all outcomes except for perception of e-cigarettes as effective cessation aids, with smaller increases from pre- to post-campaign in the campaign (49.9% to 54.0%) compared with the control region (40.5% to 55.0%; odds ratio [OR] = 0.66, 95% CI .45-0.98). Among smokers, motivation to quit increased in the intervention region (44.0% to 48.0%) but decreased in the control region (40.5% to 21.5%; OR = 2.97, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.25-7.16), with no other significant differences between regions over time. Bayes factors confirmed that nonsignificant results were inconclusive. CONCLUSIONS: Compared with the control region, the campaign was associated with an increase in smokers' motivation to quit but a smaller increase in adults' perception of e-cigarettes as an effective cessation aid. There was insufficient evidence to determine whether the campaign affected other outcomes. IMPLICATIONS: Past extended mass media tobacco control campaigns have been shown to change public attitudes towards smoking, improve motivation to quit smoking, and reduce smoking prevalence. Much less is known about shorter, targeted campaigns. Here we show that using mass media to communicate accurate information about the relative harms of e-cigarettes compared with smoking may be an effective strategy in increasing smokers' motivation to quit. Moreover, even when only run for a month, such campaigns can reach a large proportion of the targeted population. Further research is needed to evaluate effects on quit attempts and success.

Impact of the disruption in supply of varenicline since 2021 on smoking cessation in England: A population study.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Varenicline is one of the most effective smoking cessation treatments. Its supply in England was disrupted in July 2021 due to nitrosamine impurities found by its supplier, Pfizer. This study measured the impact of this disruption on smoking cessation in England. DESIGN, SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS: The study used repeated cross-sectional surveys conducted monthly, from June 2018 to December 2022. Set in England, it comprised a total of 3024 adults who reported smoking during the past year and had made at least one serious attempt to quit in the past 6 months. MEASUREMENTS: Generalized additive models analyzed the association of the varenicline supply disruption with the trend in self-reported varenicline use in the most recent quit attempt. We used these results to estimate the population-level impact of the disruption on smoking cessation. FINDINGS: Before July 2021, the proportion of past 6-month quit attempts using varenicline was stable at approximately 3.9% [risk ratio (RR)trend = 1.034, 95% confidence interval (CI) = 0.823-1.298]. The trend in varenicline use has changed sharply since the supply disruption (RRΔtrend = 0.297, 95% CI = 0.120-0.738), with prevalence falling by 69.3% per year since; from 4.1% in June 2021 to 0.8% in December 2022. Convergently, National Health Service general practitioner prescribing data reported that just 0.1% of prescriptions for smoking cessation treatments in December 2022 were for varenicline. Assuming that varenicline does not return to the market, we estimate that this could result in ~8400 fewer people stopping smoking for at least 6 months, ~4200 fewer long-term ex-smokers and ~1890 more avoidable deaths each year. CONCLUSIONS: In England, the disruption in supply of varenicline since 2021 has coincided with a substantial fall in the use of varenicline in attempts to quit smoking.

Trends in Harm Perceptions of E-Cigarettes vs Cigarettes Among Adults Who Smoke in England, 2014-2023.

Importance: Electronic cigarettes (e-cigarettes) are less harmful to users than combustible cigarettes. However, public health and media reporting have often overstated the potential risks of e-cigarettes, and inaccurate perceptions of the harms of vaping relative to smoking are pervasive. Objective: To examine time trends in harm perceptions of e-cigarettes compared with combustible cigarettes among adults who smoke. Design, Setting, and Participants: This nationally representative monthly cross-sectional survey study was conducted from November 2014 to June 2023 in England. Participants were adults who currently smoke. Main Outcomes and Measures: Participants were asked whether they thought e-cigarettes were less harmful, equally harmful, or more harmful than cigarettes, or did not know, with the proportion responding less harmful (vs all other responses) as the primary outcome. Logistic regression was used to test associations between survey wave and participants' perceptions of the harms of e-cigarettes. Results: Data were collected from 28 393 adults who smoke (mean [SD] age, 43.5 [17.3] years; 13 253 [46.7%] women). In November 2014, 44.4% (95% CI, 42.0%-46.8%) thought e-cigarettes were less harmful than cigarettes, 30.3% (95% CI, 28.2%-32.6%) thought e-cigarettes were equally harmful, 10.8% (95% CI, 9.4%-12.3%) thought they were more harmful, and 14.5% (95% CI, 12.9%-16.4%) did not know. However, by June 2023, the proportion who thought e-cigarettes were less harmful had decreased by 40% (prevalence ratio, 0.60; 95% CI, 0.55-0.66), and the proportion who thought e-cigarettes were more harmful had more than doubled (prevalence ratio, 2.16; 95% CI, 1.84-2.54). Changes over time were nonlinear: late 2019 saw a sharp decline in the proportion who thought e-cigarettes were less harmful and increases in the proportions who thought they were equally or more harmful. These changes were short-lived, returning to pre-2019 levels by the end of 2020. However, perceptions worsened again from 2021 up to the end of the study period: the proportion who thought e-cigarettes were more harmful increased to a new high, and the proportion who thought e-cigarettes were less harmful decreased to levels comparable to those in late 2019. As a result, in June 2023, the perception that e-cigarettes were equally as harmful as cigarettes was the most commonly held view among adults who smoke (33.7%; 95% CI, 31.4%-36.1%), with roughly similar proportions perceiving e-cigarettes to be less (26.7%; 95% CI, 24.6%-28.9%) and more (23.3%; 95% CI, 21.1%-25.7%) harmful. Conclusions and Relevance: This survey study of adults who smoke in England found that harm perceptions of e-cigarettes have worsened substantially over the last decade, such that most adults who smoked in 2023 believed e-cigarettes to be at least as harmful as cigarettes. The timing of the 2 most notable changes in harm perceptions coincided with the e-cigarette, or vaping product, use-associated lung injury outbreak in 2019 and the recent increase in youth vaping in England since 2021.

Comparing identity, attitudes, and indicators of effectiveness in people who smoke, vape or use heated tobacco products: A cross-sectional study.

BACKGROUND: There is limited long-term and independent research on heated tobacco products (HTPs). We compared people who used HTPs with those who used nicotine vaping products (NVP) or cigarettes on smoker identity, indicators of effectiveness and, among NVP/HTP users, perceptions of these products. METHODS: Adults exclusive cigarette smokers (N = 45) and ex-smokers with medium/long-term (>3months) NVP (N = 46) or HTP use (N = 45) were recruited in London, UK. Participants completed a questionnaire assessing socio-demographics, smoking characteristics, smoker identity, dependence, intention to stop and attitudes towards HTP/NVP. RESULTS: In adjusted analysis, people who used cigarettes (Mean Difference (MD) = 1.4, 95%Confidence Intervals (CI) 0.7,2.0) and HTPs (MD = 0.8, 95%CI 0.1, 1.5) reported stronger smoker identities than those who used NVPs. Compared with smokers, HTP/NVP users had lower cravings for cigarettes (MD = 3.0, 95%CI 1.6, 4.3; MD = 3.1, 95%CI 1.9, 4.3, respectively), and higher intention to stop product use (MD = -0.8, 95%CI -1.7,-0.01; MD = -1.2, 95%CI -2.0, -0.3, respectively). People using HTPs or NVPs reported similar perceived product satisfaction (HTP:M = 3.4, 95%CI 2.8, 3.9; NVP:M = 3.0, 95%CI 2.5, 3.5), efficacy for smoking cessation (HTP:M = 4.5, 95%CI 4.2, 4.9; NVP:M = 4.6, 95%CI 4.3, 4.9) and safety (HTP:M = 2.1, 95%CI 2.0, 2.2; NVP:M = 2.0, 95%CI 1.8, 2.1). HTP users reported greater perceived addictiveness than NVPs (MD = 0.3, 95%CI 0.2, 0.6). CONCLUSIONS: HTP and NVP users perceived products to be similarly acceptable and effective suggesting that HTPs, like NVPs, may support smoking cessation. However, since HTP use appears to maintain a stronger smoker identity and perceived addiction, this may suggest a more limited role of HTP for a permanent transition away from cigarettes.

Trends in where people buy their vaping products and differences by user and device characteristics: A population study in England, 2016-23.

AIMS: To explore where people in England typically buy e-cigarettes/vaping products, how their characteristics and the types of products purchased differ according to the source of purchase and whether this is changing over time. DESIGN: This was a nationally representative monthly cross-sectional survey. SETTING: The study was conducted in England, 2016-23. PARTICIPANTS: A total of 6507 adults (≥ 18 years) who reported current vaping. MEASUREMENTS: Participants were asked where they usually buy their vaping products: vape shops, supermarkets/convenience stores, on-line or other sources ('other' or cheap from friends). FINDINGS: Up to 2020, vape shops were the most common source of purchase (mean monthly proportion = 43.3%), followed by supermarkets/convenience stores (29.7%) and on-line retailers (20.5%). In 2020, these purchasing patterns shifted: on-line purchasing increased and vape-shop purchasing fell. The rise in on-line purchasing was short-lived, peaking at 33.6% [95% confidence interval (CI) = 31.0-36.5%] in July 2021, and soon returned to baseline levels. However, the fall in vape-shop purchasing persisted, remaining below 31% from July 2021 onwards, displaced by a rapid rise in purchasing from supermarkets and convenience stores from 31.6% (95% CI = 29.6-33.7%) in January 2021 to 48.5% (95% CI = 42.9-54.8%) by April 2023. This rise was most pronounced among younger adults (aged 18-35 years; Pinteraction < 0.001) and those mainly using disposable devices (Pinteraction = 0.013). Purchasing from other sources was relatively rare, and declined from 9.1% (95% CI = 6.6-12.7%) in July 2016 to 4.3% (95% CI = 2.6-7.1%) in April 2023. CONCLUSIONS: Supermarkets and convenience stores have recently overtaken vape shops to become the most popular places to buy vaping products in England. This change appears to have been driven by the rising popularity of new disposable e-cigarettes among younger adults, who tend to buy these products from supermarkets/convenience stores.

Rapid growth in disposable e-cigarette vaping among young adults in Great Britain from 2021 to 2022: a repeat cross-sectional survey.

AIMS: To estimate recent trends in the prevalence of disposable e-cigarette vaping in Great Britain, overall and across ages, and to measure these trends in the context of changes in smoking and vaping prevalence. DESIGN: The Smoking Toolkit Study, a monthly representative cross-sectional survey. SETTING: Great Britain. PARTICIPANTS: A total of 36 876 adults (≥ 18 years) completed telephone interviews between January 2021 and April 2022. MEASUREMENTS: Current e-cigarette vapers were asked which type of device they mainly use. We estimated age-specific monthly time trends in the prevalence of current disposable e-cigarette use among vapers and inhaled nicotine use (vaping/smoking), smoking and vaping among adults. FINDINGS: From January 2021 to April 2022, there was an 18-fold increase in the percentage of vapers who used disposables, rising from 1.2 to 22.2% [prevalence ratio (PR) = 18.0; 95% compatibility interval (CI) = 9.18-49.0]. Growth in disposable e-cigarette vaping was most pronounced in younger adults (interaction P-value = 0.013): for example, the percentage of 18-year-old vapers using disposables rose from 0.4 to 54.8% (PR = 129; 95% CI = 28.5-4520), while it rose from 2.1 to 10.0% (PR = 4.73; 95% CI = 2.06-23.6) among 45-year-old vapers. However, the overall percentage of people currently using any inhaled nicotine remained stable over time both among all adults (20.0 versus 21.2%; PR = 1.06; 95% CI = 0.92-1.22) and among 18-year-olds (30.2 versus 29.7%; PR = 0.99; 95% CI = 0.80-1.22). In 18-year-olds, vaping prevalence grew (11.3 versus 17.7%; PR = 1.57; 95% CI = 1.12-2.29), and there was imprecise evidence for a decline in smoking (24.5 versus 19.5%; PR = 0.80; 95% CI = 0.63-1.04). In 45-year-olds, there was relatively little change in vaping (PR = 1.08; 95% CI = 0.88-1.33) or smoking prevalence (PR = 1.01; 95% CI = 0.88-1.16). CONCLUSIONS: Use of disposable e-cigarettes in Great Britain grew rapidly between 2021 and 2022, especially among younger adults, but the overall prevalence of inhaled nicotine use was stable over time. Most young adult vapers in Great Britain now use disposable products.

Cutting down, quitting and motivation to stop smoking by self-reported COVID-19 status: Representative cross-sectional surveys in England.

AIM: To examine the association of self-reported COVID-19 disease status with cutting down, past-month and past-year quit attempts and motivation to stop smoking. DESIGN AND SETTING: Repeat cross-sectional survey, representative of the adult population in England. PARTICIPANTS: Past-year smokers, n = 3338 (aged ≥ 18 years) responding between May 2020 and April 2021. MEASUREMENTS: Outcomes were (i) currently cutting down, (ii) having made a quit attempt in the past month, (iii) having made a quit attempt in the past year and (iv) motivation to stop smoking. The explanatory variable was self-reported COVID-19 disease status (belief in never versus ever had COVID-19). Covariates included age, sex, occupational grade, region, children in the household, alcohol use and survey month. FINDINGS: Of past-year smokers, 720 (21.6%) reported past-COVID-19 infection and 48 (1.4%) reported current COVID-19 infection. In adjusted analyses, rates of currently cutting down [adjusted odds ratio (aOR) = 1.12, 95% confidence interval (CI) = 0.93-1.34], past-year quit attempts (aOR = 0.99, 95% CI = 0.82-1.19) and motivation to stop smoking (aOR = 1.04, 95% CI = 0.89-1.23) were comparable in those who did and did not report ever having had COVID-19. People who reported ever having had COVID-19 had 39% higher odds than those without of attempting to quit in the past month, but the confidence interval contained the possibility of no difference (aOR = 1.39, 95% CI = 0.94-2.06) and for some the quit attempt may have occurred before they had COVID-19. CONCLUSION: During the first year of the COVID-19 pandemic in England, rates of reducing smoking and attempting to quit in the past year were similar in smokers who did or did not self-report ever having had COVID-19. There was also little difference in motivation to stop smoking between groups. However, causal interpretation is limited by the study design, and there is potential misclassification of the temporal sequence of infection and changes to smoking behaviour.