Effect of vaping on past-year smoking cessation success of Australians in 2019-evidence from a national survey

The Potential Impact of E-cigarettes on the Life-Years Lost from Conventional Smoking in the Russian Federation

This study analyses the potential impact of e-cigarettes on the death toll of cigarette smoking in the Russian Federation by working under a variety of assumptions pertaining to how much vaping might affect smoking cessation and initiation, and its adverse impacts on health in comparison to conventional smoking. Within this study, each combination of these assumptions generates a single vaping scenario (210 in total). A dynamic population simulation model, specifically for the Russian Federation, that is tailoured to tobacco control policy analysis, is built for estimation purposes. Considering the toll of smoking on cumulative life-years saved via the inclusion of vaping across a period of 80 years, the simulation analysis produces positive results in 88.1% of e-cigarette scenarios, ranging from - 3.3 million to 38.5 million life-years saved. In relative terms, the estimated life-years saved from vaping varies from - 1.6 to 18.6% of the predicted life-years lost from smoking. Most of the model scenarios involve a significant number of individuals who stopped smoking in favour of vaping. These results suggest that vaping has great potential to reduce the prevalence of smoking and the related death toll in the Russian Federation.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s10603-023-09540-z.

A critique of the Australian National Health and Medical Research Council CEO statement on electronic cigarettes

This paper critically analyses a statement by Australia's National Health and Medical Research Council (NHMRC) on e-cigarettes in May 2022 that will be used to guide national policy. We reviewed the evidence and the conclusions drawn in the NHMRC Statement. In our view, the Statement is not a balanced reflection of the benefits and risks of vaping because it exaggerates the risks of vaping and fails to compare them to the far greater risks of smoking; it uncritically accepts evidence of harms from e-cigarettes while adopting a highly sceptical attitude towards evidence of their benefits; it incorrectly claims that the association between adolescent vaping and subsequent smoking is causal; and it understates the evidence of the benefits of e-cigarettes in assisting smokers to quit. The Statement dismisses the evidence that vaping is probably already having a positive net public health effect and misapplies the precautionary principle. Several sources of evidence supporting our assessment were published after the NHMRC Statement's publication and are also referenced. The NHMRC Statement on e-cigarettes does not present a balanced assessment of the available scientific literature and fails to meet the standard expected of a leading national scientific body.

Smoke and mirrors: Support from psychiatrists for nicotine e-cigarette availability in Australia

The Royal Australian and New Zealand College of Psychiatrists' (RANZCP) 2018 position statement supports increased, regulated availability of e-cigarettes (ECs) as a harm-reduction measure and recommends further research into their use. Aligned with this recommendation, we aimed to critically evaluate the RANZCP's stance on this issue through a literature review focused on the areas identified in the position statement as requiring further investigation: (1) the adverse health effects attributable to ECs; (2) use of ECs for smoking cessation (particularly for people living with severe mental illness); and (3) EC-associated risks for nicotine naïve young people. We identified and summarised evidence of harm attributable to ECs that is particularly relevant to young people through direct adverse health sequelae, onset of nicotine dependence and increased risk of combustible cigarette (CC) use. A small number of studies suggest ECs can be used for harm-reduction purposes in people diagnosed with nicotine dependence and severe mental illness. However, these results must be considered alongside robust evidence supporting the effectiveness of existing pharmacological interventions for smoking cessation in people with severe mental illness. The position statement is in urgent need of review in line with the available evidence.