Electronic Nicotine Delivery Systems: An Updated Policy Statement from the American Association for Cancer Research and the American Society of Clinical Oncology

Exposure to user-generated e-cigarette content on social media associated with greater vulnerability to e-cigarette use among youth non-users

INTRODUCTION

Social media are important venues for youth's exposure to e-cigarette content. This study examined how exposure to user-generated e-cigarette content (i.e., content created and shared by individual social media users) is associated with vulnerabilities to e-cigarette use among youth non-users.

METHODS

We pooled data from the 2021 and 2022 National Youth Tobacco Survey. Youth who have never used e-cigarettes were included. Weighted linear and logistic regressions were conducted to examine how exposure to user-generated e-cigarette content (from real-life friends, online-only friends, and celebrities/influencers) on social media was associated with e-cigarette use vulnerabilities measured by perceived norms, perceived risk, and susceptibility of use, controlling for demographics, advertising exposure, and mental health conditions. Multiple imputations were performed to account for missing data.

RESULTS

Exposure to e-cigarette content on social media posted by real-life friends, online-only friends, and celebrities/influencers were associated with more positive descriptive norm (βs = 1.56, 0.37, and 0.35, respectively, all ps < .001), more positive injunctive norm (βs = 0.46, 0.19, and 0.10, respectively, all ps < .001), and higher odds of e-cigarette use susceptibility (ORs = 1.48, 1.50. 1.29, respectively, all ps < .001). Exposure to content posted by real-life and online-only friends were associated with reduced risk perception of e-cigarette use (β = -0.04, p < 0.05 and β = -0.07, p < 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

Our study highlighted that friends and celebrities/influencers are important sources on social media that can influence youth non-users' vulnerabilities to e-cigarette use. Interventional messages communicated through friends and influencers on social media may in turn help reduce e-cigarette vulnerability among youth non-users.

Assessment of toxicological validity using tobacco emission condensates: A comparative analysis of emissions and condensates from 3R4F reference cigarettes and heated tobacco products

The tobacco emission condensate, henceforth referred to as "tobacco condensate," plays a critical role in assessing the toxicity of tobacco products. This condensate, derived from tobacco emissions, provides an optimized liquid concentrate for storage and concentration control. Thus, the validation of its constituents is vital for toxicity assessments. This study used tobacco condensates from 3R4F cigarettes and three heated tobacco product (HTP) variants to quantify and contrast organic compounds (OCs) therein. The hazard index (HI) for tobacco emissions and condensates was determined to ascertain the assessment validity. The total particulate matter (TPM) for 3R4F registered at 17,667 μg cig-1, with its total OC (TOC) at 3777 μg cig-1. HTPs' TPM and TOC were 9342 ± 1918 μg cig-1 and 5258 ± 593 μg stick-1, respectively. 3R4F's heightened TPM likely arises from tar, while HTPs' OC concentrations are influenced by vegetable glycerin (2236-2688 μg stick-1) and propylene glycol (589-610 μg stick-1). During the condensation process, a substantial proportion of OCs in 3R4F smoke underwent significant concentration decreases, in contrast to HTPs, where fewer than half of the examined OCs exhibited notable concentration declines. The HI for tobacco emissions exhibited a marginally higher value compared to tobacco condensate, with variations ranging from 7.92% (HTPs) to 18.6% (3R4F), denoting a minimal differential. These observations emphasize the importance of accurate OC recovery techniques to maintain the validity and reliability of toxicity assessments based on tobacco condensates. This study not only deepens the comprehension of chemical behaviors in tobacco products but also establishes a novel benchmark for their toxicity evaluation, with profound implications for public health strategies and consumer protection.

Cigarette and Alternative Tobacco Product Use among Adult Cancer Survivors Enrolled in 9 ECOG-ACRIN Clinical Trials

BACKGROUND

While cigarette smoking has declined among the U.S. general population, sale and use of non-cigarette alternative tobacco products (ATP; e.g., e-cigarettes, cigars) and dual use of cigarettes/ATPs are rising. Little is known about ATP use patterns in cancer survivors enrolled in clinical trials. We investigated prevalence of tobacco product use, and factors associated with past 30-day use, among patients with cancer in national trials.

METHODS

Cancer survivors (N = 756) enrolled in 9 ECOG-ACRIN clinical trials (2017-2021) completed a modified Cancer Patient Tobacco Use Questionnaire (C-TUQ) which assessed baseline cigarette and ATP use since cancer diagnosis and in the past 30 days.

RESULTS

Patients were on average 59 years old, 70% male, and the mean time since cancer diagnosis was 26 months. Since diagnosis, cigarettes (21%) were the most common tobacco product used, followed by smokeless tobacco use (5%), cigars (4%), and e-cigarettes (2%). In the past 30 days, 12% of patients reported smoking cigarettes, 4% cigars, 4% using smokeless tobacco, and 2% e-cigarettes. Since cancer diagnosis, 5.5% of the sample reported multiple tobacco product use, and 3.0% reported multiple product use in the past 30 days. Males (vs. females; OR 4.33; P = 0 < 0.01) and individuals not living with another person who smokes (vs. living with; OR, 8.07; P = 0 < 0.01) were more likely to use ATPs only versus cigarettes only in the past 30 days.

CONCLUSIONS

Among patients with cancer, cigarettes were the most prevalent tobacco product reported.

IMPACT

Regardless, ATPs and multiple tobacco product use should be routinely assessed in cancer care settings.

[Electronic cigarettes: harm reduction or harm prolongation?]

This paper deals with the question of whether electronic cigarettes (e-cigarettes) can minimize the proven harm of smoking tobacco or may lead to a long-term harm. While the British Royal College of Physicians recommends smokers to use e-cigarettes as a substitute for tobacco products, the German Society for Pneumology and Respiratory Medicine advises smokers against using e-cigarettes. The harm reduction strategy is based on three hypotheses. Hypothesis 1: It is assumed that e-cigarettes cause less damage to health than tobacco cigarettes. Hypothesis 2: It is postulated that smokers are motivated to switch from conventional cigarettes to e-cigarettes. Hypothesis 3: It is assumed that e-cigarettes are an effective means for quitting smoking with few side effects. Although the long-term health consequences of e-cigarette use remain unknown, there is increasing evidence that e-cigarettes are toxic, harmful to cardiovascular system, respiratory health and potentially carcinogenic. Population-representative epidemiological surveys have shown that three-quarters of all current e-cigarette users in Germany smoke tobacco at the same time. In a few randomized clinical trials, e-cigarettes showed higher success rates compared to nicotine replacement products. As over-the-counter consumer products, a large number of studies have found no advantage for e-cigarettes under real conditions. In addition, e-cigarettes prolong nicotine dependence compared to nicotine replacement products. According to the current state of knowledge, the hypotheses behind the harm minimization strategy using e-cigarettes must be regarded as refuted. It therefore appears ethically problematic when doctors recommend e-cigarettes to their patients as a substitute for smoking.