Evidence use in E-cigarettes debates: scientific showdowns in a 'wild west' of research

Association between prolonged dual use of cigarettes and E-cigarettes and psychosocial factors among U.S. Smokers: Secondary data analysis from the 2013 to 2019 PATH study

Objective

Dual use of combustible cigarettes and e-cigarettes is common among U.S. tobacco users, yet mis-perceptions about the harm of dual use persist, often oversimplifying its multifaceted exposure and health impacts. To address this gap, we evaluated the association of prolonged dual use (consecutive use for more than 1 year) with psychosocial factors, including perceptions of absolute and relative harm of e-cigarettes, social norms, and intentions to quit smoking, among U.S. adult smokers over time.

Methods

Using the data from Waves 1 to 5 (2013-2019) from the Population Assessment of Tobacco and Health (PATH) Study, we characterized dual use and prolonged dual use by sociodemographics and psychosocial factors among U.S. adult smokers. We examined the association between dual use, including prolonged dual use, and psychosocial factors over time using logistic regression.

Results

Dual use of smokers decreased from 19.8 % in 2013 to 16.4 % in 2019, and prolonged dual use among dual users decreased from 40.0 % in 2013 to 27.4 % in 2019. Prolonged dual users, independent of frequency of use, presented significantly higher cigarette dependence than temporary dual users. The perception of absolute e-cigarette harm (perceiving e-cigarettes as very or extremely harmful) was negatively associated with prolonged dual use. No significant association was found between prolonged dual use and perception of relative e-cigarette harm (perceiving e-cigarettes are less harmful than cigarettes) as well as with intentions to quit smoking and beliefs that most people disapprove of e-cigarette use.

Conclusion

Increased perceptions of absolute harm of e-cigarettes, rather than relative harm, appear to decrease prolonged dual use. Public health strategies should consider further emphasis in educating users of the absolute harm, as opposed to endorsing e-cigarette use as a harm reduction alternative, in their tobacco cessation efforts to further discourage dual use.

An Analysis of Arguments Advanced via Twitter in an Advocacy Campaign to Promote Electronic Nicotine Delivery Systems

INTRODUCTION

Advocates of electronic nicotine delivery systems (ENDS) increasingly use Twitter to promote liberal ENDS policies. "World Vape Day" (WVD) is an annual campaign organized by pro-ENDS advocacy groups, some of which have links to the nicotine industry (eg, via funding from the "Foundation for a Smoke-Free World"). In 2020, the campaign used dedicated social media accounts to disseminate WVD-branded images and campaign messages. We examined tweets posted as part of WVD 2020 to identify and analyze pro-ENDS policy arguments.

AIMS AND METHODS

We extracted tweets posted between 26 May and 3 June 2020 that included the hashtag #WorldVapeDay. We used qualitative thematic analysis to code a random sample (n = 2200) of approximately half the original English language tweets (n = 4387) and used descriptive analysis to identify the most frequently used co-hashtags.

RESULTS

Arguments related to four themes: harm reduction, smoking cessation, rights and justice, and opposition to ENDS restrictions. Tweets criticized individuals and groups perceived as opposing liberal ENDS regulation, and used personal testimonials to frame ENDS as a harm reduction tool and life-saving smoking cessation aid. Tweets also advanced rights-based arguments, such as privileging adults' rights over children's rights, and calling for greater recognition of consumers' voices. Tweets frequently used hashtags associated with the WHO and World No Tobacco Day (WNTD).

CONCLUSIONS

The WVD campaign presented a series of linked pro-ENDS arguments seemingly aimed at policy-makers, and strategically integrated with the WHO's WNTD campaign. Critically assessing pro-ENDS arguments and the campaigns used to promote these is vital to helping policy actors develop proportionate ENDS policy.

IMPLICATIONS

Social media platforms have considerable potential to influence policy actors. Tweets are easily generated and duplicated, creating an impression of sizeable and influential stakeholders. Evidence that the "World Vape Day" campaign was supported by groups with industry links, and targeted-at least in part-at WHO officials and those who follow the WHO World No Tobacco Day campaign, highlights the importance of critically reviewing such campaigns. Further research could examine how health advocates could engage in pro-ENDS campaigns to support balanced messaging and informed policy-making.

Toward a better understanding of adult dual use of cigarettes and e-cigarettes based on use intensity and reasons for dual use

BACKGROUND

Dual use of combustible cigarettes and e-cigarettes is an emerging phenomenon among U.S. adults. Literature suggests two primary reasons for this emerging use (i.e., to help quit smoking and to stealth vape). This study investigated user profiles based on use intensity and the reasons for dual use.

METHODS

A total of 1,151 U.S. adult dual users were drawn from the 2018-2019 Tobacco Use Supplement to the Current Population Survey. We divided them into four groups: daily dual users (n = 189), predominant smokers (n = 608), predominant vapers (n = 143), and non-daily dual users (n = 211). We performed weighted multivariable logistic regressions to identify factors associated with the two primary reasons for dual use.

RESULTS

3 in 10 of U.S. adult dual users used e-cigarettes to help quit smoking while 2 in 10 of U.S. adult dual users used e-cigarettes to stealth vape. Compared to daily dual users, predominant smokers [adjusted odds ratio (AOR) = 0.61, 95% CI = 0.23, 0.62] were less likely to use e-cigarettes to help quit smoking whereas predominant vapers (AOR = 1.80, 95% CI = 1.04, 3.13) were more likely to use e-cigarettes to help quit smoking and less likely to use e-cigarettes to stealth vape (AOR = 0.30, 95% CI = 0.10, 0.89).

CONCLUSIONS

There was notable heterogeneity among the four groups of dual users. As the landscape of tobacco use is rapidly changing with an increasing popularity of e-cigarettes, reasons as well as behaviors of dual users need to be regularly monitored for effective tobacco control.

Understanding the Dynamics of More Restrictive Medicines Policy: A Case Study of Codeine Up-Scheduling in Australia

BACKGROUND

There has been increasing concern over opioid-related harms across the world. In Australia in 2018, codeine-containing products were up-scheduled from over-the-counter access at pharmacies, to requiring a prescription. The drug regulator's decision to up-schedule was contentious and widely debated, due to the potentially large impact on consumers and healthcare professionals. This study aimed to analyse influences on the codeine up-scheduling policy.

METHODS

This retrospective policy analysis used the Advocacy Coalition Framework (ACF) to understand how policy actors with shared beliefs formed adversarial coalitions to shape policy. Data were drawn from documents (regulator policy documents, public submissions, news reports, organisational media releases and position statements) and semi-structured interviews with 15 key policy actors. Codes were generated relating to policy processes and actor beliefs; broad themes included the role of health professionals, perceptions of opioids, impact on consumers, and the role of government in healthcare.

RESULTS

Two coalitions in this policy subsystem were identified: (1) supportive [with respect to the up-scheduling], and (2) opposing. The key evident beliefs of the supportive coalition were that the harms of codeine outweighed the benefits, and that government regulation was the best pathway for protecting consumers. The opposing coalition believed that the benefits of codeine accessible through pharmacists outweighed any harms, and consumers should manage their health without any more intervention than necessary. The policy decision reflected the influence of the supportive coalition, and this analysis highlighted the importance of their public health framing of the issue, the acceptability of their experts and supporting evidence, and the perceived legitimacy of the up-scheduling process.

CONCLUSION

Understanding these coalitions, their beliefs, and how they are translated through existing policy processes and institutions provides insight for those interested in influencing future health policy. Specific lessons include the importance of strategic frames and advocacy, and engagement with formal policy processes.

Fundamentals of vaping-associated pulmonary injury leading to severe respiratory distress

Vaping of flavored liquids has been touted as safe alternative to traditional cigarette smoking with decreased health risks. The popularity of vaping has dramatically increased over the last decade, particularly among teenagers who incorporate vaping into their daily life as a social activity. Despite widespread and increasing adoption of vaping among young adults, there is little information on long-term consequences of vaping and potential health risks. This study demonstrates vaping-induced pulmonary injury using commercial JUUL pens with flavored vape juice using an inhalation exposure murine model. Profound pathological changes to upper airway, lung tissue architecture, and cellular structure are evident within 9 wk of exposure. Marked histologic changes include increased parenchyma tissue density, cellular infiltrates proximal to airway passages, alveolar rarefaction, increased collagen deposition, and bronchial thickening with elastin fiber disruption. Transcriptional reprogramming includes significant changes to gene families coding for xenobiotic response, glycerolipid metabolic processes, and oxidative stress. Cardiac systemic output is moderately but significantly impaired with pulmonary side ventricular chamber enlargement. This vaping-induced pulmonary injury model demonstrates mechanistic underpinnings of vaping-related pathologic injury.