Given the lack of regulation on marketing of electronic cigarettes (e-cigarettes) in the United States and the increasing exchange of e-cigarette-related information online, it is critical to understand how e-cigarette companies market e-cigarettes and how the public engages with e-cigarette information. Results are from a systematic review of peer-reviewed literature on e-cigarettes via a PubMed search through June 1, 2017. Search terms included: "e-cigarette*" or "electronic cigarette" or "electronic cigarettes" or "electronic nicotine delivery" or "vape" or "vaping." Experimental studies, quasi-experimental studies, observational studies, qualitative studies, and mixed methods studies providing empirical findings on e-cigarette marketing and communication (ie, nonmarketing communication in the public) were included. One hundred twenty-four publications on e-cigarette marketing and communication were identified. They covered topics including e-cigarette advertisement claims/promotions and exposure/receptivity, the effect of e-cigarette advertisements on e-cigarette and cigarette use, public engagement with e-cigarette information, and the public's portrayal of e-cigarettes. Studies show increases in e-cigarette marketing expenditures and online engagement through social media over time, that e-cigarettes are often framed as an alternative to combustible cigarettes, and that e-cigarette advertisement exposure may be associated with e-cigarette trial in adolescents and young adults. Few studies examine the effects of e-cigarette marketing on perceptions and e-cigarette and cigarette use. Evidence suggests that exposure to e-cigarette advertisements affects perceptions and trial of e-cigarettes, but there is no evidence that exposure affects cigarette use. No studies examined how exposure to e-cigarette communication, particularly misleading or inaccurate information, impacts e-cigarette, and tobacco use behaviors. The present article provides a comprehensive review of e-cigarette marketing and how the public engages with e-cigarette information. Studies suggest an association between exposure to e-cigarette marketing and lower harm perceptions of e-cigarettes, intention to use e-cigarettes, and e-cigarette trial, highlighting the need to for advertising regulations that support public health goals. Findings from this review also present the methodological limitations of the existing research (primarily due to cross-sectional and correlational analyses) and underscore the need for timely, rigorous research to provide an accurate understanding of e-cigarette marketing and communication and its impact on e-cigarette and tobacco product use.

Inhalation of the toxic smoke produced by combusting tobacco products, primarily cigarettes, is the overwhelming cause of tobacco-related disease and death in the United States and globally. A dive...

Most tobacco use begins during youth and young adulthood.¹ Recent declines in prevalence of cigarette smoking among youth have coincided with increased use of e-cigarettes and hookahs.² Although flavors other than menthol are prohibited in cigarettes in the United States,³ flavored noncigarette tobacco products are widely available and may appeal to youth. We examined flavored tobacco use among a nationally representative sample of US youth.

Journal of Medical Internet Research - International Scientific Journal for Medical Research, Information and Communication on the Internet

A 2011 report from the National Lung Screening Trial indicates that three annual low-dose computed tomography (LDCT) screenings for lung cancer reduced lung cancer mortality by 20% compared to chest X-ray among older individuals at high risk for lung cancer. Discussion has shifted from clinical proof to financial feasibility. The goal of this study was to determine whether LDCT screening for lung cancer in a commercially-insured population (aged 50–64) at high risk for lung cancer is cost-effective and to quantify the additional benefits of incorporating smoking cessation interventions in a lung cancer screening program. The current study builds upon a previous simulation model to estimate the cost-utility of annual, repeated LDCT screenings over 15 years in a high risk hypothetical cohort of 18 million adults between age 50 and 64 with 30+ pack-years of smoking history. In the base case, the lung cancer screening intervention cost $27.8 billion over 15 years and yielded 985,284 quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) gained for a cost-utility ratio of $28,240 per QALY gained. Adding smoking cessation to these annual screenings resulted in increases in both the costs and QALYs saved, reflected in cost-utility ratios ranging from $16,198 per QALY gained to $23,185 per QALY gained. Annual LDCT lung cancer screening in this high risk population remained cost-effective across all sensitivity analyses. The findings of this study indicate that repeat annual lung cancer screening in a high risk cohort of adults aged 50–64 is highly cost-effective. Offering smoking cessation interventions with the annual screening program improved the cost-effectiveness of lung cancer screening between 20% and 45%. The cost-utility ratios estimated in this study were in line with other accepted cancer screening interventions and support inclusion of annual LDCT screening for lung cancer in a high risk population in clinical recommendations.