Electronic cigarettes (ECIGs) use an electric heater to aerosolize a liquid that usually contains propylene glycol, vegetable glycerin, flavorants, and the dependence-producing drug nicotine. ECIG-induced nicotine dependence has become an important concern, as some ECIGs deliver very little nicotine while some may exceed the nicotine delivery profile of a tobacco cigarette. This variability is relevant to tobacco cigarette smokers who try to switch to ECIGs. Products with very low nicotine delivery may not substitute for tobacco cigarettes, so that ECIG use is accompanied by little reduced risk of cigarette-caused disease. Products with very high nicotine delivery may make quitting ECIGs particularly difficult should users decide to try. For non-smokers, the wide variability of ECIGs on the market is especially troublesome: low nicotine products may lead them to initiate nicotine self-administration and progress to higher dosing ECIGs or other products, and those that deliver more nicotine may produce nicotine dependence where it was not otherwise present. External regulatory action, guided by strong science, may be required to ensure that population-level nicotine dependence does not rise.

The extent to which use of electronic nicotine delivery systems (ENDS) for smoking reduction leads to cigarette abstinence in smokers with no plans to quit smoking is unclear. This exploratory analysis examined the effects of ENDS delivering different amounts of nicotine on cigarette abstinence up to 24-week follow-up, in comparison to placebo or a behavioral substitute. This four-arm parallel-group, randomized, placebo-controlled trial took place at two academic medical centers in the United States (Penn State Hershey and Virginia Commonwealth University). Participants were current adult smokers (N = 520) interested in reducing but not planning to quit. They received brief advice and were randomized to one of four 24-week conditions, receiving either an eGo-style ENDS paired with 0, 8, or 36 mg/ml nicotine liquid (double-blind) or a cigarette-shaped tube, as a cigarette substitute (CS). Self-reported daily cigarette consumption and exhaled carbon monoxide (CO) were measured at all study visits. Outcomes included intent-to-treat, self-reported 7-day cigarette abstinence, biochemically confirmed by exhaled CO at 24 weeks after randomization. At 24 weeks, significantly more participants in the 36 mg/ml condition (14/130, 10.8%) than in the 0 mg/ml condition (1/130, 0.8%) and the CS condition (4/130, 3.1%) were abstinent (relative risk = 14 [95% CI = 1.9–104.9] and 3.5 [95% CI = 1.2–10.4], respectively). The abstinence rate in the 8 mg/ml condition was 4.6% (6/130). When smokers seeking to reduce smoking tried ENDS, few quit smoking in the short term. However, if smokers continued to use an ENDS with cigarette-like nicotine delivery, a greater proportion completely switched to ENDS, as compared with placebo or a cigarette substitute. The extent to which use of electronic nicotine delivery systems (ENDS) for smoking reduction leads to cigarette abstinence in smokers with no plans to quit smoking was unclear. This randomized trial found that ENDS with nicotine delivery approaching that of a cigarette are more effective in helping ambivalent smokers to quit cigarette smoking.

Introduction: Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) is a public health crisis, but its effects on tobacco users remain ill-defined. This report aimed to assess the relationship between tobacco product-specific risk perceptions for COVID-19 and changes in tobacco use since the start of the pandemic. Methods: A sample (n = 776) of past-30 day exclusive smokers (n = 238), exclusive e-cigarette users (n = 143), and dual users (n = 395) residing in the US and aged 18 or older were collected using Mechanical Turk from April 27 to June 8, 2020. Adjusted associations between tobacco product-specific COVID-19 risk perceptions (ie risk that smokers/vapers are at for COVID-19 relative to non-smokers/non-vapers) and changes in tobacco use since the pandemic began were assessed using partial proportional odds models. Results: A majority of those who used cigarettes (63.7%) and e-cigarettes (56.1%) felt that the risk of COVID-19 was greater for users of their tobacco product than for non-users. Twenty-four percent of smokers had increased their cigarette use since the start of the pandemic and 28.0% had decreased. Similarly, 27.3% of e-cigarette users had increased their e-cigarette use since the start of the pandemic and 23.8% had decreased. Higher risk perceptions for COVID-19 were associated with reductions in tobacco use since the pandemic began for exclusive e-cigarette users and dual users. Conclusions: These findings provide the support that tobacco product-specific COVID-19 risk perceptions may be an important correlate of changes in tobacco use during the pandemic. Targeted information to inform tobacco users regarding their risks for COVID-19 is needed during this public health crisis. Implications: Few published studies have investigated the relationship between tobacco product-specific risk perceptions for COVID-19 and changes in tobacco product use since the pandemic began. This study enhances the current literature by providing evidence that higher tobacco product-specific risk perceptions for COVID-19 are associated with reductions in tobacco use since the pandemic began for exclusive e-cigarette users and dual users of cigarettes and e-cigarettes. Additionally, daily tobacco users may be more likely to have increased their tobacco use than non-daily users. These findings emphasize the importance of disseminating targeted health information to tobacco users regarding COVID-19 risks.

Background: Facebook is the most popular social network site, with over 1 billion users globally. There are millions of apps available within Facebook, many of which address health and health behavior change. Facebook may represent a promising channel to reach smokers with cessation interventions via apps. To date, there have been no published reports about Facebook apps for smoking cessation. Objective: The purpose of this study was to review the features and functionality of Facebook apps for smoking cessation and to determine the extent to which they adhere to evidence-based guidelines for tobacco dependence treatment. Methods: In August 2013, we searched Facebook and three top Internet search engines using smoking cessation keywords to identify relevant Facebook apps. Resultant apps were screened for eligibility (smoking cessation-related, English language, and functioning). Eligible apps were reviewed by 2 independent coders using a standardized coding scheme. Coding included content features (interactive, informational, and social) and adherence to an established 20-item index (possible score 0-40) derived from the US Public Health Service’s Clinical Practice Guidelines for Treating Tobacco Use and Dependence. Results: We screened 22 apps for eligibility; of these, 12 underwent full coding. Only 9 apps were available on Facebook. Facebook apps fell into three broad categories: public pledge to quit (n=3), quit-date–based calculator/tracker (n=4), or a multicomponent quit smoking program (n=2). All apps incorporated interactive, informational, and social features except for two quit-date–based calculator/trackers apps (lacked informational component). All apps allowed app-related posting within Facebook (ie, on self/other Facebook profile), and four had a within-app “community” feature to enable app users to communicate with each other. Adherence index summary scores among Facebook apps were low overall (mean 15.1, SD 7.8, range 7-30), with multicomponent apps scoring the highest. Conclusions: There are few smoking cessation apps available within Facebook. Among those available, adherence to cessation treatment guidelines was low. Smoking cessation interventions provided via the Facebook platform are a unique and as yet untapped treatment strategy that can harness existing social support and social networks for quitting. Research is needed to examine whether apps that adhere to clinical practice guidelines for tobacco dependence treatment are more effective in promoting cessation than those that do not. [J Med Internet Res 2014;16(9):e205]