Declines in cigarette smoking prevalence in many countries and the consolidation of the tobacco industry have prompted the introduction of other forms of nicotine delivery. These include electronic nicotine delivery systems (ENDS), heated tobacco products (HTPs) and oral nicotine products (ONPs). Evolving over time, some of these products now deliver nicotine at levels comparable to cigarettes and may serve as effective substitutes for smokers. However, certain products, especially ENDS like JUUL, have also appealed to youth and non-smokers, prompting concerns about expanding nicotine use (and potentially nicotine addiction). The tobacco industry could shift away from primarily promoting cigarettes to promoting ENDS, HTPs and/or ONPs, though at this time it continues to heavily promote cigarettes in low and middle-income countries. Differing regulatory regimes may place upward and downward pressures on both cigarettes and these newer products in terms of population use, and may ultimately drive the extent to which cigarettes are or are not displaced by ENDS, HTPs and/or ONPs in the coming decade.

Switching completely from cigarettes to electronic nicotine delivery systems (ENDS) may reduce health risks for addicted smokers. This paper provides information about perceptions and other factors that may influence smokers’ ENDS use and substitution for cigarettes. We conducted 12 online focus groups (N = 61) among smokers who had never tried using ENDS (Never Users, N = 11), currently used both cigarettes and ENDS (Dual Users, N = 21), used but discontinued ENDS (Rejectors, N = 14), and switched completely to ENDS use (Switchers, N = 15). Thematic analysis was used to interpret the transcripts. Participants described initial interest in trying ENDS in hopes of quitting smoking and because of convenience (i.e., due to rules, regulations, or social norms). Risk perceptions and higher prices relative to cigarettes were reported as disadvantages of ENDS that discouraged initiation. Dual Users and Rejectors reported product problems (e.g., products breaking) and dissatisfaction (i.e., inability to satisfy cravings for cigarettes) as factors that lowered their substitutability for cigarettes or led to discontinuing ENDS use. Switchers indicated that satisfaction, lack of product problems, and perceived safety facilitated successfully switching from cigarette smoking to exclusive ENDS use. However, Switchers reported trying many products before they found ones that satisfied their needs. We recommend that policymakers consider the potential impact of tobacco control policies on smokers’ motivation and ability to switch completely from cigarettes to ENDS.

Background: As user modification can alter the addictiveness and toxicity of electronic nicotine delivery systems (ENDS), more research is needed to understand the types, motivations, risks, and information sources that lead to these product alterations. YouTube has been identified as a major platform where ENDS users obtain and share information about ENDS products and modifications. However, a comprehensive study of ENDS modification videos on YouTube is lacking. Objective: This study aimed to analyze the content of YouTube videos depicting modifications of ENDS. Methods: YouTube was searched in March 2019 to identify videos depicting ENDS modifications. Search terms were derived from interviews with ENDS users and current literature. We used 28 search phrases that combined the words vape and vaping with modification-related key terms (eg, custom build, modification, and dripping). The final sample included 168 videos. Results: Videos were 1 to 108 min long (median 9.55). Presenters were largely male (117/168, 69.6%), white (94/168, 56.0%), and older than 25 years (94/168, 56.0%). Most videos gave how to instructions (148/168, 88.1%), but few offered warnings (30/168, 17.9%) or mentioned commercial alternatives to modifications they presented (16/168, 9.5%). The ENDS devices most often featured were drippers (63/168, 37.5%) and refillable tanks (37/168, 22.0%). The most often modified ENDS components were coils (82/168, 48.8%) and e-liquids (34/168, 20.2%), which included adding other substances, such as cannabis, to the e-liquids (6/168, 3.6%). Most videos portrayed ENDS modifications positively (106/168, 63.1% positive; 60/168, 35.7% neutral; and 2/168, 1.2% negative) and were either neutral or positive in their overall portrayal of ENDS devices (78/168, 46.4% positive; 89/168, 53.0% neutral; and 1/168, 0.6% negative). Conclusions: This study identified several concerning trends in popular YouTube videos on ENDS modifications, including lack of warnings, the addition of marijuana derivatives to e-liquids, and the positive portrayal of ENDS devices and modifications. By identifying the types of modifications (coil and e-liquid being the most prevalent), this study sets an agenda for research on the effects of modifications.

Background: Relationships between cigarette filter ventilation levels, biomarkers of exposure (BOE) and potential harm (BOPH), and harm perceptions were examined. Methods: Filter ventilation levels in cigarette brands were merged with Wave 1 (2013–2014) Population Assessment of Tobacco Use and Health study. Data were restricted to smokers who reported a usual brand and not regular users of other tobacco products. BOEs included nicotine, tobacco-specific nitrosamines, volatile organic compounds (VOC), and polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons. BOPHs measured inflammation and oxidative stress. Perceived harm was assessed as self-reported risk of one's usual brand compared with other brands. Results: Filter ventilation ranged from 0.2% to 61.1% (n = 1,503). Adjusted relationships between filter ventilation and BOE or BOPH were nonsignificant except for VOC N-acetyl-S-(phenyl)-L-cysteine (PHMA) and high-sensitivity C-reactive protein (hsCRP). In pairwise comparisons, PHMA was higher in quartile (Q) 4 (4.23 vs. 3.36 pmol/mg; P = 0.0103) and Q3 (4.48 vs. 3.36 pmol/mg; P = 0.0038) versus Q1 of filter ventilation and hsCRP comparisons were nonsignificant. Adjusted odds of perceiving one's own brand as less harmful was 26.87 (95% confidence interval: 4.31–167.66), 12.55 (3.01–52.32), and 19.18 (3.87–95.02) times higher in the Q2, Q3, and Q4 of filter ventilation compared with Q1 (P = 0.0037). Conclusions: Filter ventilation was not associated with BOE or BOPH, yet smokers of higher ventilated cigarettes perceived their brand as less harmful than other brands compared with smokers of lower ventilated cigarettes. Impact: Research to understand the impact of this misperception is needed, and remedial strategies, potentially including a ban on filter ventilation, are recommended.