Explore the vast range of titles available.

ObjectiveTo compare trends in cigarette smoking and nicotine vaping among US population aged 17–18 years and 18–24 years.MethodsRegression analyses identified trends in ever and current use of cigarettes and e-cigarettes, using three US representative surveys from 1992 to 2022.ResultsFrom 1997 to 2020, cigarette smoking prevalence among those aged 18–24 years decreased from 29.1% (95% CI 27.4% to 30.7%) to 5.4% (95% CI 3.9% to 6.9%). The decline was highly correlated with a decline in past 30-day smoking among those aged 17–18 years (1997: 36.8% (95% CI 35.6% to 37.9%; 2022: 3.0% (95% CI 1.8% to 4.1%). From 2017 to 2019, both ever-vaping and past 30-day nicotine vaping (11.0% to 25.5%) surged among those 17–18 years, however there was no increase among those aged 18–24 years. Regression models demonstrated that the surge in vaping was independent of the decline in cigarette smoking. In the 24 most populous US states, exclusive vaping did increase among those aged 18–24 years, from 1.7% to 4.0% to equivalent to 40% of the decline in cigarette smoking between 2014–15 and 2018–19. Across these US states, the correlation between the changes in vaping and smoking prevalence was low (r=0.11). In the two US states with >US$1/fluid mL tax on e-cigarettes in 2017, cigarette smoking declined faster than the US average.ConclusionsSince 1997, a large decline in cigarette smoking occurred in the US population under age 24 years, that was independent of the 2017–19 adolescent surge in past 30-day e-cigarette vaping. Further research is needed to assess whether the 2014–15 to 2018–19 increase in exclusive vaping in those aged 18–24 years is a cohort effect from earlier dependence on e-cigarette vaping as adolescents.

More smokers report using e-cigarettes to help them quit than FDA-approved pharmacotherapy. To assess the association of e-cigarettes with future abstinence from cigarette and tobacco use. Cohort study of US sample, with annual follow-up. US adult (ages 18+) daily cigarette smokers identified at Wave 1 (W1; 2013-14) of the PATH Study, who reported a quit attempt before W2 and completed W3 (n = 2443). Use of e-cigarettes, pharmacotherapy (including nicotine replacement therapy), or no product for last quit attempt (LQA), and current daily e-cigarette use at W2. Propensity score matching (PSM) of groups using different methods to quit. 12+ months abstinence at W3 from cigarettes and from all tobacco (including e-cigarettes). 30+ days abstinence at W3 was a secondary outcome. Among daily smokers with an LQA, 23.5% used e-cigarettes, 19.3% used pharmacotherapy only (including NRT) and 57.2% used no product. Cigarette abstinence for 12+ months at W3 was ~10% in each group. Half of the cigarette abstainers in the e-cigarette group were using e-cigarettes at W3. Different methods to help quitting had statistically comparable 12+ month cigarette abstinence at W3 (e-cigarettes vs no product: Risk Difference (RD) = 0.01, 95% CI: -0.04 to 0.06; e-cigarettes vs pharmacotherapy: RD = 0.02, 95% CI:-0.04 to 0.09). Likewise, daily e-cigarette users at W2 did not show a cessation benefit over comparable no-e-cigarette users and this finding was robust to sensitivity analyses. Abstinence for 30+ days at W3 was also similar across products. The frequency of e-cigarette use during the LQA was not assessed, nor was it possible to assess continuous abstinence from the LQA. Among US daily smokers who quit cigarettes in 2014-15, use of e-cigarettes in that attempt compared to approved cessation aids or no products showed similar abstinence rates 1-2 years later.

Although e-cigarettes are not approved as a cessation device, many who smoke believe that e-cigarettes will help them quit cigarette smoking successfully. To assess whether people who recently quit smoking and who had switched to e-cigarettes or another tobacco product were less likely to relapse to cigarette smoking compared with those who remained tobacco free. This cohort study analyzed a nationally representative sample of US households that participated in 4 waves of the Population Assessment of Tobacco and Health Study (conducted 2013 through 2017), combining 2 independent cohorts each with 3 annual surveys. Eligible participants were individuals who smoked at baseline, had recently quit at the first follow-up, and completed the second follow-up survey. Use of e-cigarettes or alternate tobacco products at follow-up 1 after recently quitting smoking. Weighted percentage of participants with over 12 months abstinence by follow-up 2. Of a total of 13 604 participants who smoked cigarettes at baseline, 9.4% (95% CI, 8.7%-10.0%) recently had quit smoking (mean age, 41.9; 95% CI, 39.7-46.6 years; 641 [43.2%] women) Of these, 22.8% (95% CI, 19.7%-26.0%) had switched to e-cigarettes, with 17.6% (95% CI, 14.8%-20.5%) using them daily. A total of 37.1% (95% CI, 33.7%-40.4%) used a noncigarette tobacco product and 62.9% (95% CI, 59.6%-66.3%) were tobacco free. Rates of switching to e-cigarettes were highest for those who were in the top tertile of tobacco dependence (31.3%; 95% CI, 25.0%-37.7%), were non-Hispanic White (26.4%; 95% CI, 22.3%-30.4%), and had higher incomes (annual income ≥$35 000, 27.5%; 95% CI, 22.5%-32.4% vs <$35 000, 19.3%; 95% CI, 16.3%-22.3%). At follow-up 2, unadjusted relapse rates were similar among those who switched to different tobacco products (for any tobacco product: successfully quit, 41.5%; 95% CI, 36.2%-46.9%; relapsed with significant requit, 17.0%; 95% CI, 12.4%-21.6%; currently smoking, 36.2%; 95% CI, 30.9%-41.4%). Controlled for potential confounders, switching to any tobacco product was associated with higher relapse rate than being tobacco free (adjusted risk difference, 8.5%; 95% CI, 0.3%-16.6%). Estimates for those who switched to e-cigarettes, whether daily or not, were not significant. While individuals who switched from cigarettes to e-cigarettes were more likely to relapse, they appeared more likely to requit and be abstinent for 3 months at follow-up 2 (17.0%; 95% CI, 12.4%-21.6% vs 10.4%; 95% CI, 8.0%-12.9%). This large US nationally representative study does not support the hypothesis that switching to e-cigarettes will prevent relapse to cigarette smoking.

The US Food and Drug Administration's implementation of graphic warning labels (GWLs) on cigarette packs is under challenge in US courts. To determine whether GWLs can affect US smokers' perceptions about their cigarettes or health consequences and changes in smoking behavior. This study was a randomized clinical trial of the effect of a 3-month, real-world experience of cigarettes with GWL packaging. Community recruitment was done from September 2016 through December 2019 of daily smokers from San Diego, California, aged 21 to 65 years, who were not ready to quit. Participants were randomized to purchase and receive cigarettes in 1 of 3 pack designs: GWL, blank, or standard US pack. Data analysis was performed from July 2020 to February 2021. The study manufactured GWL cigarette packs (3 versions with Australian-licensed images) and packs devoid of marketing. For 3 months, participants purchased GWL, blank, or standard US pack cigarettes that were delivered to their home. Smoking-related cognitions and behavior were queried by daily and weekly interactive text messages. Smoking behavior was self-reported before and after the intervention by 96% of randomized participants and was biochemically validated on a subsample. The study sample included 357 participants (195 women [54.6%]; mean [SD] age, 39.5 [11.9] years); 116 were randomized to the standard US pack group, 118 were randomized to the GWL pack group, and 125 were randomized to the blank pack group. Over the 3 months, participants who received the GWL packs had reduced positive perceptions of recent cigarettes smoked compared with participants who received the branded US pack (mean difference, -0.46 SD; 95% CI, -0.73 SD to -0.20 SD; P < .001). Health concerns increased in all groups, with a significant increase in the GWL group vs the US pack group (mean difference, 0.35 SD; 95% CI, 0.09 SD to 0.62 SD; P = .002). Quitting cognitions increased in all study groups, with a peak mean change of 0.60 SD for GWL participants vs 0.34 SD for US pack participants (mean difference, 0.55 SD; 95% CI, 0.28 SD to 0.81 SD; P < .001). GWL participants had slightly more cigarette abstinence periods per week than the US pack group, but the difference was not significant (adjusted odds ratio, 1.06; 95% CI, 0.99 to 1.13). At 3 months, there was no between-group difference in any smoking behavior. The blank pack group was similar to the US pack group on all measures. These findings suggest that the introduction of GWL packs appears to decrease positive perceptions of cigarettes and increase quitting cognitions in the short term. However, additional complementary tobacco control strategies may be necessary for GWL packs to be associated with reduced smoking behavior. ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02676193.

BackgroundIn the 1990s, California led the USA in state-level tobacco control strategies. However, after 2000, California lost ground on cigarette taxes, although it maintained higher levels of smoke-free homes among smokers.MethodsTrends in per capita cigarette consumption were assessed through taxed sales data and from self-report in repeated national cross-sectional surveys. Linear regressions identified changes in trends after year 2000 separately for California and the rest of the USA. Using data from each state, a linear regression tested the association between different tobacco control strategies and per capita consumption. Change in self-reported per capita consumption was partitioned into contributions associated with initiation, quitting and reduction in cigarette consumption level.ResultsBoth taxed cigarette sales and per capita consumption declined rapidly in the USA from 1985 to 2015. Declines were particularly fast in California before 2000 but slowed thereafter. In 2014, per capita consumption in California was 29.4 packs/adult/year, but 90% higher in the rest of the USA. Modelling state-level data, every $1 increase in cigarette taxes reduced consumption by 4.8 (95% CI 2.9 to 6.8) packs/adult/year. Every 5% increase in the proportion of smokers with smoke-free homes reduced consumption by 8.0 (95% CI 7.0 to 8.9) packs/adult/year. The different patterns in California and the rest of the USA are at least partially explained by these two variables. The slow down in per capita consumption in California can be attributed to changes in initiation, quitting and especially smokers reducing their consumption level.ConclusionsTobacco control strategies need to be continually updated to maintain momentum towards a smoke-free society.

The inclusion of graphic warning labels (GWLs) on cigarette packs is recommended for tobacco control but has not yet been implemented in the US. It is unknown whether and to what extent the inclusion of GWLs on cigarette packs affects smokers' willingness to display the packs in public. To determine whether the inclusion of GWLs on cigarette packs affects pack-hiding behavior among smokers in social settings. This community-based randomized clinical trial assessed smokers' real-world experience of using cigarettes repackaged to include GWLs (GWL packs) compared with standard US packs and blank packs over a 3-month intervention period with 12 months of follow-up between September 6, 2016, and December 3, 2019. The study included 357 participants aged 21 to 65 years from San Diego County, California, who smoked 5 or more cigarettes per day, were not actively planning to quit smoking, were not pregnant, and had no unstable medical conditions. Participants purchased and received cigarette packs through the study website. During the 1-month run-in period, participants received their usual US cigarette packs. During the 3-month intervention period, participants were randomized to receive GWL packs (study-manufactured packs with 3 rotating images under license from the Commonwealth of Australia; GWL pack group), blank packs (study-manufactured packs devoid of industry marketing imagery; blank pack group), or standard US packs (US pack group). Pack hiding was queried daily (with participants reporting behavior within the last 4 hours) and weekly via interactive text messages during the 1-month run-in and intervention periods. Self-reported smoking behavior was biochemically validated. Among 357 enrolled participants, the mean (SD) age was 39.3 (11.8) years; 195 participants (54.6%) were female, 40 (11.2%) were Hispanic, 243 (68.1%) were non-Hispanic White, and 74 (20.7%) were of other non-Hispanic races (including American Indian or Alaska Native, Asian or Pacific Islander, Black or African American, or multiracial). A total of 18 987 cigarette packs were purchased and delivered during the run-in and intervention periods. Daily querying showed that the inclusion of GWLs on cigarette packs increased the percentage of smokers who hid their packs at least some of the time from 41.3% (95% CI, 39.6%-43.0%) during the run-in period to 57.1% (95% CI, 55.9%-58.1%) by the end of the intervention period. In the postintervention period, returning to standard US packs reduced pack-hiding behavior to the levels observed during the run-in period. Pack hiding remained at run-in levels for both the blank pack group (35.2%; 95% CI, 33.6%-36.8%) and the US pack group (41.4%; 95% CI, 39.7%-43.1%]) throughout the study. Although even participants in the GWL group with the lowest prestudy tendency to conceal score (ie, 1) had a mean (SE) probability of pack hiding during the intervention of 0.84 (0.02), this group's probability of pack hiding decreased to a mean (SE) of 0.43 (0.03) after intervention. When social reactions to packs were queried at the end of the study, the modal response from participants in the GWL pack group was observers' aversive reactions to the packs, whereas the modal response from participants in the blank pack group was observers' positive interest in the study. Neither smoking prevalence nor consumption differed by group at any point in the study. In this randomized clinical trial, receiving cigarettes in GWL packs vs blank packs increased pack-hiding behavior in social settings, which may be associated with aversive reactions from observers. However, 12-month smoking behavior did not change. ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02676193.

Objective: To assess the cost of adopting a plant-based diet.Methods: Breast cancer survivors randomized to dietary intervention (n=1109) or comparison (n1145) group; baseline and 12-month data on diet and grocery costs.Results: At baseline, both groups reported similar food costs and dietary intake. At 12 months, only the intervention group changed their diet (vegetable-fruit: 6.3 to 8.9 serv/d.; fiber: 21.6 to 29.8 g/d; fat: 28.2 to 22.3 of E). The intervention change was associated with a significant increase of 1.22/ person/week (multivariate model, P0.027).Conclusions: A major change to a plant-based diet was associated with a minimal increase in grocery costs.

Susan Kealey could Find something of interest in just about anything. At 17, while studying philosophy at McGill, she worked as a cashier at Steinberg's grocery store where she was endlessly fascinated by the kinds of foods people bought. Susan always loved to give advice and share her opinions on any subject. Then again she came at things from a...