Sara Kalkhoran1, Stanton A Glantz2. 1. Department of Medicine, University of California, San Francisco. 2. Department of Medicine, University of California, San Francisco2Center for Tobacco Control Research and Education, Cardiovascular Research Institute, University of California, San Francisco.
Abstract
IMPORTANCE: The prevalence of electronic cigarette (e-cigarette) use is increasing. Population health effects will depend on cigarette smoking behaviors, levels of dual use with conventional cigarettes, and e-cigarette toxicity. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate potential health effects of various scenarios of increasing promotion and use of e-cigarettes. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: A base case model was developed using data on actual cigarette and e-cigarette use patterns that quantifies transitions from an initial state of no cigarette or e-cigarette use to 1 of 5 final states: never use of cigarettes or e-cigarettes, cigarette use, e-cigarette use, dual use of cigarettes and e-cigarettes, or quit. Seven scenarios were created that cover a range of use patterns, depending on how the e-cigarette market might develop, as well as a range of possible long-term health effects of e-cigarette use. Scenarios for changes from the base case were evaluated using Monte Carlo simulations. Separate sets of base case model parameters were evaluated for the US and UK populations. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: We assigned unitless health "costs" for each final state on a scale of 0 to 100. Population health "costs" were compared with the base case (status quo) assuming e-cigarette use health "costs" from 1% to 50% as dangerous as conventional cigarette use health costs. RESULTS: Compared with the base case, a harm reduction scenario in which e-cigarette use increases only among smokers who are interested in quitting with more quit attempts and no increased initiation of e-cigarette use among nonsmokers, and another scenario in which e-cigarettes are taken up only by youth who would have smoked conventional cigarettes, had population-level health benefits regardless of e-cigarette health costs in both the United States and United Kingdom. Conversely, scenarios in which e-cigarette promotion leads to renormalization of cigarette smoking or e-cigarettes are used primarily by youth who never would have smoked showed net health harms across all e-cigarette health costs. In other scenarios, the net health effect varied on the basis of the health cost of e-cigarettes. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: According to this analysis, widespread promotion of e-cigarettes may have a wide range of population-level health effects, depending on both e-cigarette health risks and patterns of use. Absent the primary effect of e-cigarette promotion being only to divert current or future conventional cigarette smokers to e-cigarette use, the current uncertainty about the health risks of e-cigarettes, increasing e-cigarette use among youth, and the varying health effects at different e-cigarette health costs suggest a potential for harm.
IMPORTANCE: The prevalence of electronic cigarette (e-cigarette) use is increasing. Population health effects will depend on cigarette smoking behaviors, levels of dual use with conventional cigarettes, and e-cigarette toxicity. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate potential health effects of various scenarios of increasing promotion and use of e-cigarettes. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: A base case model was developed using data on actual cigarette and e-cigarette use patterns that quantifies transitions from an initial state of no cigarette or e-cigarette use to 1 of 5 final states: never use of cigarettes or e-cigarettes, cigarette use, e-cigarette use, dual use of cigarettes and e-cigarettes, or quit. Seven scenarios were created that cover a range of use patterns, depending on how the e-cigarette market might develop, as well as a range of possible long-term health effects of e-cigarette use. Scenarios for changes from the base case were evaluated using Monte Carlo simulations. Separate sets of base case model parameters were evaluated for the US and UK populations. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: We assigned unitless health "costs" for each final state on a scale of 0 to 100. Population health "costs" were compared with the base case (status quo) assuming e-cigarette use health "costs" from 1% to 50% as dangerous as conventional cigarette use health costs. RESULTS: Compared with the base case, a harm reduction scenario in which e-cigarette use increases only among smokers who are interested in quitting with more quit attempts and no increased initiation of e-cigarette use among nonsmokers, and another scenario in which e-cigarettes are taken up only by youth who would have smoked conventional cigarettes, had population-level health benefits regardless of e-cigarette health costs in both the United States and United Kingdom. Conversely, scenarios in which e-cigarette promotion leads to renormalization of cigarette smoking or e-cigarettes are used primarily by youth who never would have smoked showed net health harms across all e-cigarette health costs. In other scenarios, the net health effect varied on the basis of the health cost of e-cigarettes. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: According to this analysis, widespread promotion of e-cigarettes may have a wide range of population-level health effects, depending on both e-cigarette health risks and patterns of use. Absent the primary effect of e-cigarette promotion being only to divert current or future conventional cigarette smokers to e-cigarette use, the current uncertainty about the health risks of e-cigarettes, increasing e-cigarette use among youth, and the varying health effects at different e-cigarette health costs suggest a potential for harm.
Authors: Aruni Bhatnagar; Laurie P Whitsel; Kurt M Ribisl; Chris Bullen; Frank Chaloupka; Mariann R Piano; Rose Marie Robertson; Timothy McAuley; David Goff; Neal Benowitz Journal: Circulation Date: 2014-08-24 Impact factor: 29.690
Authors: Maciej Lukasz Goniewicz; Jakub Knysak; Michal Gawron; Leon Kosmider; Andrzej Sobczak; Jolanta Kurek; Adam Prokopowicz; Magdalena Jablonska-Czapla; Czeslawa Rosik-Dulewska; Christopher Havel; Peyton Jacob; Neal Benowitz Journal: Tob Control Date: 2013-03-06 Impact factor: 7.552
Authors: Israel T Agaku; Brian A King; Corinne G Husten; Rebecca Bunnell; Bridget K Ambrose; S Sean Hu; Enver Holder-Hayes; Hannah R Day Journal: MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep Date: 2014-06-27 Impact factor: 17.586
Authors: René A Arrazola; Linda J Neff; Sara M Kennedy; Enver Holder-Hayes; Christopher D Jones Journal: MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep Date: 2014-11-14 Impact factor: 17.586
Authors: Robert McMillen; Jonathan D Klein; Karen Wilson; Jonathan P Winickoff; Susanne Tanski Journal: Public Health Rep Date: 2019-08-16 Impact factor: 2.792
Authors: David T Levy; Ron Borland; Geoffrey T Fong; Andrea C Villanti; Raymond Niaura; Rafael Meza; Theodore R Holford; K Michael Cummings; David B Abrams Journal: Nicotine Tob Res Date: 2016-10-06 Impact factor: 4.244
Authors: David B Abrams; Allison M Glasser; Andrea C Villanti; Jennifer L Pearson; Shyanika Rose; Raymond S Niaura Journal: Prev Med Date: 2018-06-23 Impact factor: 4.018
Authors: Kelly C Young-Wolff; Daniella Klebaner; Bruce Folck; Andy S L Tan; Renee Fogelberg; Varada Sarovar; Judith J Prochaska Journal: Prev Med Date: 2018-01-31 Impact factor: 4.018
Authors: Lauren F Chun; Farzad Moazed; Carolyn S Calfee; Michael A Matthay; Jeffrey E Gotts Journal: Am J Physiol Lung Cell Mol Physiol Date: 2017-11-01 Impact factor: 5.464
Authors: Kar-Hai Chu; Ariel Shensa; Jason B Colditz; Jaime E Sidani; Beth L Hoffman; David Sinclair; Mary G Krauland; Brian A Primack Journal: Health Educ Behav Date: 2020-02-24
Authors: David T Levy; Ron Borland; Andrea C Villanti; Raymond Niaura; Zhe Yuan; Yian Zhang; Rafael Meza; Theodore R Holford; Geoffrey T Fong; K Michael Cummings; David B Abrams Journal: Nicotine Tob Res Date: 2016-07-14 Impact factor: 4.244