Literature DB >> 32960217

Applying the Population Health Standard to the Regulation of Electronic Nicotine Delivery Systems.

Zachary Cahn1, Jeffrey Drope2, Clifford E Douglas3, Rosemarie Henson4, Carla J Berg5,6, David L Ashley7, Michael P Eriksen8.   

Abstract

Regulatory authorities have devoted increasing attention and resources to a range of issues surrounding the regulation of novel nicotine and tobacco products. This review highlights the inherent complexity of evaluating prospective policies that pertain to products that heat solutions containing nicotine, but not tobacco leaf, sometimes referred to as electronic nicotine delivery systems (ENDS). The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is compelled to incorporate a set of public health criteria in their decision making, collectively referred to as the Population Health Standard. Adherence to this standard is necessary to estimate the impact of prospective ENDS policy decisions on net population harm associated with nontherapeutic nicotine products. For policies that are expected to decrease or increase ENDS use, application of the Population Health Standard requires a comprehensive assessment of the status quo impact of ENDS use on population health. Accordingly, this review first assesses the state of the evidence on the direct harms of ENDS and the indirect effects of ENDS use on smoking, particularly rates of initiation and cessation. After that, the example of flavor restrictions is used to demonstrate the further considerations that are involved in applying the Population Health Standard to a prospective ENDS policy. Implications: This narrative review aims to inform regulatory considerations about ENDS through the prism of the Population Health Standard. More specifically, this review (1) describes and explains the importance of this approach; (2) provides guidance on evaluating the state of the evidence linking ENDS to the net population harm associated with nontherapeutic nicotine products; and (3) illustrates how this framework can inform policymaking using the example of flavor restrictions.
© The Author(s) 2020. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the Society for Research on Nicotine and Tobacco. All rights reserved. For permissions, please e-mail: journals.permissions@oup.com.

Entities:  

Year:  2021        PMID: 32960217     DOI: 10.1093/ntr/ntaa190

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Nicotine Tob Res        ISSN: 1462-2203            Impact factor:   4.244


  4 in total

1.  Effect on Tobacco Use and Subjective Measures of Including E-cigarettes in a Simulated Ban of Menthol in Combustible Cigarettes.

Authors:  Michael Kotlyar; Ryan Shanley; Sheena R Dufresne; Gretchen A Corcoran; Dorothy K Hatsukami
Journal:  Nicotine Tob Res       Date:  2022-08-06       Impact factor: 5.825

2.  Advancing racial equity and social justice for Black communities in US tobacco control policy.

Authors:  Sam N Cwalina; Ugonna Ihenacho; Joshua Barker; Sabrina L Smiley; Mary Ann Pentz; Heather Wipfli
Journal:  Tob Control       Date:  2021-09-15       Impact factor: 7.552

3.  An abuse liability assessment of the glo tobacco heating product in comparison to combustible cigarettes and nicotine replacement therapy.

Authors:  George Hardie; Nathan Gale; Michael McEwan; Stefano Milleri Oscar; Luigi Ziviani; Christopher J Proctor; James Murphy
Journal:  Sci Rep       Date:  2022-08-29       Impact factor: 4.996

Review 4.  Prospective association between use of electronic cigarettes and use of conventional cigarettes: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Authors:  Louise Adermark; Maria Rosaria Galanti; Charlotta Ryk; Hans Gilljam; Linnea Hedman
Journal:  ERJ Open Res       Date:  2021-07-12
  4 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.