Dataset Information

Public health implications of vaping in the USA: the smoking and vaping simulation model.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Nicotine vaping products (NVPs) are increasingly popular worldwide. They may provide public health benefits if used as a substitute for smoking, but may create public health harms if used as a gateway to smoking or to discourage smoking cessation. This paper presents the Smoking and Vaping Model (SAVM), a user-friendly model which estimates the public health implications of NVPs in the USA.

Methods

SAVM adopts a cohort approach. We derive public health implications by comparing smoking- and NVP-attributable deaths and life-years lost under a No-NVP and an NVP Scenario. The No-NVP Scenario projects current, former, and never smoking rates via smoking initiation and cessation rates, with their respective mortality rates. The NVP Scenario allows for smoking- and NVP-specific mortality rates, switching from cigarette to NVP use, separate NVP and smoking initiation rates, and separate NVP and smoking cessation rates. After validating the model against recent US survey data, we present the base model with extensive sensitivity analyses.

Results

The SAVM projects that under current patterns of US NVP use and substitution, NVP use will translate into 1.8 million premature smoking- and vaping-attributable deaths avoided and 38.9 million life-years gained between 2013 and 2060. When the NVP relative risk is set to 5%, the results are sensitive to the level of switching and smoking cessation rates and to a lesser extent smoking initiation rates. When the NVP relative risk is raised to 40%, the public health gains in terms of averted deaths and LYL are reduced by 42% in the base case, and the results become much more sensitive to variations in the base case parameters.

Discussion

Policymakers, researchers, and other public health stakeholders can apply the SAVM to estimate the potential public health impact of NVPs in their country or region using their own data sources. In developing new simulation models involving NVPs, it will be important to conduct extensive sensitivity analysis and continually update and validate with new data.

Conclusion

The SAVM indicates the potential benefits of NVP use. However, given the uncertainty surrounding model parameters, extensive sensitivity analysis becomes particularly important.

SUBMITTER: Levy DT

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8052705 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BACKGROUND AND AIMS:Debate exists about whether health professionals (HPs) should advise smokers to use nicotine vaping products (NVPs) to quit smoking. The objectives were to examine in four countries: (1) the prevalence of HP discussions and recommendations to use an NVP; (2) who initiated NVP discussions; (3) the type of HP advice received about NVPs; and (4) smoker's characteristics related to receiving advice about NVPs. DESIGN:Cross-sectional study using multivariable logistic regression analyses on weighted data from the 2016 ITC Four Country Smoking and Vaping Survey (ITC 4CV1). SETTING:Four countries with varying regulations governing the sale and marketing of NVPs: 'most restrictive' (Australia), 'restrictive' (Canada) or 'less restrictive' (England and United States). PARTICIPANTS:A total of 6615 adult smokers who reported having visited an HP in the last year (drawn from the total sample of 12 294 4CV1 respondents, of whom 9398 reported smoking cigarettes daily or weekly). Respondents were from the United States (n = 1518), England (n = 2116), Australia (n = 1046), and Canada (n = 1935). MEASUREMENTS:Participants' survey responses indicated if they were current daily or weekly smokers and had visited an HP in the past year. Among those participants, further questions asked participants to report (1) whether NVPs were discussed, (2) who raised the topic, (3) advice received on use of NVPs and (4) advice received on quitting smoking. FINDINGS:Among the 6615 smokers who visited an HP in the last year, 6.8% reported discussing NVPs with an HP and 2.1% of smokers were encouraged to use an NVP (36.1% of those who had a discussion). Compared with Australia (4.3%), discussing NVPs with an HP was more likely in the United States [8.8%, odds ratio (OR) = 2.15, 95% confidence interval (CI) = 1.41-3.29] and Canada (7.8%, OR = 1.87, 95% CI = 1.26-2.78). Smokers in Australia were less likely to discuss NVPs than smokers in England (6.2%), although this was not statistically significant (OR = 1.47, 95% CI = 0.98-2.20). Overall, the prevalence of HPs recommending NVPs was three times more likely in the United States than in Australia (OR = 3.07, 95% CI = 1.45-6.47), and twice as likely in Canada (OR = 2.28, 95% CI = 1.06-4.87) than in Australia. Australia and England did not differ (OR = 1.76, 95% CI = 0.83-3.74). Just over half (54%) of respondents brought up NVPs themselves; there were no significant differences among countries. CONCLUSIONS:Discussions in Australia, Canada, England, and the United States between smokers and health professionals about nicotine vaping products appear to be infrequent, regardless of the regulatory environment. A low percentage of health professionals recommended vaping products. This was particularly evident in Australia, which has the most restrictive regulatory environment of the four countries studied.

Project description:AIMS:To examine rules about smoking and vaping in the home in relation to beliefs about the relative harm of second-hand vapor (SHV) compared with second-hand smoke (SHS) in four countries: Canada, United States, England and Australia. DESIGN:Data were available from 12?294 adults (18+) who participated in the 2016 (wave 1) International Tobacco Control Four Country Smoking and Vaping (ITC 4CV1) Survey. PARTICIPANTS:All participants were current or recent former adult smokers. MEASUREMENTS:Data were analyzed by weighted logistic regression on rules about smoking and vaping in the home; odds ratios and 95% confidence intervals were reported, adjusted for demographic and behavioral variables. FINDINGS:Of all respondents, 37.4% allowed smoking inside their home. Among a subset who were current vapers (n = 6135), 60.4% allowed vaping in their homes. After controlling for demographic and behavioral characteristics, beliefs about the harm of SHV compared with SHS was not associated with allowing smoking in the home, but was associated with allowing vaping in the home [odds ratio (OR) = 2.86 in Canada, OR = 1.82 in the United States and OR = 1.68 in England]. Characteristics that were associated with rules about vaping inside the home included daily vaping (OR = 2.95, 2.04-4.26; OR = 7.00, 4.12-11.87; OR = 5.50, 3.40-8.88; OR = 7.78, 1.90-31.80), living with a spouse who vapes (OR = 2.48, 1.54-3.98; OR = 2.69, 1.42-5.11; OR = 4.67, 2.74-7.95; OR = 21.82, 2.16-220.9) and living with children aged under 18 years (OR = 0.50, 0.37-0.68; OR = 0.89, 0.48-1.65; OR = 0.76, 0.53-1.09; OR = 0.26, = 0.11-0.61) in Canada, the United States, England and Australia, respectively. Similar characteristics were associated with rules about smoking inside the home. CONCLUSIONS:Among current and former smokers in 2016 in Canada, the United States, England and Australia, 37.4% allowed smoking in the home; 60.4% of current vapers allowed vaping. Both concurrent users and exclusive vapers were more likely to allow vaping than smoking inside the home. Allowing vaping inside the home was correlated with the belief that second-hand vapor is less harmful than second-hand smoke.

Project description:ObjectiveAn estimated 6-10 million people in India live with active epilepsy, and less than half are treated. We analyze the health and economic benefits of three scenarios of publicly financed national epilepsy programs that provide: (1) first-line antiepilepsy drugs (AEDs), (2) first- and second-line AEDs, and (3) first- and second-line AEDs and surgery.MethodsWe model the prevalence and distribution of epilepsy in India using IndiaSim, an agent-based, simulation model of the Indian population. Agents in the model are disease-free or in one of three disease states: untreated with seizures, treated with seizures, and treated without seizures. Outcome measures include the proportion of the population that has epilepsy and is untreated, disability-adjusted life years (DALYs) averted, and cost per DALY averted. Economic benefit measures estimated include out-of-pocket (OOP) expenditure averted and money-metric value of insurance.ResultsAll three scenarios represent a cost-effective use of resources and would avert 800,000-1 million DALYs per year in India relative to the current scenario. However, especially in poor regions and populations, scenario 1 (which publicly finances only first-line therapy) does not decrease the OOP expenditure or provide financial risk protection if we include care-seeking costs. The OOP expenditure averted increases from scenarios 1 through 3, and the money-metric value of insurance follows a similar trend between scenarios and typically decreases with wealth. In the first 10 years of scenarios 2 and 3, households avert on average over US$80 million per year in medical expenditure.SignificanceExpanding and publicly financing epilepsy treatment in India averts substantial disease burden. A universal public finance policy that covers only first-line AEDs may not provide significant financial risk protection. Covering costs for both first- and second-line therapy and other medical costs alleviates the financial burden from epilepsy and is cost-effective across wealth quintiles and in all Indian states.