Dataset Information

Estimating the reduction in US mortality if cigarettes were largely replaced by e-cigarettes.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Recent estimates indicated substantially replacing cigarettes by e-cigarettes would, during 2016-2100, reduce US deaths and life-years lost (millions) by 6.6 and 86.7 (Optimistic Scenario) and 1.6 and 20.8 (Pessimistic). To provide additional insight we use alternative modelling based on a shorter period (1991-2040), four main smoking-associated diseases, deaths aged 30-79 years, and a full product history. We consider variations in: assumed effective dose of e-cigarettes versus cigarettes (F); their relative quitting rate (Q); proportions smoking after 10 years (X); and initiation rate (I) of vaping, relative to smoking.

Methods

We set F = 0.05, X = 5%, Q = 1.0 and I = 1.0 (Main Scenario) and F = 0.4, X = 10%, Q = 0.5 and I = 1.5 (Pessimistic Scenario). Sensitivity Analyses varied Main Scenario parameters singly; F from 0 to 0.4, X 0.01% to 15%, and Q and I 0.5 to 1.5. To allow comparison with prior work, individuals cannot be dual users, re-initiate, or switch except from cigarettes to e-cigarettes.

Results

Main Scenario reductions were 2.52 and 26.23 million deaths and life-years lost; Pessimistic Scenario reductions were 0.76 and 8.31 million. These were less than previously, due to the more limited age-range and follow-up, and restriction to four diseases. Reductions in deaths (millions) varied most for X, from 3.22 (X = 0.01%) to 1.31 (X = 15%), and F, 2.74 (F = 0) to 1.35 (F = 0.4). Varying Q or I had little effect.

Conclusions

Substantial reductions in deaths and life-years lost were observed even under pessimistic assumptions. Estimates varied most for X and F. These findings supplement literature indicating e-cigarettes can importantly impact health challenges from smoking.

SUBMITTER: Lee PN

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8748352 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:Snus is an oral smokeless tobacco product which is usually placed behind the upper lip, either in a loose form or in portioned sachets, and is primarily used in Sweden and Norway. The purpose of this review is to examine the reported effects of snus use in relation to specified health effects, namely lung cancer, cardiovascular disease, pancreatic cancer, diabetes, oral cancer and non-neoplastic oral disease. The review also examines the harm reduction potential of snus as an alternative to cigarettes by comparing the prevalence of snus use and cigarette smoking, and the reported incidence of tobacco-related diseases across European Union countries. The scientific literature generally indicates that the use of snus is not a significant risk factor for developing lung cancer, cardiovascular disease, pancreatic cancer or oral cancer. Studies investigating snus use and diabetes have reported that high consumption of snus (estimated as being four or more cans per week) may be associated with a higher risk of developing diabetes or components of metabolic syndrome; however, overall results are not conclusive. Snus use is associated with the presence of non-neoplastic oral mucosal lesions which are reported to heal rapidly once use has stopped. The most recent Eurobarometer data from 2017 reported that Sweden had the lowest prevalence of daily cigarette use in the European Union at 5% whilst daily "oral tobacco" use was reported to be 20%. European data published by the World Health Organisation in 2018 indicated that Sweden had the lowest rate of tobacco-related mortality and the lowest incidence of male lung cancer. Overall, prevalence statistics and epidemiological data indicate that the use of snus confers a significant harm reduction benefit which is reflected in the comparatively low levels of tobacco-related disease in Sweden when compared with the rest of Europe. The available scientific data, including long-term population studies conducted by independent bodies, demonstrates that the health risks associated with snus are considerably lower than those associated with cigarette smoking.

Project description:This pilot study tested a novel human laboratory model for estimating the extent to which electronic cigarettes (e-cigarettes) serve as motivational substitutes for combustible cigarettes. The model assesses 3 parameters of substitutability, including the: (a) increase in motivational reward value of e-cigarettes after tobacco deprivation; (b) reduction in the reward value of combustible cigarettes after e-cigarette administration; and (c) comparability of the withdrawal-suppressing effects of e-cigarettes versus combustible cigarettes. Dual users (daily smokers, vaped 4+ days/week, M age = 35.3) attended 4 visits after 16-h tobacco product abstinence. For 2 visits, participants completed withdrawal measures and a task assessing smoking's reward value preceded by either: satiation by vaping or sustained tobacco product deprivation. For 2 other visits, participants completed withdrawal measures and a task assessing vaping's reward value preceded by either: continued deprivation versus satiation by smoking. Tobacco product deprivation (vs. satiation by smoking) increased vaping's reward value, indicated by nonsignificantly greater likelihood of initiating vaping versus abstaining for money (d = -.26; adjusted p [padj] = .08) and more vaping episodes purchased (? = .22; padj = .08). Satiation by vaping (vs. deprivation) nonsignificantly reduced smoking initiation (d = .46; padj = .09) and significantly decreased number of cigarettes purchased (? = -.29; padj = .04). Relative to deprivation, vaping suppressed withdrawal-related negative affect, smoking and vape urge, and anhedonia (ds ? .54). The magnitude of vaping-induced and smoking-induced withdrawal suppression did not significantly differ for all outcomes other than smoking urge, which was more strongly reduced by smoking (d = -1.57) than vaping (d = -.64). Future application and extension of this model may advance tobacco regulatory science and policy addressing e-cigarette use among smokers. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2019 APA, all rights reserved).