Objective To compare trends in cigarette smoking and nicotine vaping among US population aged 17–18 years and 18–24 years. Methods Regression analyses identified trends in ever and current use of cigarettes and e-cigarettes, using three US representative surveys from 1992 to 2022. Results From 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. Conclusions Since 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.

Importance: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. Objective:To determine whether the inclusion of GWLs on cigarette packs affects pack-hiding behavior among smokers in social settings. Design, Setting, and Participants: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. Interventions: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). Main Outcomes and Measures: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. Results: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. Conclusions and Relevance: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. Trial Registration:ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02676193.

OBJECTIVES To identify how the 2017 rapid surge in sales of JUUL e-cigarettes affected usage among US youth and young adults. METHODS Annual surveys in the Population Assessment of Tobacco and Health Study assess tobacco use by product and brand among the US population. We identified 2 cohorts aged 14 to 34 years, 1 with baseline survey in 2014 before the rapid surge of JUUL and the other in 2017 as the surge in JUUL sales was occurring. For 5 age groups, we compared 2-year incidence of first tobacco use and of new-onset daily tobacco use by product, and report levels of dependence. RESULTS Sociodemographic variables and rates of experimentation with any tobacco product were similar between cohorts. Among baseline nondaily tobacco users, only those aged 14 to 17 years had an increase in the 2-year incidence of new daily tobacco use (2014 cohort = 4.8%, 95% confidence interval 4.3, 5.5 vs 2017 cohort = 6.3%, 95% confidence interval 5.8–7.0) to rates approaching those in the 1990s. In 2019, three-quarters of new daily tobacco users aged 14 to 17 vaped daily and had e-cigarette dependence scores similar to daily cigarette smokers and older adult e-cigarette vapers. We estimate that about 600 000 Americans aged <21 years used JUUL products daily in 2019, a rate 2.5 times those aged 25 to 34 years. CONCLUSIONS The surge in US JUUL sales was associated with a sharp rise in daily e-cigarette vaping and daily tobacco use among US youth, not young adults.

Question Can graphic warning labels on cigarette packs affect cognitions and smoking behavior among US daily smokers who are not ready to quit smoking? Findings This randomized clinical trial found that graphic warning labels decreased positive perceptions of cigarettes associated with branded cigarette packs but without clearly increasing health concerns. They also increased quitting cognitions but did not affect either cigarette cessation or consumption levels. Meaning Placing graphic warning labels on US cigarette packs did not have an effect on smoking behavior; however, these findings suggest that they may enhance other tobacco control strategies to reduce cigarette smoking. This randomized clinical trial examines whether graphic warning labels on cigarette packs can affect US smokers' perceptions about their cigarettes or health consequences and changes in smoking behavior. Importance The US Food and Drug Administration's implementation of graphic warning labels (GWLs) on cigarette packs is under challenge in US courts. Objective To determine whether GWLs can affect US smokers' perceptions about their cigarettes or health consequences and changes in smoking behavior. Design, Setting, and Participants 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. Interventions 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. Main Outcomes and Measures 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. Results 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. Conclusions and Relevance 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.

IMPORTANCE Although e-cigarettes are not approved as a cessation device, many who smoke believe that e-cigarettes will help them quit cigarette smoking successfully. OBJECTIVE 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. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS 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. EXPOSURES Use of e-cigarettes or alternate tobacco products at follow-up 1 after recently quitting smoking. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES Weighted percentage of participants with over 12 months abstinence by follow-up 2. RESULTS 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%). CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE This large US nationally representative study does not support the hypothesis that switching to e-cigarettes will prevent relapse to cigarette smoking. Question Is switching to e-cigarettes associated with prevention of relapse to cigarette smoking? Findings In this cohort study of a representative sample of US adults, 9.4% of respondents who smoked cigarettes became recent former smokers 1 year later. Switching to any tobacco product including e-cigarettes was associated with an 8.5% increase in relapse to smoking over the next year; this increase in relapse was similar to that seen in individuals who switched to other tobacco products. Meaning Switching to e-cigarettes is not associated with relapse prevention for cigarette smoking in US adults. This cohort study examines the relapse rates for adults who switched from smoking cigarettes to e-cigarettes or other tobacco products vs those who remained tobacco free.

OBJECTIVES:To identify predictors of becoming a daily cigarette smoker over the course of 4 years.METHODS:We identified 12- to 24-year-olds at wave 1 of the US Population Assessment of Tobacco and Health Study and determined ever use, age at first use, and daily use through wave 4 for 12 tobacco products.RESULTS:Sixty-two percent of 12- to 24-year-olds (95% confidence interval [CI]: 60.1% to 63.2%) tried tobacco, and 30.2% (95% CI: 28.7% to 31.6%) tried ≥5 tobacco products by wave 4. At wave 4, 12% were daily tobacco users, of whom 70% were daily cigarette smokers (95% CI: 67.4% to 73.0%); daily cigarette smoking was 20.8% in 25- to 28-year-olds (95% CI: 18.9% to 22.9%), whereas daily electronic cigarette (e-cigarette) vaping was 3.3% (95% CI: 2.4% to 4.4%). Compared with single product triers, the risk of progressing to daily cigarette smoking was 15 percentage points higher (adjusted risk difference [aRD] 15%; 95% CI: 12% to 18%) among those who tried ≥5 products. In particular, e-cigarette use increased the risk of later daily cigarette smoking by threefold (3% vs 10%; aRD 7%; 95% CI: 6% to 9%). Daily smoking was 6 percentage points lower (aRD −6%; 95% CI: −8% to −4%) for those who experimented after age 18 years.CONCLUSIONS:Trying e-cigarettes and multiple other tobacco products before age 18 years is strongly associated with later daily cigarette smoking. The recent large increase in e-cigarette use will likely reverse the decline in cigarette smoking among US young adults.

Electronic cigarettes (e-cigarettes) are the preferred smoking-cessation aid in the United States; however, there is little evidence regarding long-term effectiveness among those who use them. We used the Population Assessment of Tobacco and Health Study to compare long-term abstinence between matched US smokers who tried to quit with and without use of e-cigarettes as a cessation aid. We identified a nationally representative cohort of 2,535 adult US smokers in 2014-2015 (baseline assessment), who, in 2015-2016 (exposure assessment), reported a past-year attempt to quit and the cessation aids used, and reported smoking status in 2016-2017 (outcome assessment; self-reported ≥12 months continuous abstinence). We used propensity-score methods to match each e-cigarette user with similar nonusers. Among US smokers who used e-cigarettes to help quit, 12.9% (95% confidence interval (CI): 9.1%, 16.7%) successfully attained long-term abstinence. However, there was no difference compared with matched non-e-cigarette users (cigarette abstinence difference: 2%; 95% CI: -3%, 7%). Furthermore, fewer e-cigarette users were abstinent from nicotine products in the long term (nicotine abstinence difference: -4%; 95% CI: -7%, -1%); approximately two-thirds of e-cigarette users who successfully quit smoking continued to use e-cigarettes. These results suggest e-cigarettes may not be an effective cessation aid for adult smokers and, instead, may contribute to continuing nicotine dependence.

Background: The US lags behind > 120 countries in implementing graphic warning labels (GWLs) on cigarette packs. US courts prevented implementation of FDA's 2012 rule requiring GWLs citing the need for more evidence on effectiveness. After more research, in 2020, the FDA proposed a revised rule mandating GWLs. This trial will test how the introduction of GWLs influence cognitions and behavior in US smokers. Method: To investigate the "real-world" impact of GWLs in US smokers, we are conducting a randomized trial involving a 3-month intervention and 8-month follow-up. The study recruited California smokers between September 2016 through December 2019 and randomly assigned them into 3 groups (1) Blank Pack devoid of any cigarette branding; (2) GWL Pack featuring 1 of 3 rotating images added to blank pack; or (3) their usual Standard US Pack. Throughout the 3-month intervention, participants purchased study-packaged cigarettes and reported daily cognitions and behavior through ecological momentary assessments. We will validate self -reported tobacco use with saliva cotinine concentrations following the 3-month intervention and 8-month followup. Results: The trial enrolled 359 participants (average age 39 years; average cigarette consumption half a pack/ day). The 3 study groups were balanced on age, gender, race-ethnicity, education and income (17% low income) as well as on smoking related variables. Conclusions: This 3-month real-world randomized trial will test the effect of repackaging cigarettes from standard US packs to GWL plain packs on smokers' perceptions of the risks of smoking, their perception of the appeal of their cigarettes, and on their smoking behavior.

BACKGROUND:More smokers report using e-cigarettes to help them quit than FDA-approved pharmacotherapy.OBJECTIVE:To assess the association of e-cigarettes with future abstinence from cigarette and tobacco use.DESIGN:Cohort study of US sample, with annual follow-up.PARTICIPANTS: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).EXPOSURES: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.ANALYSIS:Propensity score matching (PSM) of groups using different methods to quit.OUTCOME MEASURES:12+ months abstinence at W3 from cigarettes and from all tobacco (including e-cigarettes). 30+ days abstinence at W3 was a secondary outcome.RESULTS: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.LIMITATIONS:The frequency of e-cigarette use during the LQA was not assessed, nor was it possible to assess continuous abstinence from the LQA.CONCLUSION: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.

Reducing tobacco use is an important public health objective. It is the largest preventable cause of death and disease, yet inequalities remain. This study examines combined educational and racial/ethnic disparities in the United States related to cigarette smoking for the three largest racial/ethnic groups (African Americans, Hispanics/Latinos, and non-Hispanic Whites). Data included nine Tobacco Use Supplements to the Current Population Surveys (TUS-CPS) conducted in the United States from 1992/1993-2018 for four smoking metrics: ever smoking rates, current smoking rates, consumption (cigarettes per day), and quit ratios. Across all TUS-CPS samples, there were 9.5% African Americans, 8.8% Hispanics/Latinos, and 81.8% non-Hispanic Whites who completed surveys. Findings revealed that lower educational attainment was associated with increased ever and current smoking prevalence over time across all racial/ethnic groups, and education-level disparities within each race/ethnicity widened over time. Disparities in ever and current smoking rates between the lowest and highest categories of educational attainment (less than a high school education vs. completion of college) were larger for African Americans and non-Hispanic Whites than Hispanics/Latinos. Non-Hispanic Whites had the highest cigarette consumption across all education levels over time. College graduates had the highest quit ratios for all racial/ethnic groups from 1992 to 2018, with quit ratios significantly increasing for Hispanics/Latinos and non-Hispanic Whites, but not African Americans. In conclusion, educational disparities in smoking have worsened over time, especially among African Americans and Hispanics/Latinos. Targeted tobacco control efforts could help reduce these disparities to meet public health objectives, although racial/ethnic disparities may persist regardless of educational attainment.

Three cigarette smoking behaviors influence lung cancer rates: how many people start, the amount they smoke, and the age they quit. California has reduced smoking faster than the rest of the United States and trends in these three smoking behaviors should inform lung cancer trends. We examined trends in smoking behavior (initiation, intensity, and quitting) in California and the rest of United States by regression models using the 1974-2014 National Health Interview Surveys (n = 962,174). Lung cancer mortality data for 1970-2013 was obtained from the National Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) Program. Among those aged 18 to 35 years, California had much larger declines than the rest of the United States in smoking initiation and intensity, and increased quitting. In 2012-2014, among this age group, only 18.6% [95% confidence interval (CI), 16.8%-20.3%] had ever smoked; smokers consumed only 6.3 cigarettes/day (95% CI, 5.6-7.0); and 45.7% (95% CI, 41.1%-50.4%) of ever-smokers had quit by age 35. Each of these metrics was at least 24% better than in the rest of the United States. There was no marked California effect on quitting or intensity among seniors. From 1986 to 2013, annual lung cancer mortality decreased more rapidly in California and by 2013 was 28% lower (62.6 vs. 87.5/100,000) than in the rest of the United States. California's tobacco control efforts were associated with a major reduction in cigarette smoking among those under age 35 years. These changes will further widen the lung cancer gap that already exists between California and the rest of the United States.

IMPORTANCE Cigarette marketing contributes to initiation of cigarette smoking among young people, which has led to restrictions on use of cigarette advertising. However, little is known about other tobacco advertising and progression to tobacco use in youth and young adults. OBJECTIVE To investigate whether receptivity to tobacco advertising among youth and young adults is associated with progression (being a susceptible never user or ever user) to use of the product advertised, as well as conventional cigarette smoking. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS The Population Assessment of Tobacco and Health (PATH) Study at wave 1 (2013-2014) and 1-year follow-up at wave 2 (2014-2015) was conducted in a US population-based sample of never tobacco users aged 12 to 24 years from wave 1 of the PATH Study (N = 10 989). Household interviews using audio computer-assisted self-interviews were conducted. EXPOSURES Advertising for conventional cigarettes, electronic cigarettes (e-cigarettes), cigars, and smokeless tobacco products at wave 1. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES Progression to susceptibility or ever tobacco use at 1-year follow-up in wave 2. RESULTS Of the 10 989 participants (5410 male [weighted percentage, 48.3%]; 5579 female [weighted percentage, 51.7%]), receptivity to any tobacco advertising at wave 1 was high for those aged 12 to 14 years (44.0%; 95% confidence limit [CL], 42.6%-45.4%) but highest for those aged 18 to 21 years (68.7%; 95% CL, 64.9%-72.2%). e-Cigarette advertising had the highest receptivity among all age groups. For those aged 12 to 17 years, susceptibility to use a product at wave 1 was significantly associated with product use at wave 2 for conventional cigarettes, e-cigarettes, cigars, and smokeless tobacco products. Among committed never users aged 12 to 17 years at wave 1, any receptivity was associated with progression toward use of the product at wave 2 (conventional cigarettes: adjusted odds ratio [AOR], 1.43; 95% CL, 1.23-1.65; e-cigarettes: AOR, 1.62; 95% CL, 1.41-1.85; cigars: AOR, 2.01; 95% CL, 1.62-2.49; and smokeless [males only]: AOR, 1.42; 95% CL, 1.07-1.89) and with use of the product (conventional cigarettes: AOR, 1.54; 95% CL, 1.03-2.32; e-cigarettes: AOR, 1.45; 95% CL, 1.19-1.75; cigars: AOR, 2.07; 95% CL, 1.26-3.40). Compared with those not receptive to any product advertising, receptivity to e-cigarette advertising, but not to cigarette advertising, was independently associated with those aged 12 to 21 years having used a cigarette at wave 2 (AOR, 1.60; 95% CL, 1.08-2.38). CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE Receptivity to tobacco advertising was significantly associated with progression toward use in adolescents. Receptivity was highest for e-cigarette advertising and was associated with trying a cigarette.

Author(s): Pierce, John P; Shi, Yuyan; Hendrickson, Erik; White, Martha; Noble, Madison; Kealey, Sheila; Strong, David | Abstract: Objective: In this paper, we examine whether a slowdown in implementing tobacco control policies in California after 2000 influenced trends in smoking behavior. Methods: We assessed the strength of state tobacco control policies using excise tax data (1990-2014), tobacco control expenditures per capita, and workplace and home smoking restrictions (from the Tobacco Use Supplement of the Current Population Survey, 1992-2015). Smoking prevalence was assessed with the National Health Interview Survey, 1985-2015. We compared trends between California and the rest of the US using split regression models with a knot at 2000. Results: Throughout the 1990s, compared to the rest of the US, California had higher cigarette excise taxes, higher expenditures on tobacco control, more smoke-free workplaces, and more smokers with smoke-free homes. Except for smoke-free homes, these differences disappeared after 2000. During the 1990s, smoking prevalence declined much faster in California than in the rest of the US, but the decline slowed significantly after 2000. Conclusions: Smoking prevalence is sensitive to continued implementation of tobacco control policies.

The purpose of this study was to investigate susceptibility and ever use of tobacco products among adolescents and young adults in the US. Cross-sectional analysis of Wave 1(2013–2014) adolescent (12–17year-olds; n=13,651) and young adult (18–24year-olds; n=9112) data from the nationally-representative Population Assessment of Tobacco and Health (PATH) Study was conducted. At 12years, 5% were ever tobacco users and 36% were susceptible to use. Seventy percent were susceptible at age 17years, and the same proportion were ever users at age 22years. Susceptibility levels were comparable for cigarettes and e-cigarette (28.6% and 27.4%, respectively), followed by hookah (22.0%), pipes (17.5%), cigars (15.2%), and smokeless tobacco (9.7%). Non-Hispanic (NH) Black (Adjusted Odds Ratio [ORadj]=1.36; 95% Confidence Limit [CL], 1.18–1.56) and Hispanic (ORadj=1.34: 95% CL,1.19–1.49) adolescent never- users were more likely to be susceptible to future use of a tobacco product than NH Whites. Susceptibility was higher with age (15–17yrs. vs 12–14yrs.: ORadj=1.69; 95% CL, 1.55–1.85) and parental education (college graduates vs less than HS education: ORadj=1.22, 95% CL, 1.08–1.39). Compared to exclusive users of hookah, cigars, or smokeless products, larger proportions of exclusive e-cigarette ever users were also susceptible to cigarette use. Among adolescents, lower levels of ever use of tobacco products are often counterbalanced by higher levels of susceptibility for future use, which may suggest delayed initiation in some groups. Ever users of a given tobacco product were more susceptible to use other tobacco products, putting them at risk for future multiple tobacco product use.

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.

Hypothesis: Self-reported use of complementary and alternative medicine (CAM) has been shown to increase following a cancer diagnosis, and breast cancer survivors are the heaviest users among cancer survivors. The aim of this study was to determine whether the prevalence estimate of CAM use varied according to classification of CAM. The authors used a comprehensive system to classify CAM users and test differences in demographic, lifestyle, quality of life, and cancer characteristics among them. Study design and methods: Participants were 2562 breast cancer survivors participating in the Women’s Healthy Eating and Living (WHEL) Study, aged 28 to 74 years. A structured telephone interview assessed CAM use, questioning about specific CAM practices, and whether use was related to cancer. This study examined CAM use in relation to demographics, health behaviors, and quality of life. Results: Approximately 80% of the women used CAM for general purposes but only 50% reported CAM use for cancer purposes. Visual imagery, spiritual healing, and meditation were the most frequently used practices for cancer purposes. CAM use, defined as consulting a CAM practitioner and regular use, was significantly related to younger age, higher education, increased fruit and vegetable intake, and lower body mass index ( P < .05). CAM users who had seen a practitioner were also more likely to report poor physical and mental health than non-CAM users ( P < .05). CAM use was not associated with changes in physical and mental health between study baseline and 1-year follow-up. Conclusion: This study addressed important differences in the classification of CAM use among breast cancer survivors. Future studies need to further test the potential benefits and risks associated with CAM use.

CONTEXT: The 1998 Master Settlement Agreement (MSA) restricted tobacco industry advertising practices that targeted teens. OBJECTIVE: To assess whether cigarette-advertising campaigns conducted after the MSA continue to influence smoking among adolescents. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: Participants were a national longitudinal cohort of 1036 adolescents (baseline age: 10–13 years) enrolled in a parenting study. Between 2003 and 2008, 5 sequential telephone interviews were conducted, including the participant's report of brand of “favorite” cigarette advertisement. The fifth interview was conducted after the start of RJ Reynolds' innovative “Camel No. 9” advertising campaign in 2007. Smoking outcome reported from the fifth survey. RESULTS: The response rate through the fifth survey was 71.8%. Teenagers who reported any favorite cigarette ad at baseline (mean age: 11.7 years) were 50% more likely to have smoked by the fifth interview (adjusted odds ratio: 1.5 [95% confidence interval: 1.0–2.3]). For boys, the proportion with a favorite ad was stable across all 5 surveys, as it was for girls across the first 4 surveys. However, after the start of the Camel No. 9 advertising campaign, the proportion of girls who reported a favorite ad increased by 10 percentage points, to 44%. The Camel brand accounted almost entirely for this increase, and the proportion of each gender that nominated the Marlboro brand remained relatively stable. CONCLUSIONS: After the MSA, adolescents continued to be responsive to cigarette advertising, and those who were responsive were more likely to start smoking. Recent RJ Reynolds advertising may be effectively targeting adolescent girls.

Background: Declining lung cancer rates in California have been attributed to the California Tobacco Control Program, but may reflect earlier declines in smoking. Methods: Using state-taxed sales and three survey series, we assessed trends in smoking behavior for California and the rest of the nation from 1960 to 2008 and compared these with lung cancer mortality rates. We tested the validity of recent trends in state-taxed sales by projecting results from a model of the 1960 to 2002 data. Results: From 1960 to 2002, the state-taxed sales and survey data are consistent. Californians initially smoked more than the rest of the nation, but cigarette consumption declined earlier, dropping lower in 1971 with an ever widening gap over time. Lung cancer mortality follows a similar pattern, after a lag of 16 years. Introduction of the California Tobacco Control Program doubled the rate of decline in cigarette consumption. From 2002 to 2008, differences in enforcement and tax evasion may compromise the validity of the taxed sales data. In 2010, smoking prevalence is estimated to be 9.3% in California and 17.8% in the rest of the nation. However, in 2008, for the first time, both cigarette price and tobacco control expenditures were lower in California than the rest of the nation, suggesting that the gap in smoking behavior will start to narrow. Conclusion: An effective Tobacco Control Program means that California will have faster declines in lung cancer than the rest of the nation for the next 2 decades, but possibly not beyond. Impact: Tobacco control interventions need further dissemination. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev; 19(11); 2801–10. ©2010 AACR.

OBJECTIVE To assess the cost of adopting a plant-based diet. METHODS Breast cancer survivors randomized to dietary intervention (n=1109) or comparison (n=1145) 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, P=0.027). CONCLUSIONS A major change to a plant-based diet was associated with a minimal increase in grocery costs.

Background: A diet high in vegetables, fruit, and fiber and low in fat decreased additional risk of secondary breast cancer events in women without hot flashes (HF-) compared with that in women with hot flashes (HF+), possibly through lowered concentrations of circulating estrogens.Objective: The objective was to investigate the intervention effect by baseline quartiles of dietary pattern among breast cancer survivors in the HF- subgroup of the Women's Healthy Eating and Living Study.Design: A randomized controlled trial compared a putative cancer prevention diet with a diet of 5 servings of vegetables and fruit daily in early-stage breast cancer survivors. Participants did not experience hot flashes at baseline (n = 896). We confirmed cancer status for 96% of participants approximate to 7.3 y after enrollment.Results: The study intervention achieved a large between-group difference in dietary pattern that, at 4 y, was not significantly different across baseline quartiles of dietary pattern. The intervention group experienced fewer breast cancer events than did the comparison group for all of the baseline quartiles. This difference was significant only in upper baseline quartiles of intake of vegetables, fruit, and fiber and in the lowest quartile of fat. A significant trend for fewer breast cancer events was observed across quartiles of vegetable-fruit and fiber consumption.Conclusions: The secondary analysis showing the decreased risk in the HF- subgroup was not explained by amount of change in dietary pattern achieved. The difference was strongest in the quartile with the most putatively cancer-preventive dietary pattern at baseline. Am J Clin Nutr 2009; 89(suppl): 1565S-71S.