Article Text
Abstract
Background Few studies assess whether electronic cigarette (e-cigarette) device characteristics or flavours impact longitudinal patterns of cigarette and e-cigarette use.
Design We examined data from waves 2–4 of the Population Assessment of Tobacco and Health Study (2014–2018). Among adult (≥18 years) current e-cigarette users at wave 2 who were current smokers (dual users; n=1759) and former smokers (exclusive e-cigarette users; n=470), we classified participants into four use patterns at wave 3 (~12 months later) and wave 4 (~24 months later): (1) dual use of e-cigarettes and cigarettes; (2) exclusive cigarette smoking; (3) exclusive e-cigarette use; (4) non-use of both products. We used multinomial logistic regression to assess correlates of changing use patterns at 24 months, relative to no change, adjusting for sociodemographic factors.
Results At 24 months, 26.5% of baseline exclusive e-cigarette users, and 9% of baseline dual users, abstained from both vaping and smoking. Participants who vaped non-tobacco flavours (vs tobacco flavours), and used refillable tank or modifiable devices (vs disposable, cartridges and other devices) were less likely to transition to non-use of both products and to exclusive cigarette smoking. Baseline daily vaping (vs non-daily) was positively associated with exclusive e-cigarette use at 24 months for baseline daily cigarette smokers, but negatively associated with exclusive e-cigarette use and non-use of both products at 24 months for baseline non-daily smokers.
Conclusions Non-tobacco flavours, daily vaping and modifiable e-cigarette devices may help some smokers abstain from cigarette smoking via transitioning to exclusive e-cigarette use, but are also associated with ongoing exclusive e-cigarette use.
- electronic nicotine delivery devices
- cessation
- non-cigarette tobacco products
Data availability statement
Data are available in a public, open access repository. This manuscript makes use of fully de-identified secondary data from the Population Assessment of Tobacco and Health (PATH) Study. Public use data files are available for download from the National Addiction and HIV Data Archive Program (NAHDAP): https://www.icpsr.umich.edu/web/NAHDAP/series/606".
Statistics from Altmetric.com
Introduction
In the USA, >90% of adult electronic cigarette (e-cigarette) users are current or former combustible tobacco smokers.1 Most adults vape e-cigarettes flavoured to taste like mint, menthol or sweet flavours, though cigarette smokers are more likely than non-smokers to vape tobacco flavours.2 Substantial heterogeneity exists in e-cigarette devices, which include but are not limited to disposables, cartridges, refillable tank systems and newer ‘pod-mod’ devices.3 4
Understanding how e-cigarette use changes over time, and how patterns of use relate to combustible cigarette smoking, is critical to informing tobacco product regulations. Most studies on adult e-cigarette use evaluate e-cigarettes as a smoking cessation aid.5–15 Fewer studies examine how e-cigarette use evolves over time concurrently with combustible cigarette smoking, and whether there are product characteristics or behaviours associated with more desired trajectories (eg, abstinence from both products). Recent analyses of the Population Assessment of Tobacco and Health (PATH) Study indicate >60% of US e-cigarette users discontinue use after 2 years.16 Studies from other global populations similarly demonstrate that vaping is a dynamic behaviour.17 18 However, cigarette smokers are more likely to persistently use e-cigarettes than non-smokers.16 Though some studies show e-cigarette use is associated with cigarette smoking relapse among former cigarette smokers,19 20 few studies evaluate longer term vaping patterns among former smokers. In addition, the impact of modifiable e-cigarette characteristics, including flavours or device type, on e-cigarette and cigarette use patterns is understudied.
Observational studies report that smokers who vape characterising flavours (non-tobacco flavours) are more likely to reduce cigarette consumption or abstain from smoking,21–25 though some find no association.26 27 Refillable devices or tank systems might be more effective than less customisable devices in helping smokers quit or reduce their cigarette exposure, due to increased nicotine delivery and a personalised vaping experience.28 29 Generating evidence on e-cigarette product characteristics associated with tobacco use patterns is critical as the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) evaluates the public health impact of e-cigarette products through premarket authorisation applications.30 Further, bans on flavoured tobacco products (including e-cigarettes) are being considered and implemented across the USA.31 In January 2020 the FDA banned all cartridge-based e-cigarettes with flavours other than tobacco or menthol. Understanding longitudinal patterns of smoking and vaping over time, and whether modifiable e-cigarette characteristics help or hinder smokers to abstain from both cigarettes and e-cigarettes, is critical to fully evaluate the public health impact of e-cigarettes and inform tobacco product regulations.
We aimed to quantify patterns of concurrent e-cigarette and combustible cigarette use over time among current and former combustible cigarette smokers in the USA and to assess e-cigarette correlates of different use patterns. Using prospective cohort data from the PATH Study, we assessed patterns of e-cigarette use and cigarette smoking over 2 years. We then tested whether e-cigarette product characteristics and behaviours are associated with longitudinal patterns of use.
Methods
We analysed public use data from the PATH Study, an ongoing US nationally representative prospective cohort study on tobacco product usage and health.32 At wave 1 (2013–2014), PATH sampled 32 320 adults using a four-stage stratified area probability sample design. Interviews were conducted approximately 12 months apart using computer-assisted telephone interviewing (wave 1: 2013–2014, n=32 320; wave 2: 2014–2015, n=28 362; wave 3: 2015–2016, n=28 148; wave 4: 2016–2018, n=27 757). Details on study design and response rates are published elsewhere.32 We selected wave 2 as study baseline because of greater available detail on device type and flavours.
Sample
Our sample included current and former cigarette smokers who were current e-cigarette users at baseline. Current smokers had smoked >100 cigarettes in their lifetime, and currently smoked every day or some days. Former smokers had smoked >100 cigarettes in their lifetime, and currently smoked not at all at baseline. All eligible participants used any e-cigarette product (e-cigarette, vape pen, e-hookahs, e-cigars and so on) every day or some days. We conducted preliminary analyses to examine timing of e-cigarette initiation relative to cigarette smoking status at baseline (online supplemental tables 1–3). The majority of current smokers initiated e-cigarettes after combustible cigarettes (90%), and few former smokers initiated vaping after quitting combustible cigarette smoking (1.8%). Due to small numbers of never smokers who were current e-cigarette users (n=193), we did not include this group in analyses. We excluded participants missing wave 3 or 4 interview data in order to evaluate tobacco use transitions at 12 and 24 months (n=600). The final analytical sample included 2229 e-cigarette users, including 470 exclusive e-cigarette users who were former cigarette smokers, and 1759 dual users of e-cigarettes and cigarettes (online supplemental figure 1). Hereafter, we refer to our two samples as ‘exclusive e-cigarette users’ and ‘dual users’.
Supplemental material
Measures
E-cigarette use and cigarette smoking status
At wave 3 (~12 months from baseline) and wave 4 (~24 months from baseline), we classified participants into four mutually exclusive outcomes based on current e-cigarette and cigarette use (currently vaping/smoking every day or some days). Outcome categories included dual use of e-cigarettes and cigarettes, exclusive cigarette smoking, exclusive e-cigarette use or non-use of both products.
E-cigarette product characteristics and behaviour
Our correlates of interest were e-cigarette device type, flavours, vaping frequency and time to first e-cigarette puff after waking. For device type, we first classified participants as e-cigarette users or other electronic nicotine delivery system (ENDS) users. Participants were classified as e-cigarette users if they reported using an ‘e-cigarette (including vape pens and personal vaporisers)’. Participants were classified as other ENDS users if they did not use an e-cigarette, but used an e-cigar, e-hookah, e-pipe or another ENDS product. We then further classified e-cigarette devices as disposable, cartridge-based or a refillable tank/modifiable (mod) system.
For flavour use, participants reported whether they used an e-liquid in the past 30 days flavoured to taste like ‘menthol, mint, clove, spice, fruit, chocolate, alcoholic drinks, candy or other sweets’. As in prior PATH Studies,2 25 participants responding yes were ‘non-tobacco flavour’ users, and those responding no were ‘tobacco flavour’ users. Participants classified as using tobacco flavours may actually use unflavored e-liquids (eg, propylene glycol/vegetable glycerin base only), though these are rare and not captured by PATH.2 33 We then further categorised non-tobacco flavours into mutually exclusive groups of ‘mint/menthol only’, ‘sweet flavours only’, or ‘both mint/menthol and sweet flavours’.
Participants who used e-cigarettes daily or 30 days/month were classified as daily users. Participants also reported how soon after waking they took their first e-cigarette puff. Responses were categorised as ≤5 min, 6–30 min and >30 min. Table 1 contains definitions for each e-cigarette correlate.
Covariates
Sociodemographic covariates were age (18–34, 35–54, ≥55 years), sex (male, female), race/ethnicity (non-Hispanic black, non-Hispanic other, Hispanic, Non-Hispanic white), poverty status (<100% vs ≥100% the federal poverty limit) and education (<high school or general educational development certification, high school or some college, college or advanced degree).
Additional covariates were markers of nicotine dependence and reasons for using e-cigarettes. These included other tobacco use (past 30-day use of smokeless tobacco, snus, hookah, pipes or cigars/cigarillos) and past 12-month use of nicotine replacement therapy (nicotine patch, gum, inhaler, nasal spray, lozenge or pill.) For dual users, we examined cigarette smoking intensity (1–9, 10–19, ≥20 cigarettes/day) and frequency (daily vs non-daily), time to first cigarette after waking (≤5, 6–30, ≥30 min), using e-cigarettes to cut down on cigarette smoking (yes/no) and plans to quit smoking cigarettes (yes/no). For exclusive e-cigarette users, we examined duration since quitting smoking cigarettes (≤1, 2–12, >12 months), smoking intensity when a smoker (1–9, 10–19, ≥20 cigarettes/day) and using e-cigarettes as an alternative to quitting all tobacco (yes/no). Covariates were measured at wave 2 except for poverty status (wave 1).
Statistical analysis
We analysed exclusive e-cigarette and dual user samples separately. We conducted descriptive statistics of baseline covariates and e-cigarette correlates, and examined the distribution of e-cigarette use and cigarette smoking at 12 and 24 months. We used multinomial logistic regression to estimate ORs and 95% CIs for the association between e-cigarette correlates and patterns of e-cigarette use and cigarette smoking at 24 months, with no change (ie, remaining exclusive e-cigarette user or dual user) as the reference. Final models adjusted for age, sex, race/ethnicity, poverty status and education.
In sensitivity analyses, we repeated analyses: (1) stratifying by duration since quitting smoking for exclusive e-cigarette users (<12 months vs ≥12 months), and cigarette smoking frequency for dual users (daily vs non-daily); (2) adjusting for markers of nicotine dependence and reasons for using e-cigarettes; (3) in subgroups of participants with no missing data (complete case analysis); (4) mutually adjusting for flavour use and device type in vaping frequency models and mutually adjusting for device type in flavour use models.
Analyses were conducted using Stata SE V.16. We used multiple imputation with chained equations and five imputed datasets to impute missing covariate and outcome data. Missing data ranged from <1% (vaping frequency) to 9% (time to first e-cigarette). All analyses were weighted using PATH wave 4 longitudinal sample weights and the Stata svy commands to adjust for complex survey design and non-response over follow-up. Weighting ensures estimates are representative of the non-institutionalised US civilian population at the time of wave 4 (2016–2018). CIs for descriptive statistics and the complete case analysis were derived using replicate weights and the balanced repeated replication (BRR) method with the Fay adjustment (p=0.3). Standard CIs were used for primary regression estimates as BRR methods are not compatible with Stata multiple imputation commands. As recommended by the American Statistical Association, we do not rely on null hypothesis testing, and instead interpret estimates by their magnitude and precision.34
Results
Dual users had lower income and education and were more likely to report other tobacco use than exclusive e-cigarette users (table 2). Exclusive e-cigarette users were more likely to use tank/mod style e-cigarettes and vape non-tobacco flavours, while dual users were more likely to use disposable or cartridge-based systems and vape tobacco flavours.
Patterns of e-cigarette use and cigarette smoking at 12 and 24 months
Among exclusive e-cigarette users at baseline, 55% remained exclusive e-cigarette users, 22% were non-users of cigarettes and e-cigarettes, 15% were dual users and 8% were exclusive cigarette smokers at 12 months (figure 1). At 24 months, the percentage of exclusive e-cigarette users who remained exclusive e-cigarette users decreased to 44%, while 27% became non-users of both products, 14% changed to dual use and 15% relapsed to exclusive cigarette smoking. Transitions differed by duration since quitting combustible smoking (online supplemental figure 2). By 24 months, recent cigarette quitters (<12 months) were less likely than longer term quitters (≥12 months) to remain exclusive e-cigarette users (35% vs 54%) and to transition to non-use of both products (22% vs 31%), and more likely to relapse to dual use (21% vs 6%) and exclusive cigarette smoking (22% vs 9%).
Among dual users at baseline, 35% remained dual users, 5% were exclusive e-cigarette users, 7% quit both products and 53% transitioned to exclusive cigarette smoking by 12 months. At 24 months, 26% of dual users remained dual users, 5% were exclusive e-cigarette users, 9% quit both products and 60% transitioned to exclusive cigarette smoking. Transitions differed by smoking frequency (online supplemental figure 3). By 24 months, daily cigarette smokers were less likely than non-daily smokers to transition to exclusive e-cigarette use (3% vs 11%) and non-use of both products (7% vs 15%), and more likely to return to exclusive cigarette smoking (65% vs 46%).
Correlates of tobacco use transitions among exclusive e-cigarette users at baseline
Transition to non-use of e-cigarettes and cigarettes at 24 months
Exclusive e-cigarette users who used disposable e-cigarettes, cartridge-based devices or other ENDS compared with those who used tank/mods were more likely to transition to non-use of e-cigarettes and cigarettes at 24 months, relative to remaining an exclusive e-cigarette user (OR disposable: 2.68, 95% CI: 1.08 to 6.65; OR cartridge: 1.97, 95% CI: 1.03 to 3.78; OR other ENDS: 8.21, 95% CI: 2.54 to 26.6) (table 3). Compared with tobacco flavours, any non-tobacco flavour use was inversely associated with non-use of both products at 24 months (OR: 0.41, 95% CI: 0.22 to 0.74). Adjusted ORs were similar for mint/menthol only (OR: 0.40, 95% CI: 0.15 to 1.04), sweet flavours only (OR: 0.42, 95% CI: 0.21 to 0.81), and both mint/menthol and sweet flavours (OR: 0.41, 95% CI: 0.16 to 1.02). Daily vaping (vs non-daily) was inversely associated with non-use of both products at 24 months (OR: 0.06, 95% CI: 0.03 to 0.11).
Transition to dual use at 24 months
Daily vaping (vs non-daily) was inversely associated with dual use at 24 months relative to remaining an exclusive e-cigarette user (OR: 0.50, 95% CI: 0.24 to 1.03).
Transition to exclusive cigarette smoking at 24 months
Cartridge-based devices compared with tank/mods were positively associated with exclusive cigarette smoking at 24 months versus remaining an exclusive e-cigarette user (OR: 2.32, 95% CI: 1.05 to 5.14). Non-tobacco flavours (vs tobacco flavours, OR: 0.51, 95% CI: 0.25 to 1.03) and daily vaping (vs non-daily, OR: 0.19, 95% CI: 0.09 to 0.40) were inversely associated with exclusive cigarette smoking at 24 months. Estimates for specific flavour types were imprecise, however mint/menthol flavours conferred the weakest association (OR: 0.83, 95% CI; 0.25 to 2.66), with the strongest inverse association for both mint/menthol and sweet flavours (OR: 0.40, 95% CI: 0.13 to 1.18).
Correlates of tobacco use transitions among dual users at baseline
Transition to non-use of e-cigarettes and cigarettes at 24 months
Dual users who used disposable devices compared with tank/mod devices were more likely to report non-use of both products at 24 months relative to remaining a dual user (OR: 2.44, 95% CI: 1.31 to 4.57) (table 4). Non-tobacco flavour use (vs tobacco flavour) was inversely associated with transition to non-use of both products (OR: 0.43, 95% CI: 0.28 to 0.67). The strongest inverse associations were for mint/menthol (OR: 0.33, 95% CI: 0.16 to 0.68) and both mint/menthol and sweet flavours (OR: 0.30, 95% CI: 0.14 to 0.62).
Transition to exclusive cigarette smoking at 24 months
Dual users who used disposable, cartridge-based or other ENDS devices compared with tank/mods were more likely to report exclusive cigarette smoking at 24 months relative to remaining a dual user (OR disposable: 2.46, 95% CI: 1.67 to 3.62; OR cartridge: 1.42, 95% CI: 1.07 to 1.90; OR other ENDS: 2.18, 95% CI: 1.07 to 4.43). Any non-tobacco flavour use (vs tobacco flavour) was inversely associated with exclusive cigarette smoking relative to remaining a dual user (OR: 0.51, 95% CI: 0.39 to 0.67). The strongest inverse association was for both mint/menthol and sweet flavours (OR: 0.34, 95% CI: 0.21 to 0.55). Daily vaping (vs non-daily) was inversely associated with exclusive cigarette smoking at 24 months (OR: 0.38, 95% CI: 0.28 to 0.53).
Transition to exclusive e-cigarette use at 24 months
Using a disposable versus tank/mod devices was inversely associated with transitioning to exclusive e-cigarette use relative to remaining a dual user (OR: 0.30, 95% CI: 0.10 to 0.89). Daily versus non-daily vaping (OR: 3.77, 95% CI: 2.17 to 6.52) and waiting 6–30 min to smoke cigarettes after waking versus <5 min (OR: 2.53, 95% CI: 1.10 to 5.81) were positively associated with exclusive e-cigarette use at 24 months relative to remaining a dual user.
Sensitivity analyses
Among exclusive e-cigarette users, similar trends were seen when stratifying models by duration since quitting smoking (online supplemental table 4). Among dual users, there was a noticeable difference in the association between vaping frequency and tobacco use transitions by cigarette smoking frequency (online supplemental table 5). Among dual users who smoked cigarettes daily, daily vaping was positively associated with transition to exclusive e-cigarette use and negatively associated with transitioning to exclusive cigarette smoking relative to remaining a dual user. Among non-daily smokers, daily vaping was inversely associated with transitioning to non-use and exclusive e-cigarette use, but positively associated with transition to exclusive cigarette smoking relative to remaining a dual user. Associations persisted after adjustment for markers of nicotine dependence and reasons for using e-cigarettes (online supplemental tables 6 and 7), and when restricting to participants with no missing data (online supplemental tables 8 and 9). Mutual adjustment did not markedly alter results (online supplemental table 10).
Discussion
In this nationally representative cohort study of current and former cigarette smokers using e-cigarettes, longitudinal patterns of e-cigarette and cigarette use differed by cigarette smoking status and e-cigarette device characteristics. Approximately one-quarter of exclusive e-cigarette users, and 9% of dual users of e-cigarettes and cigarettes, abstained from both vaping and cigarette smoking by 24 months. Vaping daily, non-tobacco flavours, and refillable tank/mod devices were associated with reduced likelihood of exclusive cigarette smoking and increased likelihood of exclusive e-cigarette use at 24 months among baseline exclusive e-cigarette and dual users.
Among exclusive e-cigarette users at baseline, 44% continued exclusive e-cigarette use after 2 years. However, among dual users at baseline, only 26% maintained dual use at 2 years, with 60% returning to exclusive cigarette smoking and just 5% transitioning to exclusive e-cigarette use. These findings highlight important differences in vaping patterns by cigarette smoking status: e-cigarette use remained relatively stable for exclusive e-cigarette users who were former smokers, while dual users were more likely to switch patterns of use. Our findings are supported by prior research showing vaping is highly dynamic for current smokers.17 18 35–37 We demonstrate exclusive vaping was the most common use pattern for former smokers who use e-cigarettes. These results highlight that vaping may not be a temporary smoking intervention, but rather a new adopted behaviour once cessation is achieved. Our results corroborate other research showing many cigarette smokers continue vaping after quitting cigarette smoking.5 38 Importantly, the percentage of participants who quit both vaping and smoking increased over time. In addition, exclusive e-cigarette users who had quit smoking less than 12 months from baseline, and dual users who were daily cigarette smokers were less likely to achieve abstinence from both products at 2 years. Our findings highlight the need to track both e-cigarette use and cigarette smoking over time, and to identify factors that facilitate smokers to quit both products.
Participants who vaped sweet or mint/menthol flavours (vs tobacco flavours), and those that used refillable tank/mod devices (vs cartridges, disposables and other ENDS products) were less likely to abstain from vaping and smoking over follow-up, but also less likely to relapse to exclusive cigarette smoking. Dual users vaping disposable e-cigarettes were less likely than those using tank/mod devices to substitute exclusive vaping for dual use. Non-tobacco flavours and tank devices may aid in smoking abstinence by making vaping more palatable and customisable.21–24 39 However, flavours and more customisable features may also encourage continued vaping after quitting smoking. Some customisable e-cigarettes have the ability to deliver greater nicotine exposure than disposables or cartridge-based devices, leading to sustained use. Other studies report flavoured tobacco use is associated with sustained or more frequent use of the same product.40 41 Our results and prior literature indicate a public health trade-off: there may be e-cigarette characteristics that appeal to smokers and help smokers switch to e-cigarettes and maintain smoking abstinence that simultaneously make it harder to quit vaping in the long term.
In this study, greater vaping frequency was associated with smoking abstinence through e-cigarette substitution, but lower likelihood of abstaining from both vaping and smoking. Importantly, daily vaping was only beneficial for daily cigarette smokers, and was inversely associated with smoking abstinence for non-daily cigarette smokers. Prior studies find e-cigarettes may be more efficacious for cigarette cessation with greater vaping frequency.8 42 Our results indicate that frequent vaping may only benefit daily cigarette smokers. Daily and non-daily smokers are likely distinct populations43 44 and should be assessed separately in studies of e-cigarette use and smoking abstinence.
Our findings have implications for tobacco regulations. Given that 70% of former smokers and 47% of current smokers in our nationally representative sample used a characterising (non-tobacco) flavour, there may be trade-offs of banning flavoured vaping options. On the one hand, flavours may help with smoking abstinence by making e-cigarettes more appealing and palatable. On the other hand, flavourings may contribute to greater long-term usage of e-cigarettes, and restricting flavours may help reduce the percentage of the population addicted to e-cigarettes. In addition, prior research suggests e-cigarette flavours appeal to youth,45 and thus attention should be given to the impact of regulating flavours on youth populations. Similar trade-offs apply to regulation of customisable devices, which may be associated with greater intensity of youth cigarette smoking.46 Results indicate a need for studies that examine differences between e-cigarette product characteristics rather than homogenising e-cigarettes as one single product.
Our study has limitations. Outcomes were defined as current use, however some participants may have used e-cigarettes or cigarettes between surveys, but not at the time of data collection. We did not define the temporal ordering of e-cigarette use relative to cigarette smoking. However, most adults initiate e-cigarettes to help quit or reduce cigarette smoking,21 47 48 and so we expect most dual users initiated cigarettes prior to e-cigarettes, and most exclusive e-cigarette users initiated e-cigarettes prior to quitting smoking (see online supplemental tables 1–3). Due to small numbers, we were unable to evaluate product characteristics with greater granularity or in combination. There may be residual confounding and results should be interpreted as associations rather than effects. We excluded participants missing follow-up data; if loss to follow-up is associated with product characteristics and tobacco use outcomes, this may induce selection bias.49 Importantly, the tobacco product landscape has evolved since the study period, and we do not capture more current products such as pod-mod e-cigarettes.4 Finally, our results apply to adults in the USA, and should not necessarily be generalised to youth populations who have different vaping motivations and behaviours, or to other countries with different tobacco products, policies and norms.
This study revealed that many former smokers who used e-cigarettes continued to vape after 2 years, while most current smokers returned to exclusive cigarette smoking. Current and former smokers who vaped with greater frequency used non-tobacco flavours, and used refillable tank or mod devices were less likely to transition to exclusive cigarette smoking, but were also less likely to abstain from vaping over follow-up. When making regulatory decisions, policymakers will need to consider the trade-off between preventing more smokers and youth from becoming addicted to vaping versus potentially helping smokers quit smoking, or maintain smoking abstinence through e-cigarette substitution.
What this paper adds
Few studies examine how electronic cigarette (e-cigarette) use evolves over time concurrently with combustible cigarette smoking, and whether there are modifiable e-cigarette product characteristics associated with more desired trajectories (eg, abstinence from both products).
We used three waves of the nationally representative Population Assessment of Tobacco and Health Study and found that after 2 years, 44% of exclusive e-cigarette users at baseline continued exclusive e-cigarette use. Among dual users at baseline, 26% maintained dual use at 2 years, and 60% returned to exclusive cigarette smoking.
The percentage of participants who abstained from both vaping and smoking increased over time. Exclusive e-cigarette users who had quit cigarette smoking <12 months from baseline (vs ≥12 months), and dual users who were daily cigarette smokers (vs non-daily) were less likely to achieve abstinence from both products at 2 years.
Vaping daily, flavours and tank/modifiable devices were associated with lower likelihood of abstaining from both vaping and cigarette smoking, and lower likelihood of returning to exclusive cigarette smoking after 2 years.
Data availability statement
Data are available in a public, open access repository. This manuscript makes use of fully de-identified secondary data from the Population Assessment of Tobacco and Health (PATH) Study. Public use data files are available for download from the National Addiction and HIV Data Archive Program (NAHDAP): https://www.icpsr.umich.edu/web/NAHDAP/series/606".
Ethics statements
Patient consent for publication
Ethics approval
This research was deemed exempt by the Boston University Medical Center Institutional Review Board.
References
Supplementary materials
Supplementary Data
This web only file has been produced by the BMJ Publishing Group from an electronic file supplied by the author(s) and has not been edited for content.
Footnotes
Twitter @astokes
Contributors AFH conducted all analyses and wrote the first draft of the manuscript. AS and JLF provided supervision to analyses. All authors helped with interpretation of results, provided edits to the manuscript and approved the final version of the manuscript.
Funding This work was supported by the National Heart, Lung and Blood Institute and FDA Center for Tobacco Products (CTP) through U54HL120163 and K01HL154130-01.
Disclaimer The content is solely the responsibility of the authors and does not necessarily represent the official views of the NIH, the Food and Drug Administration or the American Heart Association.
Competing interests None declared.
Provenance and peer review Not commissioned; externally peer reviewed.
Supplemental material This content has been supplied by the author(s). It has not been vetted by BMJ Publishing Group Limited (BMJ) and may not have been peer-reviewed. Any opinions or recommendations discussed are solely those of the author(s) and are not endorsed by BMJ. BMJ disclaims all liability and responsibility arising from any reliance placed on the content. Where the content includes any translated material, BMJ does not warrant the accuracy and reliability of the translations (including but not limited to local regulations, clinical guidelines, terminology, drug names and drug dosages), and is not responsible for any error and/or omissions arising from translation and adaptation or otherwise.