JUUL Labs' sponsorship and the scientific integrity of vaping research

Assessing the public discourse on Twitter: Reactions to the JUUL e-cigarettes ban in the United States

INTRODUCTION

JUUL is a high-nicotine pod-based vaping device that is popular among adolescents and young adults. On 23 June 2022, the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) denied authorization to market JUUL, and ordered JUUL Labs to remove products from the US market. The next day, a US federal appeals court temporarily suspended the ban. The mixed public discourse surrounding the FDA ban warrants further investigation.

METHODS

This study examined Twitter data to describe public reaction to these announcements. Posts containing terms 'JUUL' and/or '#JUUL' (N=97548 unique tweets) were collected from 23 June to 3 July 2022, from Twitter's Streaming Application Programming Interface (API). After removing retweets, we used an inductive approach to become familiar with the data, generated a codebook, and conducted a content analysis on a random sample of n=4000 tweets.

RESULTS

A total of 2755 (68.9%) tweets discussed JUUL in the context of the FDA ban. News (n=1425/2755; 51.7%) about the JUUL ban, government distrust (n=588; 21.3%), and individual rights (n=253; 9.2%) were the most prevalent themes. Less commonly discussed themes included inconsistencies between policies (n=174; 6.3%), mentions of switching to other products (n=162; 5.9%), smoking cessation (n=99; 3.6%), and craving for JUUL (n=94; 3.4%). Sentiment analysis of JUUL ban-related posts (n=2755) demonstrated that 1989 (72.2%) tweets were categorized as neutral, while anti-ban posts (n=566; 20.5%) were more prevalent than pro-ban posts (n=200; 7.3%).

CONCLUSIONS

Besides straightforward announcements of the JUUL ban and its suspension, Twitter posts discussed government distrust, individual rights, and policy inconsistencies. While most posts conveyed neutral sentiments, anti-ban posts were almost three times more prevalent than pro-ban posts. Our findings suggest that text-based social media platforms like Twitter may be an effective instrument to understand opinions, attitudes, and beliefs regarding the FDA's JUUL ban.

Vaping industry participation standards in health organizations: an exploratory policy content analysis

The vaping industry has been found to employ similar tactics to tobacco industry actors to seek credibility and distort the scientific evidence base around the health harms of nicotine vaping products. As vaping industry interests undermine vaping control efforts, safeguards are necessary to protect against this influence. We aimed to examine health organizations' policies on vaping industry participation in their activities in Australia. A descriptive approach integrating policy analysis and key informant surveys was used to obtain vaping industry participation information from health research stakeholders. Descriptive statistics on organization type, policy document type, policy document industry focus (tobacco or vaping) and respondent role and responsibility were collected. We used framework analysis to identify themes describing organizational allowances, constraints, and rationale for vaping industry research participation. Relevant health organizations were identified within Australia for policy searching (n = 156), which identified 47 unique policy documents. After contacting 267 key stakeholders from eligible organizations, 31 survey responses were analysed. Research organizations and universities were highly represented in both the policy and survey data. Most health research stakeholders recognized that vaping industry interests counteract public health priorities and opposed vaping industry participation. However, many organizations lacked clear, vaping industry-specific participation policies. To protect the integrity of the emerging evidence base around vaping harms which inform vaping policy, health organizations require strong, comprehensive policies to resist vaping industry participation in research.

E-cigarette manufacturers' compliance with clinical trial reporting expectations: a case series of registered trials by Juul Labs

BACKGROUND

Electronic cigarettes (e-cigarettes) are a frequently debated topic in public health. It is essential that clinical trials examining e-cigarettes are fully and accurately reported, especially given long-standing concerns about tobacco industry research. We assess the reporting of clinical trials sponsored by Juul Labs, the largest e-cigarette company in the USA, against accepted reporting standards.

METHODS

We searched ClinicalTrials.gov for all trials sponsored by Juul Labs and determined those with registry data consistent with coverage by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) Amendments Act 2007 (FDAAA). For trials with a primary completion date more than 1 year earlier, we searched ClinicalTrials.gov, the academic literature and a Juul-funded research database (JLI Science) for results. For located results, we compared reported outcomes with registered outcomes in line with Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials (CONSORT) reporting guidelines.

RESULTS

We located five registered trials sponsored by Juul Labs that appeared covered by the FDAAA 2007 in the public data. All five trials did not have results available on ClinicalTrials.gov. We found one publication and four poster presentations reporting results for four of the five covered trials outside of ClinicalTrials.gov. Of 61 specified outcomes, 28 were CONSORT compliant. Specific outcome reporting issues are detailed.

DISCUSSION

Our findings raise substantial concerns regarding these trials. Clinicians, public health professionals, and the public cannot make informed choices about the benefits or hazards of e-cigarettes if the results of clinical trials are not completely and transparently reported. Clarification and potential enforcement of reporting laws may be required.

Examining Twitter Discourse on Electronic Cigarette and Tobacco Consumption During National Cancer Prevention Month in 2018: Topic Modeling and Geospatial Analysis

Background

Examining public perception of tobacco products is critical for effective tobacco policy making and public education outreach. While the link between traditional tobacco products and lung cancer is well established, it is not known how the public perceives the association between electronic cigarettes (e-cigarettes) and lung cancer. In addition, it is unclear how members of the public interact with official messages during cancer campaigns on tobacco consumption and lung cancer.

Objective

In this study, we aimed to analyze e-cigarette and smoking tweets in the context of lung cancer during National Cancer Prevention Month in 2018 and examine how e-cigarette and traditional tobacco product discussions relate to implementation of tobacco control policies across different states in the United States.

Methods

We mined tweets that contained the term “lung cancer” on Twitter from February to March 2018. The data set contained 13,946 publicly available tweets that occurred during National Cancer Prevention Month (February 2018), and 10,153 tweets that occurred during March 2018. E-cigarette–related and smoking-related tweets were retrieved, using topic modeling and geospatial analysis.

Results

Debates on harmfulness (454/915, 49.7%), personal experiences (316/915, 34.5%), and e-cigarette risks (145/915, 15.8%) were the major themes of e-cigarette tweets related to lung cancer. Policy discussions (2251/3870, 58.1%), smoking risks (843/3870, 21.8%), and personal experiences (776/3870, 20.1%) were the major themes of smoking tweets related to lung cancer. Geospatial analysis showed that discussion on e-cigarette risks was positively correlated with the number of state-level smoke-free policies enacted for e-cigarettes. In particular, the number of indoor and on campus smoke-free policies was related to the number of tweets on e-cigarette risks (smoke-free indoor, r49=0.33, P=.02; smoke-free campus, r49=0.32, P=.02). The total number of e-cigarette policies was also positively related to the number of tweets on e-cigarette risks (r49=0.32, P=.02). In contrast, the number of smoking policies was not significantly associated with any of the smoking themes in the lung cancer discourse (P>.13).

Conclusions

Though people recognized the importance of traditional tobacco control policies in reducing lung cancer incidences, their views on e-cigarette risks were divided, and discussions on the importance of e-cigarette policy control were missing from public discourse. Findings suggest the need for health organizations to continuously engage the public in discussions on the potential health risks of e-cigarettes and raise awareness of the insidious lobbying efforts from the tobacco industry.

Youth and Young Adult Use of Pod-Based Electronic Cigarettes From 2015 to 2019: A Systematic Review

IMPORTANCE

The use of electronic cigarettes (e-cigarettes) has rapidly increased among youth and young adults, but knowledge gaps exist on the potential health effects of using recently introduced pod-based e-cigarettes.

OBJECTIVE

To conduct a systematic review of recent peer-reviewed scientific literature on pod-based e-cigarettes.

EVIDENCE REVIEW

A search of online databases, including PubMed, Web of Science, Embase, and EBSCO HOST, was conducted to identify pod-based e-cigarette-associated articles from June 2015 (the time when JUUL [JUUL Labs] was introduced) to June 2019. We included English-language articles that presented primary data on pod-based e-cigarettes.

FINDINGS

Pod-based e-cigarettes represent a substantial evolution in design by increasing the efficient delivery of nicotine. While these products may contain less harmful constituents than other types of e-cigarettes and cigarettes, there is no evidence that the levels found are safe among youth. There is evidence for higher nicotine dependence associated with their use. Pod-based e-cigarette brands, compared with other e-cigarette brands, have targeted youth and young adults with social media marketing. There was less discussion about the use of these products as smoking cessation devices or their health risks on social media. The social acceptability and favorable perceptions of pod-based e-cigarettes may underlie the use of these products.

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

The appeal and dependence potential of pod-based e-cigarettes for youth emphasize the need for stronger regulations on product design, social media, marketing channels, and youth access together with health communications that emphasize the risks of nicotine dependence.