Selya AS, Foxon F. Trends in electronic cigarette use and conventional smoking: quantifying a possible 'diversion' effect among US adolescents.
Addiction 2021;
116:1848-1858. [PMID:
33394529 PMCID:
PMC8172422 DOI:
10.1111/add.15385]
[Citation(s) in RCA: 27] [Impact Index Per Article: 9.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 06/09/2020] [Revised: 10/12/2020] [Accepted: 12/16/2020] [Indexed: 01/22/2023]
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND AIMS
The impact of electronic cigarettes (ECs) on nicotine use is hotly debated: some fear that ECs are a 'catalyst' to conventional smoking, while others argue that they divert adolescents from the more harmful product. This study used simulation modeling to evaluate the plausibility of catalyst and diversion hypotheses against real-world data.
DESIGN
A simulation model represented life-time exclusive EC use, exclusive conventional smoking and dual use as separate subpopulations. The 'catalyst' effect was modeled as EC use increasing dual use initiation (i.e. EC users also start smoking). The 'diversion' effect was modeled as EC use decreasing exclusive cigarette initiation. The model was calibrated using data from the US National Youth Tobacco Survey (NYTS). The plausibility of each scenario was evaluated by comparing simulated trends with NYTS data. This is the first study, to our knowledge, to estimate the magnitude of a diversion effect through simulation.
SETTING
United States.
PARTICIPANTS AND MEASUREMENTS
Adolescents aged 12-17 years in NYTS, a cross-sectional study from 2000 to 2019 (n = 12 500 to 31 000 per wave). Exclusive cigarette use, exclusive EC use and dual use of both products were defined using cumulative life-time criteria (100+ cigarettes smoked and/or > 100 days vaped).
FINDINGS
A null model (no catalyst or diversion) over-predicts NYTS smoking by up to 87%. Under the conservative assumption that the catalyst effect accounts for all dual use, an exponential decay constant of 19.6% EC users/year initiating smoking is required; however, this further over-predicts actual smoking by up to 109%. A diversion effect with an exponential decay constant of 55.4%/year or 65.4%/year, with the maximum possible opposing catalyst effect also active, is required optimally to match NYTS smoking trends (root mean square error = 286 632 versus 391 396 in the null model).
CONCLUSIONS
A simulation model shows that a substantial diversion effect is needed to explain observed nicotine use trends among US adolescents, and it must be larger than any possible opposing catalyst effect, if present.
Collapse