Changes in State-Level Cigarette Sales During the COVID-19 Pandemic.

This cohort study estimates state-level changes in cigarette sales in the US during the COVID-19 pandemic.

Changes in Smoking Cessation-Related Behaviors Among US Adults During the COVID-19 Pandemic.

Importance: Smoking cessation is an urgent public health priority given that smoking is associated with increased risk of severe COVID-19 outcomes and other diseases. It is unknown how smoking cessation changed nationally during the COVID-19 pandemic. Objective: To investigate changes in smoking cessation-related behaviors in the US during the COVID-19 pandemic. Design, Setting, and Participants: This cross-sectional study was conducted using 2011 to 2020 data on 788 008 individuals who had smoked in the past year from the nationally representative Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System (BRFSS) survey. Representative retail scanner sales data between January 2017 and July 2021 for 1004 unique nicotine replacement therapy (NRT) universal product codes in 31 US states from NielsenIQ were also used. Exposures: Calendar year and 4-week sales periods. Main Outcomes and Measures: Changes in annual self-reported prevalence of past-year quit attempts and recent successful cessation before (ie, 2011-2019) and during (ie, 2020) the COVID-19 pandemic and changes in sales volumes in millions of pieces of nicotine gum, lozenge, and patch brands before (1271 four-week sales periods between January 2017 and February 2020) and during (558 four-week sales periods between March 2020 and July 2021) the COVID-19 pandemic were calculated. Results: The 2011 to 2020 pooled BRFSS sample (response rate range, 45.2%-49.9%) included 788 008 respondents (243 061 individuals ages 25-44 years [weighted percentage, 42.5%]; 374 519 men [weighted percentage, 55.7%]). For the first time since 2011, annual past-year quit attempt prevalence decreased between 2019 and 2020, from 65.2% (95% CI, 64.5% to 65.9%) to 63.2% (95% CI, 62.3% to 64.0%), with the largest relative decreases among individuals ages 45 to 64 years (61.4% [95% CI, 60.3% to 62.5%] vs 57.7% [95% CI, 56.3% to 59.2%]), those with 2 or more comorbidities (67.1% [95% CI, 66.0% to 68.2%] to 63.0% [95% CI, 61.6% to 64.4%]), and Black individuals (72.5% [95% CI, 70.3 to 74.6] vs 68.4% [95% CI, 65.3% to 71.3%]). Recent successful cessation remained unchanged during 2019 to 2020. Observed mean (SD) 4-week NRT sales volume in the prepandemic period was 105.6 (66.2) million gum pieces, 51.9 (31.6) million lozenges, and 2.0 (1.1) million patches. Compared with expected sales, observed sales during the COVID-19 pandemic were lower by 13.0% (95% CI, -13.7% to -12.3%) for lozenges, 6.4% (95% CI, -7.3% to -5.5%) for patches, and 1.2% (95% CI, -1.7% to -0.7%) for gum. Conclusions and Relevance: This study found that serious smoking cessation activity among US adults decreased immediately and remained depressed for more than a year during the COVID-19 pandemic. These findings suggest that smokers experiencing disproportionately negative outcomes during the pandemic should be reengaged and assisted in quit attempts.

Relative Harm Perceptions of E-Cigarettes Versus Cigarettes, U.S. Adults, 2018-2020.

INTRODUCTION: It is unknown how U.S. adults' relative harm perceptions of E-cigarettes versus cigarettes and associated behaviors changed during the E-cigarette or vaping product use‒associated lung injury epidemic (late 2019) and COVID-19 pandemic (since early 2020). METHODS: Data from cross-sectional nationally representative Health Information National Trends Survey collected in 2018 (n=3,360), 2019 (n=3,217), and 2020 (n=3,677) (analyzed in 2021) were used to estimate changes in relative harm perceptions of E-cigarettes versus cigarettes (less harmful, as harmful, more harmful, don't know as a measure of uncertainty). In addition, changes in exclusive cigarette smoking, exclusive E-cigarette use, and dual use were estimated for each relative harm perception level. RESULTS: Perceptions of E-cigarettes as more harmful than cigarettes doubled year on year, increasing most between 2019 and 2020 (2018: 6.8%, 2019: 12.8%, 2020: 28.3%), whereas uncertainty in relative harm declined (2018: 38.2%, 2019: 34.2%, 2020: 24.7%). Less harmful relative perceptions declined (2018:17.6%, 2019:15.3%, 2020:11.4%), whereas as harmful perceptions remained steady (2018: 37.4%, 2019: 37.7%, 2020: 35.6%). Exclusive cigarette smoking increased between 2019 and 2020 among those who perceived E-cigarettes as relatively more harmful (2018: 18.5%; 2019: 8.4%; 2020: 16.3%), exclusive E-cigarette use increased linearly among those who perceived them as relatively less harmful (7.9%, 15.3%, 26.7%), and dual use increased linearly in those who perceived them relatively as harmful (0.1%, 1.4%, 2.9%). CONCLUSIONS: Perceptions of E-cigarettes as more harmful than cigarettes increased sharply between 2019 and 2020. Increases in tobacco product use were potentially guided by product-specific relative harm perceptions because changes occurred primarily in individuals who perceived their preferred product as relatively less harmful, suggesting the need for accurate messaging of relative and absolute product risks.

COVID-19 and Tweets About Quitting Cigarette Smoking: Topic Model Analysis of Twitter Posts 2018-2020.

Background: The risk of infection and severity of illness by SARS-CoV-2 infection is elevated for people who smoke cigarettes and may motivate quitting. Organic public conversations on Twitter about quitting smoking could provide insight into quitting motivations or behaviors associated with the pandemic. Objective: This study explored key topics of conversation about quitting cigarette smoking and examined their trajectory during 2018-2020. Methods: Topic model analysis with latent Dirichlet allocation (LDA) identified themes in US tweets with the term "quit smoking." The model was trained on posts from 2018 and was then applied to tweets posted in 2019 and 2020. Analysis of variance and follow-up pairwise tests were used to compare the daily frequency of tweets within and across years by quarter. Results: The mean numbers of daily tweets on quitting smoking in 2018, 2019, and 2020 were 133 (SD 36.2), 145 (SD 69.4), and 127 (SD 32.6), respectively. Six topics were extracted: (1) need to quit, (2) personal experiences, (3) electronic cigarettes (e-cigarettes), (4) advice/success, (5) quitting as a component of general health behavior change, and (6) clinics/services. Overall, the pandemic was not associated with changes in posts about quitting; instead, New Year's resolutions and the 2019 e-cigarette or vaping use-associated lung injury (EVALI) epidemic were more plausible explanations for observed changes within and across years. Fewer second-quarter posts in 2020 for the topic e-cigarettes may reflect lower pandemic-related quitting interest, whereas fourth-quarter increases in 2020 for other topics pointed to a late-year upswing. Conclusions: Twitter posts suggest that the pandemic did not generate greater interest in quitting smoking, but possibly a decrease in motivation when the rate of infections was increasing in the second quarter of 2020. Public health authorities may wish to craft messages for specific Twitter audiences (eg, using hashtags) to motivate quitting during pandemics.

Trends in public interest in shopping and point-of-sales of JUUL and Puff Bar 2019-2021.

INTRODUCTION: We investigated public interest in shopping and point-of-sales (POS) of JUUL and Puff Bar products in the context of five regulatory, company sales policy and other events of interest that may have influenced the trajectory of these products during 2019-2021. METHODS: Outcome variables included relative search volume (RSV) from Google search queries indicative of shopping interest in and aggregate dollar sales from Nielsen POS for JUUL and Puff Bar in the USA from March 2019 to May 2021. Adjusted autoregressive integrated moving average assessed the observed and predicted trends and adjusted linear regression analysis measured the relative rate of change in the outcome variables for each time period of interest. RESULTS: After the Trump administration announced its plans to ban flavoured e-cigarettes and JUUL Labs, Inc.'s decided to suspend the sales of its sweet and fruity flavoured products, JUUL's shopping interest RSV and sales declined while Puff Bar's shopping interest RSV peaked, and its sales increased. From the period following FDA's announcement of its enforcement guidance policy on unauthorised flavoured cartridge-based e-cigarettes until May 2021, JUUL's shopping interest RSV and sales continued to decline. Puff Bar's shopping interest RSV increased, and its sales peaked until the House approved the flavoured e-cigarette ban bill. Puff Bar's sales steeply declined following suspension of its sales in February 2020. The decline, however, slowed after Puff Bar products were relaunched as 'synthetic nicotine' e-cigarettes. CONCLUSIONS: Puff Bar's unprecedented peak in the shopping interest and sales of Puff Bar warrants continued surveillance.

Vaping and COVID-19: Insights for Public Health and Clinical Care from Twitter.

This study describes key topics of discussions on Twitter at the intersection of vaping and COVID-19 and documents public reactions to announcements from authoritative health agencies. Twitter posts containing vaping and COVID-19-related terms were collected from 1 December 2019 to 3 May 2020 (n = 23,103 posts). Text classifiers and unsupervised machine learning were used to identify topics in posts. Predominant topics included COVID-19 Respiratory Health (18.87%), COVID-19 Susceptibility (17.53%), Death (10.07%), Other COVID-19 Health Effects (9.62%), and Severity of COVID-19 (7.72%), among others. Public conversations on topics, such as Severity of COVID-19, Transmission, Susceptibility, Health Effects, Death, and Smoking cessation, were shaped by announcements from U.S. and international health agencies. Armed with the insights from this study, medical providers should be prepared to discuss vaping-related health risks with their patients in the era of COVID-19. Misconceptions around vaping as a protective behavior from, and an effective treatment against, COVID-19 should also be corrected.

Association of teleworking and smoking behavior of U.S. wage and salary workers.

INTRODUCTION: The COVID-19 pandemic has led to a major shift in workspace from office to home. This report examined how telecommuting is related to smoking behavior of wage and salary workers. METHODS: Self-reported smoking behavior of 1,390 U.S. wage and salary workers aged 16-64 years from the Tobacco Use Supplement of the Current Population Survey 2018/19 were linked to the 2018 American Time Use Survey. Weighted multivariate logistic regression predicting smoking probability and generalized linear regression predicting smoking intensity were used for analysis. RESULTS: Almost a fifth (19%) of wage and salary workers reported working from home and over a half (52%) reported working in telecommuting amenable occupations. Nearly 12% were current smokers, smoking 14.7 cigarettes daily on average. Compared to their counterparts, smoking prevalence (percentage points) was lower among those employed in telecommuting amenable occupations (-0.52, p < .001 for all; 0.01, p = .862 for men; -2.40, p < .001 for women) and who worked more frequently from home (-0.21, p < .001 for all; -0.76, p < .001 for men; -0.03, p = .045 for women). Smoking intensity (cigarettes per day) was lower among those employed in telecommuting amenable occupations (-3.39, p = .03 for all; -0.36, p = .90 for men; -4.30, p = .21 for women). We found no statistically significant association between smoking intensity and telecommuting frequency. CONCLUSIONS: The lower likelihood of smoking and lower level of smoking intensity among telecommuting wage and salary workers suggests the need for proactive efforts to address the potential exacerbation in occupation-related smoking disparities between occupations that are and are not amenable to telecommuting.

General Audience Engagement With Antismoking Public Health Messages Across Multiple Social Media Sites: Comparative Analysis.

BACKGROUND: Public health organizations have begun to use social media to increase awareness of health harm and positively improve health behavior. Little is known about effective strategies to disseminate health education messages digitally and ultimately achieve optimal audience engagement. OBJECTIVE: This study aims to assess the difference in audience engagement with identical antismoking health messages on three social media sites (Twitter, Facebook, and Instagram) and with a referring link to a tobacco prevention website cited in these messages. We hypothesized that health messages might not receive the same user engagement on these media, although these messages were identical and distributed at the same time. METHODS: We measured the effect of health promotion messages on the risk of smoking among users of three social media sites (Twitter, Facebook, and Instagram) and disseminated 1275 health messages between April 19 and July 12, 2017 (85 days). The identical messages were distributed at the same time and as organic (unpaid) and advertised (paid) messages, each including a link to an educational website with more information about the topic. Outcome measures included message engagement (ie, the click-through rate [CTR] of the social media messages) and educational website engagement (ie, the CTR on the educational website [wCTR]). To analyze the data and model relationships, we used mixed effects negative binomial regression, z-statistic, and the Hosmer-Lemeshow goodness-of-fit test. RESULTS: Comparisons between social media sites showed that CTRs for identical antitobacco health messages differed significantly across social media (P<.001 for all). Instagram showed the statistically significant highest overall mean message engagement (CTR=0.0037; 95% CI 0.0032-0.0042), followed by Facebook (CTR=0.0026; 95% CI 0.0022-0.0030) and Twitter (CTR=0.0015; 95% CI 0.0013-0.0017). Facebook showed the highest as well as the lowest CTR for any individual message. However, the message CTR is not indicative of user engagement with the educational website content. Pairwise comparisons of the social media sites differed with respect to the wCTR (P<.001 for all). Messages on Twitter showed the lowest CTR, but they resulted in the highest level of website engagement (wCTR=0.6308; 95% CI 0.5640-0.6975), followed by Facebook (wCTR=0.2213; 95% CI 0.1932-0.2495) and Instagram (wCTR=0.0334; 95% CI 0.0230-0.0438). We found a statistically significant higher CTR for organic (unpaid) messages (CTR=0.0074; 95% CI 0.0047-0.0100) compared with paid advertisements (CTR=0.0022; 95% CI 0.0017-0.0027; P<.001 and P<.001, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: Our study provides evidence-based insights to guide the design of health promotion efforts on social media. Future studies should examine the platform-specific impact of psycholinguistic message variations on user engagement, include newer sites such as Snapchat and TikTok, and study the correlation between web-based behavior and real-world health behavior change. The need is urgent in light of increased health-related marketing and misinformation on social media.