Estimation of the global number of e-cigarette users in 2020.

BACKGROUND: The combustion of tobacco is the main cause of tobacco-related morbidity and mortality. E-cigarettes are potentially disruptive innovations with considerable potential for population health. A key question is whether e-cigarettes are replacing tobacco cigarettes, which requires mapping their prevalence. Collecting information on nicotine use is difficult for many countries due to cost. The objective of this study was to derive a global estimate of e-cigarette use (vaping). METHODS: Since 2018 we have collected information on the prevalence of e-cigarette use. To estimate the prevalence of vaping in countries lacking information, we used the method of assumed similarity between countries in the same region and economic condition. Based on surveys, we calculated the average prevalence of vaping for each WHO region, World Bank income classification group, and the legal status of e-cigarettes in each country. For each of these groups the average prevalence of vaping was calculated. These values were used as substitutes for the prevalence figures in the countries with absent data. The number of vapers was calculated by taking as the denominator the adult population. RESULTS: Survey data on e-cigarette users were available for 49 countries covering 2.8 b of the adult population in 2018 and unavailable for 2.9 b. Information on vaping was lacking for half of the world's population. We estimated a total of 58.1 m vapers worldwide in 2018. By reference to market growth the data were adjusted to arrive at estimates for 2020. Results were fitted to revenue data at the 2018. For the year 2020, the projection is for 68 m vapers globally. CONCLUSIONS: Many global epidemiological studies use the method of assumed similarity between countries with shared characteristics in order to estimate missing data. The methodological limitations are likely to overestimate the global number of vapers. Our estimate of 68 m vapers indicates considerable uptake given that: e-cigarettes have been available on most markets for only a decade; there is either no support, or there is opposition to vaping in many countries; and countries which regulate e-cigarettes have controls over advertising and promotion. However, given the global scale of tobacco smoking (at 1.1 billion people), progress in adoption of alternative products is slow. Those using e-cigarettes are still a small fraction of those who smoke.

Is there any legal and scientific basis for classifying electronic cigarettes as medications?

The rapid growth in the use of electronic cigarettes has been accompanied by substantial discussions by governments, international organisations, consumers and public health experts about how they might be regulated. In the European Union they are currently regulated under consumer legislation but new legislation will regulate them under the Tobacco Products Directive. However, several countries have sought to regulate them under medicines regulations. These claims have been successfully challenged in 6 court cases in European states. Under European legislation a product may be deemed to be a medicine by function if it is used in or administered to human beings either with a view to restoring, correcting or modifying physiological functions by exerting a pharmacological, immunological or metabolic action, or to making a medical diagnosis. It is a medicine by presentation if it is presented (e.g. by a manufacturer or distributor) as having properties for treating or preventing disease in human beings. We assess the legal and scientific basis for the claim that electronic cigarettes should be regulated as medicines. We conclude that they are neither medicine by function nor necessarily by presentation The main reason for their existence is as a harm reduction product in which the liking for and/or dependence on nicotine is maintained, and adoption of use is as a substitute for smoking and not as a smoking cessation product. In reality, they are used as consumer products providing pleasure to the user. They are not used to treat nicotine addiction or other disease, but to enable continued use of nicotine. Their use is adjusted individually by each consumer according to his or her perceived pleasure and satisfaction. Gaps in current regulation regarding safety and quality can be met by tailored regulations.

HIV in prison in low-income and middle-income countries.

High prevalence of HIV infection and the over-representation of injecting drug users (IDUs) in prisons combined with HIV risk behaviour create a crucial public-health issue for correctional institutions and, at a broader level, the communities in which they are situated. However, data relevant to this problem are limited and difficult to access. We reviewed imprisonment, HIV prevalence, and the proportion of prisoners who are IDUs in 152 low-income and middle-income countries. Information on imprisonment was obtained for 142 countries. Imprisonment rates ranged from 23 per 100,000 population in Burkina Faso to 532 per 100,000 in Belarus and Russia. Information on HIV prevalence in prisons was found for 75 countries. Prevalence was greater than 10% in prisons in 20 countries. Eight countries reported prevalence of IDUs in prison of greater than 10%. HIV prevalence among IDU prisoners was reported in eight countries and was greater than 10% in seven of those. Evidence of HIV transmission in prison was found for seven low-income and middle-income countries. HIV is a serious problem for many countries, especially where injection drug use occurs. Because of the paucity of data available, the contribution of HIV within prison settings is difficult to determine in many low-income and middle-income countries. Systematic collection of data to inform HIV prevention strategies in prison is urgently needed. The introduction and evaluation of HIV prevention strategies in prisons are warranted.

Antiretroviral treatment for injecting drug users in developing and transitional countries 1 year before the end of the "Treating 3 million by 2005. Making it happen. The WHO strategy" ("3 by 5").

OBJECTIVE: To describe and estimate the availability of antiretroviral treatment (ART) to injecting drug users (IDUs) in developing and transitional countries. METHODS: Literature review of grey and published literature and key informants' communications on the estimated number of current/former injecting drug users (IDUs) receiving ART and the proportion of human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) attributed to injecting drug use (IDU), the number of people in ART and in need of ART, the number of people living with HIV/acquired immunodeficiency syndrome (AIDS) (PLWHA) and the main source of ART. RESULTS: Data on former/current IDUs on ART were available from 50 countries (in 19 countries: nil IDUs in treatment) suggesting that approximately 34 000 IDUs were receiving ART by the end of 2004, of whom 30 000 were in Brazil. In these 50 countries IDUs represent approximately 15% of the people in ART. In Eastern European and Central Asia IDU are associated with > 80% of HIV cases but only approximately 2000 (14%) of the people in ART. In South and South-East Asia there were approximately 1700 former/current IDUs receiving ART ( approximately 1.8% of the people in ART), whereas the proportion of HIV cases associated to IDU is > 20% in five countries (and regionally ranges from 4% to 75%). DISCUSSION: There is evidence that the coverage of ART among current/former IDUs is proportionally substantially less than other exposure categories. Ongoing monitoring of ART by exposure and population subgroups is critical to ensuring that scale-up is equitable, and that the distribution of ART is, at the very least, transparent.

Using standardized methods for research on HIV and injecting drug use in developing/transitional countries: case study from the WHO Drug Injection Study Phase II.

BACKGROUND: Successful cross-national research requires methods that are both standardized across sites and adaptable to local conditions. We report on the development and implementation of the methodology underlying the survey component of the WHO Drug Injection Study Phase II--a multi-site study of risk behavior and HIV seroprevalence among Injecting Drug Users (IDUs). METHODS: Standardized operational guidelines were developed by the Survey Coordinating Center in collaboration with the WHO Project Officer and participating site Investigators. Throughout the duration of the study, survey implementation at the local level was monitored by the Coordinating Center. Surveys were conducted in 12 different cities. Prior rapid assessment conducted in 10 cities provided insight into local context and guided survey implementation. Where possible, subjects were recruited both from drug abuse treatment centers and via street outreach. While emphasis was on IDUs, non-injectors were also recruited in cities with substantial non-injecting use of injectable drugs. A structured interview and HIV counseling/testing were administered. RESULTS: Over 5,000 subjects were recruited. Subjects were recruited from both drug treatment and street outreach in 10 cities. Non-injectors were recruited in nine cities. Prior rapid assessment identified suitable recruitment areas, reduced drug users' distrust of survey staff, and revealed site-specific risk behaviors. Centralized survey coordination facilitated local questionnaire modification within a core structure, standardized data collection protocols, uniform database structure, and cross-site analyses. Major site-specific problems included: questionnaire translation difficulties; locating affordable HIV-testing facilities; recruitment from drug treatment due to limited/selective treatment infrastructure; access to specific sub-groups of drug users in the community, particularly females or higher income groups; security problems for users and interviewers, hostility from local drug dealers; and interference by local service providers. CONCLUSION: Rapid assessment proved invaluable in paving the way for the survey. Central coordination of data collection is crucial. While fully standardized methods may be a research ideal, local circumstances may require substantial adaptation of the methods to achieve meaningful local representation. Allowance for understanding of local context may increase rather than decrease the generalizability of the data.