» Articles » PMID: 33066793

The Greater Use of Flavoured Snus Among Ever-smokers Versus Never-smokers in Norway

Overview
Journal Harm Reduct J
Publisher Biomed Central
Specialties Pharmacology
Psychiatry
Date 2020 Oct 17
PMID 33066793
Citations 1
Authors
Affiliations
Soon will be listed here.
Abstract

Background: Similar to the debate around e-cigarettes, an increase in snus use among Norwegian adolescents has prompted debate on whether flavour options in snus should be limited. To this end, we compared use of flavoured snus among snus users with different smoking status.

Methods: Questions about flavoured snus use were included in an online omnibus study conducted from 2015 to 2019 (N = 65,445) that included 16,295 ever snus users (aged 15+). Current snus users (N = 9783) were asked "Do you usually use snus that has a flavouring (liquorice, mint, wintergreen, etc.)? Adjusted predicted probabilities and 95% confidence intervals (CI) were calculated from a logistic regression model.

Results: Less than 25% of the snus users reported never having smoked. The overall probability of using flavoured snus was .45 (95% CI .44-.46), highest among daily (.51, 95% CI .47-.54) and former daily smokers (.50, 95% CI .48-.52), and lowest among never (.41, 95% CI .39-.43) and occasional smokers without any prior history of daily smoking (.41, 95% CI .38-.44). Use of flavoured products was higher among female snus users (p = .67, 95% CI .65-.69) compared to males (p = .35, 95% CI .34-.36), highest among the youngest age group, 15-24 years (p = .58, 95% CI .56-.60) and decreased with increasing age.

Conclusion: Regulation that would ban or limit flavoured snus use may affect smokers-an at risk population-more than never smokers. The health authorities should be mindful of the real-world complexity governing potential harms and benefits of flavour restrictions on snus. A further assessment of flavour limitations should acknowledge that flavoured snus products also function as alternatives to cigarettes.

Citing Articles

The Short-term Impact of Standardised Packaging on Smoking and Snus Use in Norway.

Halkjelsvik T, Gasparrini A, Vedoy T Nicotine Tob Res. 2021; 24(2):220-226.

PMID: 34558626 PMC: 8807171. DOI: 10.1093/ntr/ntab194.

References
1.
Barbeau A, Burda J, Siegel M . Perceived efficacy of e-cigarettes versus nicotine replacement therapy among successful e-cigarette users: a qualitative approach. Addict Sci Clin Pract. 2013; 8:5. PMC: 3599549. DOI: 10.1186/1940-0640-8-5. View

2.
Nutt D, Phillips L, Balfour D, Curran H, Dockrell M, Foulds J . Estimating the harms of nicotine-containing products using the MCDA approach. Eur Addict Res. 2014; 20(5):218-25. DOI: 10.1159/000360220. View

3.
Phillips C . Gateway Effects: Why the Cited Evidence Does Not Support Their Existence for Low-Risk Tobacco Products (and What Evidence Would). Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2015; 12(5):5439-64. PMC: 4454978. DOI: 10.3390/ijerph120505439. View

4.
Pesko M, Kenkel D, Wang H, Hughes J . The effect of potential electronic nicotine delivery system regulations on nicotine product selection. Addiction. 2015; 111(4):734-44. PMC: 4801654. DOI: 10.1111/add.13257. View

5.
Foxon F, Selya A . Electronic cigarettes, nicotine use trends and use initiation ages among US adolescents from 1999 to 2018. Addiction. 2020; 115(12):2369-2378. PMC: 7606254. DOI: 10.1111/add.15099. View