Back

The impact of removing a ban on electronic nicotine delivery systems using the Mexico smoking and vaping model (SAVM)

Sanchez-Romero, L. M.; Li, Y.; Zavala-Arciniega, L.; Gallegos-Carrillo, K.; Thrasher, J. F.; Meza, R.; Levy, D. T.

2024-04-30 health policy
10.1101/2024.04.28.24306511 medRxiv
Show abstract

ObjectiveTo develop the Mexico Smoking and Vaping Model (Mexico SAVM) to estimate cigarette and electronic nicotine delivery systems (ENDS) prevalence and the public health impact of legalizing ENDS use. MethodsSAVM, a cohort-based discrete-time simulation model, compares two scenarios. The ENDS-Restricted Scenario estimates smoking prevalence and associated mortality outcomes under the current policy of an ENDS ban, using Mexico-specific population projections, death rates, life expectancy, and smoking and e-cigarette prevalence. The ENDS-Unrestricted Scenario projects smoking and vaping prevalence under a hypothetical scenario where ENDS use is allowed. The impact of legalizing ENDS use is estimated as the difference in smoking- and vaping-attributable deaths (SVADs) and life-years lost (LYLs) between the ENDS-Restricted and Unrestricted scenarios. ResultsCompared to a national ENDS ban, The Mexico SAVM projects that legalizing ENDS use could decrease smoking prevalence by 40.1% in males and 30.9% in females by 2049 compared to continuing the national ENDS ban. This reduction in prevalence would save 2.9 (2.5 males and 0.4 females) million life-years and avert almost 106 (91.0 males and 15.5 females) thousand deaths between 2025 and 2049. Public health gains decline by 43% to 59,748 SVADs averted when the switching rate is reduced by half and by 24.3% (92,806 SVADs averted) with a 25% ENDS risk level from that of cigarettes but increased by 24.3% (121,375 SVADs averted) with the 5% ENDS risk. ConclusionsMexico SAVM suggests that greater access to ENDS and a more permissive ENDS regulation, simultaneous with strong cigarette policies, would reduce smoking prevalence and decrease smoking-related mortality. The unanticipated effects of an ENDS ban merit closer scrutiny, with further consideration of how specific ENDS restrictions may maximize public health benefits.

Matching journals

The top 6 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.

1
PLOS ONE
4510 papers in training set
Top 9%
18.8%
2
JAMA Network Open
127 papers in training set
Top 0.2%
8.5%
3
American Journal of Preventive Medicine
11 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
8.3%
4
BMJ Open
554 papers in training set
Top 3%
6.5%
5
Nicotine & Tobacco Research
11 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
6.5%
6
Nicotine and Tobacco Research
13 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
4.9%
50% of probability mass above
7
International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health
124 papers in training set
Top 1%
4.9%
8
Frontiers in Public Health
140 papers in training set
Top 1%
4.4%
9
JMIR Public Health and Surveillance
45 papers in training set
Top 0.4%
4.0%
10
Clinical Microbiology and Infection
60 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
4.0%
11
International Journal of Drug Policy
11 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
3.6%
12
Scientific Reports
3102 papers in training set
Top 43%
2.8%
13
Addiction
25 papers in training set
Top 0.2%
2.8%
14
BMC Public Health
147 papers in training set
Top 3%
2.1%
15
Medical Decision Making
10 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
1.7%
16
Preventive Medicine Reports
14 papers in training set
Top 0.3%
1.0%
17
BMC Medical Research Methodology
43 papers in training set
Top 1%
0.8%
18
Thorax
32 papers in training set
Top 0.7%
0.8%
19
Cureus
67 papers in training set
Top 5%
0.8%
20
International Journal of Behavioral Nutrition and Physical Activity
15 papers in training set
Top 0.5%
0.7%
21
BMC Medicine
163 papers in training set
Top 8%
0.7%
22
Vaccines
196 papers in training set
Top 3%
0.5%
23
Clinical Infectious Diseases
231 papers in training set
Top 6%
0.5%