BACKGROUND: There is little information on cigarette-purchasing behaviour among smokers globally. Understanding cigarette purchase and point-of-sale patterns can help guide the development and implementation of tobacco-control strategies in retail environments. OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to identify where adults in 19 countries last purchased cigarettes. METHODS: Data were from 19 low-income and middle-income countries that conducted the Global Adult Tobacco Survey (GATS) during 2008-2012. GATS is a nationally representative household survey of adults aged 15 years or older using a standardised protocol to measure tobacco-related behaviours. Data were weighted to yield nationally representative estimates within each country and summarised by using descriptive statistics. RESULTS: Overall prevalence of current cigarette smoking ranged from 3.7% in Nigeria to 38.5% in the Russian Federation. Among current cigarette smokers, locations of last purchase were as follows: stores, from 14.6% in Argentina to 98.7% in Bangladesh (median=66.8%); street vendors, from 0% in Thailand to 35.7% in Vietnam (median=3.0%); kiosks, from 0.1% in Thailand to 77.3% in Argentina (median=16.1%); other locations, from 0.3% in China and Egypt to 57.5% in Brazil (median=2.6%). CONCLUSION: Cigarettes are purchased at various retail locations globally. However, stores and kiosks were the main cigarette purchase locations in 18 of the 19 countries assessed. Knowledge of where cigarette purchases occur could help guide interventions to reduce cigarette accessibility and use.

Objectives: This is the first statewide census of the product availability, price promotions, and product messaging of vape shops. Methods: A comprehensive list of New Hampshire vape shops was developed through a previously validated online search method. Store audits were conducted in 55 stores between January and February 2016 using the Vape Shop Standardized Tobacco Assessment for Retail Settings (V-STARS). Results: Modifiable devices and cig-alikes were sold in 92.6% and 14.6% of stores, respectively. Cross-product promotions with tobacco products were rare, and messaging promoting e-cigarettes as effective cessation devices was found in 27.3% of all stores. Candy/fruit and menthol e-liquids were most commonly found in stores, and sampling of products was available in 83.6% of stores. Ten (18.2%) stores did not have a minimum age sign posted, and self-service sampling displays were available in about one-fifth of stores. Conclusions: Using V-STARS to conduct retail assessments of vape shops is feasible and is important for assessing the changing retail environment of vape shops. Vape shops distinguish themselves from traditional tobacco product retailers and offer a variety of products to customize a consumer's experience. Regulations and effective enforcement ensuring accurate health messages is essential.

OBJECTIVE: Previous studies examining opioid dose and overdose risk provide limited granularity by milligram strength and instead rely on thresholds. We quantify dose-dependent overdose mortality over a large spectrum of clinically common doses. We also examine the contributions of benzodiazepines and extended release opioid formulations to mortality. DESIGN: Prospective observational cohort with one year follow-up. SETTING: One year in one state (NC) using a controlled substances prescription monitoring program, with name-linked mortality data. SUBJECTS: Residential population of North Carolina (n = 9,560,234), with 2,182,374 opioid analgesic patients. METHODS: Exposure was dispensed prescriptions of solid oral and transdermal opioid analgesics; person-years calculated using intent-to-treat principles. Outcome was overdose deaths involving opioid analgesics in a primary or additive role. Poisson models were created, implemented using generalized estimating equations. RESULTS: Opioid analgesics were dispensed to 22.8% of residents. Among licensed clinicians, 89.6% prescribed opioid analgesics, and 40.0% prescribed ER formulations. There were 629 overdose deaths, half of which had an opioid analgesic prescription active on the day of death. Of 2,182,374 patients prescribed opioids, 478 overdose deaths were reported (0.022% per year). Mortality rates increased gradually across the range of average daily milligrams of morphine equivalents. 80.0% of opioid analgesic patients also received benzodiazepines. Rates of overdose death among those co-dispensed benzodiazepines and opioid analgesics were ten times higher (7.0 per 10,000 person-years, 95 percent CI: 6.3, 7.8) than opioid analgesics alone (0.7 per 10,000 person years, 95 percent CI: 0.6, 0.9). CONCLUSIONS: Dose-dependent opioid overdose risk among patients increased gradually and did not show evidence of a distinct risk threshold. There is urgent need for guidance about combined classes of medicines to facilitate a better balance between pain relief and overdose risk.

INTRODUCTION: Cigarette price increases prevent youth initiation, reduce cigarette consumption and increase the number of smokers who quit. Cigarette minimum price laws (MPLs), which typically require cigarette wholesalers and retailers to charge a minimum percentage mark-up for cigarette sales, have been identified as an intervention that can potentially increase cigarette prices. 24 states and the District of Columbia have cigarette MPLs. METHODS: Using data extracted from SCANTRACK retail scanner data from the Nielsen company, average cigarette prices were calculated for designated market areas in states with and without MPLs in three retail channels: grocery stores, drug stores and convenience stores. Regression models were estimated using the average cigarette pack price in each designated market area and calendar quarter in 2009 as the outcome variable. RESULTS: The average difference in cigarette pack prices are 46 cents in the grocery channel, 29 cents in the drug channel and 13 cents in the convenience channel, with prices being lower in states with MPLs for all three channels. CONCLUSIONS: The findings that MPLs do not raise cigarette prices could be the result of a lack of compliance and enforcement by the state or could be attributed to the minimum state mark-up being lower than the free-market mark-up for cigarettes. Rather than require a minimum mark-up, which can be nullified by promotional incentives and discounts, states and countries could strengthen MPLs by setting a simple 'floor price' that is the true minimum price for all cigarettes or could prohibit discounts to consumers and retailers.