==== Front Prev Med Rep Preventive Medicine Reports 2211-3355 S2211-3355(20)30185-6 10.1016/j.pmedr.2020.101227 101227 Short Communication Trends in prevalence and sociodemographic and geographic patterns of current menthol cigarette use among U.S. adults, 2005–2015 Mattingly Delvon T. delvon@umich.edu⁎ Hirschtick Jana L. Meza Rafael Fleischer Nancy L. University of Michigan School of Public Health, Department of Epidemiology, Ann Arbor, MI 48109, USA ⁎ Corresponding author. delvon@umich.edu 10 11 2020 12 2020 10 11 2020 20 1012278 3 2020 3 10 2020 10 10 2020 © 2020 The Author(s)2020This is an open access article under the CC BY license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).Despite overall reductions in U.S. smoking prevalence, prior evidence suggests similar reductions may not have occurred for menthol cigarette users. This study examines nationally representative current menthol and non-menthol cigarette use prevalence and trends for adults (18+) overall and by sociodemographic and geographic characteristics using the 2005 (n = 31,132), 2010 (n = 26,967), and 2015 (n = 33,541) National Health Interview Survey. Between 2005 and 2015, non-menthol cigarette use decreased overall (14.7% to 9.6%, p < 0.001) and within all sociodemographic and geographic subgroups analyzed (i.e., by sex, age, race/ethnicity, sexual orientation, education, family income, and geographic region), except non-Hispanic American Indians/Alaskan Natives (NH AI/AN) and non-Hispanic Others. Menthol cigarette use significantly decreased overall (5.3% to 4.4%, p < 0.001), and among females (5.6% to 4.6%); participants aged 18–24 (7.1% to 4.3%) and 35–54 (6.2% to 4.9%); non-Hispanic Whites (4.1% to 3.6%) and non-Hispanic Blacks (14.8% to 11.9%); participants with high school degrees/GEDs (7.0% to 5.9%); participants with a family income of $75,000 or higher (3.4% to 2.3%); and participants residing in the Northeast (6.0% to 4.3%). Menthol cigarette use remained stable or did not significantly decrease among males; adults aged 25–34 and 55 years and older; NH AI/ANs, NH Others, and Hispanics; participants with less than high school education, some college, or a college degree; participants with a family income below $75,000; and participants residing in the North Central/Midwest, South, and West. Given that menthol cigarette use did not significantly change or decrease for multiple subgroups, further restriction on menthol manufacturing may help reduce tobacco use disparities. Keywords SmokersMentholCigarette smokingTobacco productsEpidemiologyPublic healthHealth status disparities ==== Body 1 Introduction Approximately 40% of US smokers prefer menthol rather than non-menthol cigarettes (Villanti et al., 2016). Although the prevalence of non-menthol cigarette use is decreasing, the prevalence of menthol cigarette use has either increased or remained unchanged in certain sociodemographic groups (Curtin et al., 2014, Giovino et al., 2015, Villanti et al., 2016). Data from the National Survey of Drug Use and Health (NSDUH) shows that the prevalence of menthol cigarette use stayed constant from 2004 to 2010 among adults aged 26 + years but increased among adults aged 18–25 from 14.0% to 16.3% (Giovino et al., 2015). Among past-30 day cigarette smokers, the proportion of menthol cigarette use increased between 2008 and 2014 overall (34.7% to 38.8%), in males (30.9% to 34.8%), females (39.1% to 43.5%), Hispanics (37.1% to 46.9%), non-Hispanic (NH) Whites (25.6% to 28.9%), NH Asians (30.3% to 38.0%), and individuals with <$30,000 (38.6% to 43.7%) or between $30,000-$74,999 (33.2% to 37.2%) family income (Villanti et al., 2016). These results suggest that efforts to curtail menthol cigarette use, including a federal menthol ban, could have a positive impact on menthol-related smoking disparities. Menthol cigarette use is most prevalent among NH Black and low socioeconomic status (SES) populations and may lead to worse health outcomes among these groups (Giovino et al., 2015, Villanti et al., 2016). For example, young adult menthol cigarette users have a higher risk of nicotine dependence than non-menthol users (Fagan et al., 2015). Menthol cigarette users are also less successful in quitting than non-menthol cigarette users, possibly due to persistent targeting by the tobacco industry or the perception that menthol is less harmful, with success varying by race/ethnicity (Gundersen et al., 2009, Villanti et al., 2017, Weinberger et al., 2019). Thus, further investigation on the patterning of prevalence of menthol and non-menthol cigarette use, including differences in use over time, is warranted. We build on prior work that used NSDUH data to compare menthol and non-menthol cigarette use prevalence by examining data from the 2005–2015 National Health Interview Survey (NHIS). We also characterize differences in time trends of menthol and non-menthol cigarette use by sex, age, race/ethnicity, sexual orientation, education, family income, and geographic region in the United States. 2 Materials and methods 2.1 Design We analyzed data on adults aged 18 years and older from the 2005 (n = 31,132), 2010 (n = 26,967), and 2015 (n = 33,541) NHIS available from the Integrated Public Use Microdata Series (Lynn et al., 2019). NHIS is a cross-sectional, nationally representative study conducted annually by the National Center for Health Statistics. In 2005, 2010, and 2015, NHIS Cancer Control Supplements included questions on cigarette brand preference, which allows for the identification of menthol smokers (National Center for Health Statistics, 2016). 2.2 Measures 2.2.1 Smoking status Current cigarette users were participants who had smoked 100 cigarettes in their lifetime and indicated they now smoke cigarettes every day or some days. Menthol cigarette users were current cigarette users who indicated menthol as their usual brand, while non-menthol cigarette users were current cigarette users who indicated plain or no preference as their usual brand. Current cigarette users without information on brand preference (i.e., non-classifiable) (n = 945), including those who refused to answer (n = 103), did not have a usual brand preference (n = 806), or did not know their brand preference (n = 36), were classified separately and not included in menthol and non-menthol cigarette use groups. Tobacco use was categorized as current menthol cigarette use, current non-menthol cigarette use, and former or never cigarette use (i.e., non-current cigarette use). Like non-classifiable users, participants missing values for cigarette use (n = 617) were excluded from this analysis. 2.2.2 Sociodemographic Characteristics Sex was dichotomized as male or female. Age was categorized as 18–24, 25–34, 35–54, and 55 years or older. Race/ethnicity was defined as NH White, NH Black, NH Asian, NH American Indian/Alaskan Native (AI/AN), NH Other, and Hispanic. Sexual orientation (only available in 2015) was categorized as heterosexual versus lesbian, gay, or bisexual. Categorical educational attainment was restricted to respondents aged 25 years and older: less than high school degree, high school degree or GED, some college, and college degree. Total combined family income was categorized as <$35,000, $35,000-$74,999, and $75,000 or more. Geographic region included Northeast, North Central/Midwest, South, and West categories (U.S. Bureau of the Census, 1994). 2.3 Statistical analyses All analyses were weighted to account for the complex survey design of NHIS and conducted using Stata 15.1 (StataCorp, 2017). Weighted prevalence estimates and 95% confidence intervals for current menthol and non-menthol use were computed overall and by sex, age, race/ethnicity, sexual orientation, education, family income, and geographic region. Percent change and tests for differences in proportions using Stata’s linear combinations of estimates (lincom) command were calculated to examine changes in prevalence of current menthol and non-menthol cigarette use from 2005 to 2010, 2010–2015, and 2005–2015. 3 Results Overall, the prevalence of current cigarette use was 20.9% in 2005, 19.3% in 2010, and 15.1% in 2015 (Table A). The prevalence of menthol cigarette use was 5.3%, 5.7%, and 4.4% in 2005, 2010, and 2015, respectively, while the prevalence of non-menthol cigarette use was 14.7%, 12.4%, and 9.6% in 2005, 2010, and 2015, respectively (Table 1). In 2015, the prevalence of menthol cigarette use was similar between women (4.6%) and men (4.3%), but higher for participants aged 25–34 (6.6%) than other age groups; NH Blacks (11.9%) than other racial/ethnic groups; participants with less than a high school degree (6.6%), a high school degree/GED (5.9%), and some college (5.2%) compared to a college degree; participants with a family income of less than $35,000 (7.0%) than those with a higher income level; and participants residing in the North Central/Midwest (5.3%), South (5.2%), and Northeast (4.3%), compared to the West. In 2015, compared to heterosexual participants, sexual minority participants had higher prevalence of menthol cigarette use (8.0%) and non-menthol cigarette use (12.3%).Table 1 Prevalence of Current Menthol and Non-Menthol Cigarette Use by Sociodemographic and Geographic Characteristics, 2005–2015. Characteristics Menthol Non-Menthol n 2005% (95% CI) n 2010% (95% CI) n 2015% (95% CI) n 2005% (95% CI) n 2010% (95% CI) n 2015% (95% CI) Overall 1700 5.3 (4.9, 5.6) 1689 5.7 (5.4, 6.1) 1616 4.4 (4.2, 4.7) 4499 14.7 (14.2, 15.2) 3157 12.4 (11.9, 12.9) 3467 9.6 (9.1, 10.1) Sex  Male 684 4.9 (4.4, 5.3) 748 5.7 (5.3, 6.2) 686 4.3 (3.9, 4.7) 2478 17.9 (17.1, 18.8) 1709 14.5 (13.7, 15.2) 1895 11.3 (10.6, 12.2)  Female 1016 5.6 (5.2, 6.1) 941 5.8 (5.3, 6.2) 930 4.6 (4.2, 5.0) 2021 11.7 (11.1, 12.3) 1448 10.5 (9.9, 11.1) 1572 8.0 (7.5, 8.5) Age group  18–24 229 7.1 (6.1, 8.4) 233 8.4 (7.3, 9.8) 152 4.3 (3.4, 5.4) 499 16.2 (14.4, 18.1) 289 10.8 (9.4, 12.4) 236 7.8 (6.5, 9.3)  25–34 350 5.7 (4.9, 6.5) 414 8.2 (7.4, 9.2) 391 6.6 (5.8, 7.6) 953 17.7 (16.5, 19.0) 626 13.7 (12.6, 14.9) 614 9.9 (8.8, 11.0)  35–54 784 6.2 (5.7, 6.8) 647 5.6 (5.1, 6.2) 587 4.9 (4.4, 5.5) 1984 16.6 (15.8, 17.5) 1342 14.8 (13.9, 15.8) 1409 11.8 (11.0, 12.7)  55+ 337 2.9 (2.6, 3.3) 395 3.5 (3.1, 3.9) 486 2.9 (2.6, 3.3) 1063 9.7 (9.1, 10.4) 900 9.6 (8.9, 10.3) 1208 8.0 (7.4, 8.7) Race/ethnicity  Non-Hispanic White 827 4.1 (3.8, 4.4) 739 4.7 (4.3, 5.1) 751 3.6 (3.2, 3.9) 3433 16.9 (16.2, 17.6) 2368 15.1 (14.4, 15.8) 2702 11.9 (11.3, 12.6)  Non-Hispanic Black 609 14.8 (13.4, 16.3) 668 14.8 (13.5, 16.2) 564 11.9 (10.6, 13.2) 266 5.1 (4.5, 5.9) 206 4.3 (3.6, 5.1) 179 3.4 (2.8, 4.3)  Non-Hispanic Asian 32 4.2 (2.8, 6.1) 49 3.0 (2.2, 4.1) 42 1.7 (1.1, 2.5) 87 8.8 (6.7, 11.5) 120 5.9 (4.8, 7.3) 109 4.9 (3.8, 6.4)  Non-Hispanic AI/AN 10 4.8 (2.2, 10.0) 10 8.1 (3.6, 17.4) 27 4.7 (2.6, 8.5) 40 27.2 (19.8, 36.1) 41 27.0 (18.6, 37.5) 61 17.0 (11.1, 25.0)  Non-Hispanic Other 9 14.3 (8.3, 23.7) 13 13.9 (6.7, 26.6) 14 7.2 (3.2, 15.3) 6 6.1 (2.5, 14.3) 7 7.0 (3.3, 14.1) 17 5.8 (3.1, 10.7)  Hispanic 213 3.7 (3.0, 4.5) 210 3.9 (3.3, 4.6) 218 3.3 (2.8, 3.9) 667 11.9 (10.9, 13.0) 415 7.9 (7.1, 8.9) 399 6.1 (5.4, 7.0) Sexual orientation  Straight/heterosexual – – – – 1517 4.5 (4.2, 4.8) – – – – 3301 9.8 (9.3, 10.4)  Lesbian/gay/bisexual – – – – 72 8.0 (5.9, 10.7) – – – – 119 12.3 (9.7, 15.6) Education  Less then high school 397 7.2 (6.4, 8.2) 381 8.3 (7.4, 9.3) 306 6.6 (5.8, 7.6) 934 18.4 (16.9, 20.0) 614 16.2 (15.0, 17.6) 658 15.0 (13.6, 16.4)  High school degree/GED 611 7.0 (6.3, 7.6) 583 7.9 (7.2, 8.6) 548 5.9 (5.2, 6.6) 1569 18.5 (17.6, 19.5) 1059 16.3 (15.2, 17.5) 1166 13.4 (12.3, 14.5)  Some college 521 5.6 (5.1, 6.2) 549 6.0 (5.4, 6.7) 584 5.2 (4.6, 5.8) 1352 15.4 (14.6, 16.3) 1024 13.1 (12.1, 14.1) 1165 10.1 (9.3, 10.9)  College degree 162 1.8 (1.5, 2.1) 168 2.1 (1.8, 2.5) 170 1.6 (1.3, 1.9) 611 7.3 (6.7, 7.9) 452 6.1 (5.4, 6.8) 461 4.0 (3.5, 4.5)  Family income  Less than $35,000 1007 6.8 (6.3, 7.3) 1043 8.7 (8.1, 9.4) 939 7.0 (6.4, 7.7) 2387 17.3 (16.3, 18.2) 1622 15.5 (14.7, 16.5) 1875 13.8 (12.9, 14.7)  $35,000-$74,999 474 5.2 (4.6, 5.8) 436 5.2 (4.7, 5.8) 461 4.6 (4.1, 5.2) 1430 15.6 (14.7, 16.5) 1014 13.3 (12.5, 14.2) 1003 10.3 (9.5, 11.2)  $75,000+ 219 3.4 (2.9, 4.0) 210 3.2 (2.8, 3.8) 216 2.3 (1.9, 2.7) 682 10.3 (9.6, 11.2) 521 8.2 (7.5, 9.0) 589 5.8 (5.2, 6.5) Geographic region  Northeast 369 6.0 (5.3, 6.8) 279 6.0 (5.3, 6.9) 270 4.3 (3.7, 5.2) 639 12.0 (10.9, 13.2) 436 10.2 (9.1, 11.5) 486 7.9 (6.8, 9.1)  North central/midwest 480 6.1 (5.4, 6.8) 442 6.4 (5.7, 7.2) 364 5.3 (4.6, 6.1) 1200 17.2 (16.1, 18.2) 796 14.0 (12.9, 15.2) 857 12.0 (10.8, 13.3)  South 663 5.9 (5.3, 6.6) 736 6.8 (6.3, 7.4) 698 5.2 (4.8, 5.7) 1672 14.9 (13.9, 15.9) 1153 12.8 (12.0, 13.7) 1116 9.1 (8.4, 9.9)  West 188 2.6 (2.1, 3.1) 232 3.2 (2.8, 3.8) 284 2.4 (2.0, 2.8) 988 13.8 (12.8, 14.8) 772 11.8 (10.8, 13.0) 1008 9.4 (8.5, 10.4) 628 participants were missing values for education. 1,397 participants were missing values for sexual orientation in NHIS 2015. Sources: National Health Interview Survey, 2005, 2010, and 2015. NHIS 2005 sample size = 31,132; NHIS 2010 sample size = 26,967; NHIS 2015 sample size = 33,541. Table 2 presents changes in prevalence of menthol and non-menthol cigarette use from 2005 to 2010, 2010–2015, and 2005–2015. The prevalence of non-menthol cigarette use decreased by 15.5% between 2005 and 2010, and by an additional 22.5% between 2010 and 2015, for a net decrease of 34.6% from 2005 to 2015. The prevalence of menthol cigarette use increased by 9.0% between 2005 and 2010, but decreased by 22.9% between 2010 and 2015, for a net decrease of 15.9% from 2005 to 2015. From 2005 to 2015, the prevalence of non-menthol cigarette use decreased for all sociodemographic subgroups, although the decrease was not statistically significant for NH AI/ANs (p = 0.059) and NH Others (p = 0.132), possibly due to small sample size. In contrast, changes between 2005 and 2015 were more variable for menthol cigarette use. Generally, menthol cigarette use increased from 2005 to 2010 and decreased from 2010 to 2015. For example, among men, the prevalence of menthol cigarette use went from 4.9% (2005) to 5.7% (2010) to 4.3% (2015). The prevalence decreased over the entire time period overall and among females; participants aged 18–24 and 35–54 years old; NH Whites, NH Blacks, and NH Asians; participants with a high school degree or GED; participants with a family income of $75,000 or higher; and participants residing in the Northeast. However, menthol cigarette use remained stable or did not significantly decrease among males; adults aged 25–34 and 55 years and older; NH AI/ANs, NH Others, and Hispanics; participants with less than high school degree, some college, or a college degree; participants with a family income below $35,000 or between $35,000 and $74,999; and participants residing in the North Central/Midwest, South, and West over the entire time period. Fig. 1 depicts trends in menthol and non-menthol cigarette use overall and by sociodemographic and geographic characteristics.Table 2 Changes in Prevalence of Current Menthol and Non-Menthol Cigarette Use by Sociodemographic and Geographic Characteristics, 2005–2015 Characteristics Menthol Non-Menthol Year % change Year % change 2005 2010 2015 2005–2010 2010–2015 2005–2015 2005 2010 2015 2005–2010 2010–2015 2005–2015 Overall 5.3 5.7 4.4 9.0%* −22.9%** −15.9%** 14.7 12.4 9.6 −15.5%** −22.5%** −34.6%** Sex  Male 4.9 5.7 4.3 17.5%* −25.4%** −12.3% 17.9 14.5 11.3 −19.3%** −21.6%** −36.7%**  Female 5.6 5.8 4.6 2.3% −20.6%** −18.8%** 11.7 10.5 8.0 −10.4%* −23.6%** −31.6%** Age group  18–24 7.1 8.4 4.3 18.0% −49.3%** −40.2%** 16.2 10.8 7.8 −32.9%** −28.2%* −51.8%**  25–34 5.7 8.2 6.6 45.6%** −19.2%* 17.6% 17.7 13.7 9.9 −22.6%** −27.9%** −44.2%**  35–54 6.2 5.6 4.9 −10.7% −11.9% −21.3%* 16.6 14.8 11.8 −10.8%* −20.1%** −28.8%**  55+ 2.9 3.5 2.9 18.4% −16.0%* −0.5% 9.7 9.6 8.0 −1.5% −16.5%* −17.7%** Race/ethnicity  Non-Hispanic White 4.1 4.7 3.6 14.8%* −24.1%** −12.8%* 16.9 15.1 11.9 −11.0%** −20.8%** −29.5%**  Non-Hispanic Black 14.8 14.8 11.9 −0.2% −19.8%* −20.0%* 5.1 4.3 3.4 −16.9%* −19.6% −33.2%*  Non-Hispanic Asian 4.2 3.0 1.7 −28.0% −43.7%* −59.5%* 8.8 5.9 4.9 −32.6%* −17.4% −44.3%*  Non-Hispanic AI/AN 4.8 8.1 4.7 68.3% −41.4% −1.4% 27.2 27.0 17.0 −0.6% −37.2% −37.6%  Non-Hispanic Other 14.3 13.9 7.2 −3.1% −48.2% −49.9% 6.1 7.0 5.8 14.9% −17.0% −4.6%  Hispanic 3.7 3.9 3.3 6.8% −15.8% −10.1% 11.9 7.9 6.1 −33.3%** −23.0%* −48.6%** Education  Less then high school 7.2 8.3 6.6 15.0% −19.9%* −7.9% 18.4 16.2 15.0 −11.6%* −7.9% −18.6%*  High school degree/GED 7.0 7.9 5.9 13.0% −25.3%** −15.6%* 18.5 16.3 13.4 −12.1%* −17.9%** −27.8%**  Some college 5.6 6.0 5.2 6.5% −13.5% −7.9% 15.4 13.1 10.1 −14.9%* −22.9%** −34.4%**  College degree 1.8 2.1 1.6 19.0% −25.6%* −11.5% 7.3 6.1 4.0 −16.8%* −34.1%** −45.1%** Family income  Less than $35,000 6.8 8.7 7.0 28.4%** −19.5%** 3.5% 17.3 15.5 13.8 −10.0%* −11.3%* −20.1%**  $35,000-$74,999 5.2 5.2 4.6 −0.2% −10.8% −11.0% 15.6 13.3 10.3 −14.5%** −22.5%** −33.7%**  $75,000+ 3.4 3.2 2.3 −5.0% −29.7%* −33.2%* 10.3 8.2 5.8 −20.3%** −29.6%** −43.9%** Geographic region  Northeast 6.0 6.0 4.3 1.0% −28.1%* −27.4%* 12.0 10.2 7.9 −14.8%* −22.7%* −34.2%**  North central/midwest 6.1 6.4 5.3 5.1% −16.6%* −12.3% 17.2 14.0 12.0 −18.3%** −14.5%* −30.1%**  South 5.9 6.8 5.2 15.7%* −23.8%** −11.8% 14.9 12.8 9.1 −13.8%* −28.9%** −38.7%**  West 2.6 3.2 2.4 26.0% −27.0%* −8.0% 13.8 11.8 9.4 −14.2%* −20.6%* −31.8%** Some percent changes may not accurately reflect differences in proportions due to rounding. Non-classifiable current cigarette users are excluded; sexual orientation is excluded due to having an estimate at one time point (2015). NHIS 2005 sample size = 31,132; NHIS 2010 sample size = 26,967; NHIS 2015 sample size = 33,541. * p < 0.05; ** p < 0.001. Table A Prevalence of Current Cigarette Use by Sociodemographic and Geographic Characteristics, 2005–2015. Characteristics Cigarette Use n 2005% (95% CI) n 2010% (95% CI) n 2015% (95% CI) Overall 6511 20.9 (20.3, 21.5) 5147 19.3 (18.8, 19.9) 5415 15.1 (14.6, 15.7) Sex  Male 3324 23.9 (22.9, 24.9) 2613 21.5 (20.7, 22.4) 2749 16.7 (15.9, 17.6)  Female 3187 18.1 (17.5, 18.9) 2534 17.3 (16.6, 18.1) 2666 13.6 (12.9, 14.3) Age group  18-24 759 24.4 (22.4, 26.5) 547 20.1 (18.3, 22.0) 417 13.0 (11.4, 14.8)  25-34 1373 24.6 (23.1, 26.1) 1105 23.3 (21.9, 24.8) 1080 18.1 (16.8, 19.5)  35-54 2918 24.0 (23.1, 24.9) 2132 22.0 (21.0, 23.1) 2118 17.9 (16.9, 18.9)  55+ 1461 13.2 (12.5, 13.9) 1363 13.8 (13.0, 14.6) 1800 11.7 (11.0, 12.5) Race/ethnicity  Non-Hispanic White 4461 22.0 (21.2, 22.8) 3298 21.1 (20.3, 21.8) 3658 16.6 (15.8, 17.4)  Non-Hispanic Black 936 21.4 (19.8, 23.0) 937 20.5 (19.1, 22.1) 814 16.8 (15.4, 18.4)  Non-Hispanic Asian 126 13.5 (10.8, 16.7) 178 9.4 (7.8, 11.2) 165 7.2 (5.8, 8.7)  Non-Hispanic AI/AN 52 32.6 (24.7, 41.6) 52 35.6 (27.0, 45.3) 93 24.2 (18.7, 30.6)  Non-Hispanic Other 15 20.4 (13.2, 30.2) 22 23.5 (15.2, 34.5) 32 13.2 (8.2, 20.6)  Hispanic 921 16.2 (15.1, 17.4) 660 12.5 (11.4, 13.6) 653 10.1 (9.1, 11.1) Sexual orientation  Straight/heterosexual -- -- -- -- 4993 14.9 (14.4, 15.5)  Lesbian/gay/bisexual -- -- -- -- 192 20.6 (17.1, 24.6) Education  Less then high school 1381 26.5 (24.8, 28.2) 1065 26.3 (24.8, 27.8) 1032 23.3 (21.6, 25.1)  High school degree/GED 2294 26.8 (25.7, 27.9) 1756 26.1 (24.8, 27.4) 1825 20.8 (19.6, 22.1)  Some college 1961 22.0 (21.0, 23.0) 1660 20.2 (19.1, 21.5) 1859 16.4 (15.4, 17.4)  College degree 821 9.6 (8.9, 10.3) 648 8.5 (7.8, 9.3) 673 6.0 (5.4, 6.6) Family income  Less than $35,000 3576 25.2 (24.2, 26.3) 2844 26.0 (24.9, 27.1) 3004 22.5 (21.5, 23.5)  $35,000-$74,999 1985 21.6 (20.6, 22.7) 1528 19.6 (18.6, 20.6) 1558 16.2 (15.2, 17.2)  $75,000+ 950 14.5 (13.5, 15.5) 775 12.2 (11.4, 13.1) 853 8.6 (7.8, 9.4) Geographic region  Northeast 1075 19.2 (17.8, 20.7) 762 17.4 (16.2, 18.6) 813 13.5 (12.2, 14.9)  North central/midwest 1754 24.2 (23.0, 25.4) 1316 21.8 (20.4, 23.2) 1306 18.7 (17.4, 20.1)  South 2450 21.8 (20.6, 23.0) 2004 21.0 (20.0, 22.0) 1937 15.3 (14.5, 16.3)  West 1232 17.0 (16.0, 18.0) 1065 15.9 (14.7, 17.1) 1359 12.4 (11.4, 13.5) 628 participants were missing values for education. 1,397 participants were missing values for sexual orientation in NHIS 2015. Sources: National Health Interview Survey, 2005, 2010, and 2015. NHIS 2005 sample size = 31,132; NHIS 2010 sample size = 26,967; NHIS 2015 sample size = 33,541. Prevalence estimates include non-classifiable menthol/non-menthol cigarette smokers. Fig. 1 Trends in Prevalence of Menthol and Non-Menthol Cigarette Use by Sociodemographic and Geographic Characteristics, 2005–2015. 4 Discussion Our study provides nationally representative prevalence estimates of menthol and non-menthol cigarette use from 2005 to 2015 overall and by sociodemographic and geographic characteristics to give insight into trends in smoking disparities. Although the prevalence of non-menthol cigarette use decreased in all subgroups from 2005 to 2015, menthol cigarette use remained constant or did not significantly decrease among males; participants aged 25–34 and 55 years or older; Hispanics; participants with less than a high school degree, some college education, and a college degree; participants with a family income less than $75,000; and participants residing in the North Central/Midwest, South, and West. Our findings from 2005 to 2010 are consistent with two NSDUH studies reporting menthol cigarette use has either remained stable or increased in certain sociodemographic groups (Giovino et al., 2015, Villanti et al., 2016). Menthol cigarette use in NSDUH increased from 2004 to 2010 (Giovino et al., 2015) and from 2008 to 2014 (Villanti et al., 2016) in participants aged 18–25. We reported similar increases in menthol cigarette use in participants aged 18–24 from 2005 to 2010, but not 2005 to 2015. Like Villanti et al, we observed an increase in menthol cigarette use for respondents aged 25–34 from 2005 to 2015, although our finding was not statistically significant (p = 0.099). Further, our results indicated that menthol cigarette use did not change for NH Blacks from 2005 to 2010, consistent with an older study using NSDUH data from 2004 to 2010 (Giovino et al., 2015). Our declining estimates from 2010 to 2015 and 2005 to 2015 for NH Blacks differ from NSDUH data from 2008 to 2014 (Villanti et al., 2016), which suggested an unchanging prevalence. However, a more recent examination reported a reduction in menthol cigarette use prevalence among NH Blacks from 2002 to 2016, consistent with our findings (Weinberger et al., 2019). Variability of results across studies may be due to differences in analytic strategies used to evaluate prevalence in menthol cigarette use over time, including what years were selected for prevalence estimate comparisons, and the smoking variable definitions (i.e., current cigarette use and brand use). For example, in NSDUH participants were asked if the cigarettes they smoked during the past 30 days were menthol, which differs from the brand preference assessment in NHIS. Nevertheless, our results suggest that certain groups are more susceptible to the long-term health consequences of menthol cigarette use. Cigarette manufacturers have promoted mentholated products as healthier alternatives among targeted populations such as young smokers, women, and African Americans (U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, 2014, U.S. National Cancer Institute, , 2017). In 2009, the Tobacco Control Act granted the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) regulatory authority over the tobacco industry, including product flavoring. The FDA subsequently banned all cigarette flavors apart from menthol. This regulation could potentially explain why the prevalence of menthol cigarette use increased from 2005 to 2010, as smokers who used cigarettes with flavorings other than menthol may have switched to menthol flavoring after the 2009 ban. The overall decrease in menthol use between 2010 and 2015 may be due to the result of successful cessation efforts but could also reflect increased use of other flavored nicotine products (e.g., e-cigarettes, little cigars, cigarillos) during this time period (Kuiper et al., 2017, McMillen et al., 2014). In 2018, the FDA introduced a plan to ban menthol cigarettes (Schroth et al., 2019). Since then, scholars have reviewed the implications of a menthol ban, including how the tobacco industry may retaliate (Schroth et al., 2019). Nevertheless, adult menthol cigarette users believe such a ban may help motivate them to quit smoking (Wackowski et al., 2014), and simulation models have depicted the potential to reduce deaths at the population level (Levy et al., 2011). Our results suggest that menthol cigarette users who belong to certain sociodemographic and geographic subgroups, such as young adults, racial/ethnic minorities, and people residing in the Northeast, North Central/Midwest, and South, may benefit more from a ban. Additionally, our results emphasize urgency in addressing menthol cigarette use among sexual minority adults (Fallin et al., 2015). This study comes with several limitations. First, the NHIS Cancer Control Supplements occurred in five-year intervals, preventing us from conducting a more refined analysis of the time period, or from examining trends after 2015. Moreover, the cross-sectional nature precludes us from determining changes in menthol cigarette use at the individual level. Our study also relies on self-reported usual brand to identify menthol smokers. Such assessment fails to distinguish between participants who predominantly use menthol cigarettes and participants who may be more ambivalent about their brand preference. Furthermore, small sample sizes for certain sociodemographic subgroups might have limited our ability to observe significant differences over time. Despite these limitations, this study updates the current literature on sociodemographic and geographic trends in menthol cigarette use using the NHIS. 5 Conclusion Our study reveals that the prevalence of non-menthol cigarette use has decreased from 2005 to 2015, while the prevalence of menthol cigarette use remained relatively constant across multiple sociodemographic and geographic subgroups. Given that 40% of cigarette users prefer menthol brands (Villanti et al., 2016), FDA endorsement of limitations on menthol cigarette manufacturing may improve public health, especially among populations that are disproportionately targeted by tobacco manufacturers and continue to smoke menthol cigarettes. Research reported in this publication was supported by the National Cancer Institute of the National Institutes of Health (NIH) and FDA Center for Tobacco Products (CTP) under Award Number U54CA229974. The content is solely the responsibility of the authors and does not necessarily represent the official views of the NIH or the Food and Drug Administration. CRediT authorship contribution statement Delvon T. Mattingly: Conceptualization, Methodology, Data curation, Formal analysis, Writing - original draft. Jana L. Hirschtick: Conceptualization, Methodology, Data curation, Formal analysis, Supervision, Writing - review & editing. Rafael Meza: Conceptualization, Funding acquisition, Writing - review & editing. Nancy L. Fleischer: Conceptualization, Funding acquisition, Writing - review & editing. Declaration of competing interest The authors declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence the work reported in this paper. Appendix A Supplementary data The following are the Supplementary data to this article:Supplementary data 1 Appendix A Supplementary data to this article can be found online at https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pmedr.2020.101227. ==== Refs References Curtin G.M. Sulsky S.I. Van Landingham C. Marano K.M. Graves M.J. Ogden M.W. Swauger J.E. Patterns of menthol cigarette use among current smokers, overall and within demographic strata, based on data from four U.S. government surveys Regul Toxicol Pharmacol 70 2014 189 196 10.1016/j.yrtph.2014.06.018 24997230 Fagan P. Pohkrel P. Herzog T. Pagano I. Vallone D. Trinidad D.R. Sakuma K.L. Sterling K. Fryer C.S. Comparisons of three nicotine dependence scales in a multiethnic sample of young adult menthol and non-menthol smokers Drug Alcohol Depend 149 2015 203 211 10.1016/j.drugalcdep.2015.02.005 25744873 Fallin A. Goodin A.J. King B.A. Menthol cigarette smoking among lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender adults Am J Prev Med 48 2015 93 97 10.1016/j.amepre.2014.07.044 25245795 Giovino G.A. Villanti A.C. Mowery P.D. Sevilimedu V. Niaura R.S. Vallone D.M. Abrams D.B. Differential trends in cigarette smoking in the USA: is menthol slowing progress? Tob Control 24 2015 28 37 10.1136/tobaccocontrol-2013-051159 23997070 Gundersen D.A. Delnevo C.D. Wackowski O. Exploring the relationship between race/ethnicity, menthol smoking, and cessation, in a nationally representative sample of adults Prev Med 49 2009 553 557 10.1016/j.ypmed.2009.10.003 19850064 Kuiper N.M. Gammon D. Loomis B. Falvey K. Wang T.W. King B.A. Rogers T. Trends in Sales of Flavored and Menthol Tobacco Products in the United States During 2011–2015 Nicotine & Tobacco Research 20 2017 698 706 10.1093/ntr/ntx123 Levy D.T. Pearson J.L. Villanti A.C. Blackman K. Vallone D.M. Niaura R.S. Abrams D.B. Modeling the future effects of a menthol ban on smoking prevalence and smoking-attributable deaths in the United States Am J Public Health 101 2011 1236 1240 10.2105/AJPH.2011.300179 21566034 Lynn A.B., Julia A.R.D., Miriam L.K., Kari C.W.W., 2019. IPUMS Health Surveys: National Health Interview Survey, Version 6.4. Minneapolis, Minnesota. 10.18128/D070.V6.4 . McMillen R.C. Gottlieb M.A. Shaefer R.M. Winickoff J.P. Klein J.D. Trends in Electronic Cigarette Use Among U.S. Adults: Use is Increasing in Both Smokers and Nonsmokers Nicotine & Tobacco Research 17 2014 1195 1202 10.1093/ntr/ntu213 25381306 National Center for Health Statistics. Survey Description, National Health Interview Survey, 2015 2016 Hyattsville Maryland Schroth K.R.J. Villanti A.C. Kurti M. Delnevo C.D. Why an FDA Ban on Menthol Is Likely to Survive a Tobacco Industry Lawsuit Public Health Rep 134 2019 300 306 10.1177/0033354919841011 30970219 StataCorp., Stata Statistical Software: Release 15 2017 StataCorp LLC College Station, TX U.S. Bureau of the Census., 1994. Geographic areas reference manual. U.S. Department of Commerce, Economics and Statistics Administration, Bureau of the Census. Washington, D.C. https://www.census.gov/programs-surveys/geography/guidance/geographic-areas-reference-manual.html. Accessed February 20, 2020. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, 2014. The Health Consequences of Smoking: 50 Years of Progress. A Report of the Surgeon General. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, National Center for Chronic Disease Prevention and Health Promotion. Atlanta, GA. Accessed September 06, 2020. U.S. National Cancer Institute, A Socioecological Approach to Addressing Tobacco-Related Health Disparities. National Cancer Institute Tobacco Control Monograph 22. U.S Department of Health and Human Services, National Institutes of Health 2017 National Cancer Institute Bethesda, MD Villanti A.C. Collins L.K. Niaura R.S. Gagosian S.Y. Abrams D.B. Menthol cigarettes and the public health standard: a systematic review BMC Public Health 17 2017 983 10.1186/s12889-017-4987-z 29284458 Villanti, A.C., Mowery, P.D., Delnevo, C.D., Niaura, R.S., Abrams, D.B., Giovino, G.A., 2016. Changes in the prevalence and correlates of menthol cigarette use in the USA, 2004-2014. Tob Control 25:ii14-ii20. DOI: 10.1136/tobaccocontrol-2016-053329. Wackowski O.A. Manderski M.T.B. Delnevo C.D. Young Adults’ Behavioral Intentions Surrounding a Potential Menthol Cigarette Ban Nicotine & Tobacco Research 16 2014 876 880 10.1093/ntr/ntu003 24514070 Weinberger A.H. Giovenco D.P. Zhu J. Lee J. Kashan R.S. Goodwin R.D. Racial/ethnic differences in daily, nondaily, and menthol cigarette use and smoking quit ratios in the United States: 2002 to 2016 Prev Med 125 2019 32 39 10.1016/j.ypmed.2019.04.009 31004620