A systematic review of the effects of e-cigarette use on lung function

Nicotine and cannabis vaping-related workplace absenteeism among U.S. Adults, 2022

INTRODUCTION

Vaping of nicotine and cannabis has increased substantially among US adults, but its impact on workplace productivity remains poorly understood. This study examines the associations between nicotine and cannabis vaping patterns and workplace absenteeism.

METHODS

Cross-sectional data from a US nationally representative sample of noninstitutionalized part-time and full-time employed adults aged ≥ 18 from the 2022 National Survey on Drug Use and Health (N = 30,591) were analyzed. The associations between nicotine vaping (recency and frequency), cannabis vaping (recency), and workplace absenteeism (measured by self-reported number of missed days due to illness/injury and skipped work in the past month) were evaluated using negative binomial regression adjusting for sociodemographic characteristics and other past-month drug use.

RESULTS

An estimated 10.4 % of full-time workers vaped nicotine in the past month and 6.4 % vaped cannabis. Compared to never-vapers of nicotine, those with any history of vaping had higher estimated incidence of absences with past-month vaping associated with increased incidence of missed work due to illness/injury (aIRR = 1.34, 95 % CI: 1.14-1.59) and skipping work (aIRR = 1.65, 95 % CI: 1.24-2.21). Past-month cannabis vaping was associated with increased estimated incidence of missed work due to illness/injury (aIRR = 1.35, 95 % CI: 1.06-1.72) and skipping work (aIRR = 1.70, 95 % CI: 1.32-2.18), although these rates did not differ significantly from those associated with non-vaped cannabis use. Associations were generally stronger among full-time workers compared to part-time workers.

CONCLUSION

Both nicotine and cannabis vaping are associated with increased workplace absenteeism. Results support the development and implementation of workplace policies to address vaping-related productivity losses.

Beyond the puff: health consequences of vaping

Electronic nicotine delivery systems (ENDS) arrived on the U.S. market in 2007 and rapidly grew in popularity as a harm reduction tool for traditional cigarette users. While initially marketed as a healthier alternative to combustible cigarettes, the unique mixture of chemical constituents in ENDS products and their emissions have led to rising concern about their safety and the long-term health implications. Given the lack of long-term, epidemiological research on the health effects of these products, recent research has sought to understand the impacts on cellular components and gain understanding of acute effects to inform potential chronic health implications. Studies have demonstrated the deleterious effects the use of ENDS has on the oral cavity, respiratory, and cardiovascular systems. ENDS use has been linked to gingival inflammation and alterations in the oral microbiome contributing to periodontal disease. Further, the presence of heavy metals and other constituents in ENDS emissions contribute to aberrant oxidative stress and inflammation within the lung, contributing to alterations in functional lung capacity and respiratory symptoms in ENDS users. In addition, harmful components of ENDS emissions make their way to the circulatory system, leading to detrimental impacts in cardiovascular functioning such as a rise in blood pressure, impaired vascular functioning, and increased heart rate, all of which are known to underscore long-term cardiovascular ailments. This review will provide an in-depth discussion of the current literature available on the consequences of ENDS use on the oral cavity, respiratory, and cardiovascular systems as well as provide insight into long-term implications that may result.

Examining Vaping Policies in Substance Use Disorder Treatment Facilities

Background

Unlike combustible cigarettes, vaping does not produce smoke, creating ambiguity around indoor vaping policies. Vaping policies in substance use disorder treatment facilities may directly impact how an individual engages with treatment.

Objective

To examine associated factors with vaping policies within substance use disorder treatment facilities in the United States.

Design

This cross-sectional study used data from the National Substance Use and Mental Health Services Survey to examine data from substance use disorder treatment facilities. Other data included the state percentage of adults who use e-cigarettes from the Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System, and state-level indoor e-cigarette restriction policies from the State Tobacco Activity Tracking and Evaluations System.

Methods

A total of N = 16 042 substance use disorder treatment facilities in 2022 were included. Factors that were examined include [a] state percentages of adults who vape, [b] state indoor vaping restrictions, [c] tobacco use screening in facilities, [d] smoking/tobacco education and counseling in facilities, [e] availability of nicotine pharmacotherapies in facilities, [f] facility smoking policies, [g] availability of outpatient or non-hospital residential treatment, and [h] availability of a treatment program specifically for adolescents or young adults. Facility vaping policies is the outcome variable in this study with three values: [a] vaping is restricted, [b] vaping in designated outdoor area(s), and [c] permissive vaping policies (anywhere outside, designated indoor areas, anywhere inside, anywhere without restriction).

Results

Vaping policies across all treatment facilities include 45.9% restricted vaping, 45.9% permitted vaping in designated outdoor area(s), and 8.2% had a permissive vaping policy. State-level percentage of adults who use e-cigarettes, state indoor e-cigarette restrictions, facility smoking policies, and services provided by facilities were associated with different vaping policies, ranging from restrictive to permissive policies.

Conclusions

Various vaping policies exist in substance use disorder treatment facilities. Different vaping policies may have varied impacts on individuals' treatment goals.

Self-rated health differences between exclusive e-cigarette users and exclusive cigarette smokers: evidence from the 2017-2019 Scottish Health Survey

The comparative health implications of e-cigarette use versus traditional cigarette smoking remain a critical focus in public health research. This cross-sectional study examined differences in self-rated general health between exclusive e-cigarette users and exclusive cigarette smokers, using data from the 2017-2019 Scottish Health Survey. A total of 2484 adults (aged 16 and above) were included and categorized as exclusive e-cigarette users (n = 565) or exclusive cigarette smokers (n = 1919). Self-rated health was assessed using a single-item measure with five response categories: "very bad," "bad," "fair," "good," and "very good". Generalized ordinal logistic regression models were used to estimate the association between nicotine product use and self-rated health, adjusting for age, sex, Scottish Index of Multiple Deprivation, marital status, ethnicity, alcohol consumption frequency, physical activity, presence of longstanding physical or mental health conditions, and age of smoking initiation. In the fully adjusted model, exclusive e-cigarette users had higher odds of reporting better self-rated health compared to exclusive cigarette smokers overall (OR = 1.26, 95% CI 1.05-1.51, p = 0.012). A graded relationship was also observed in the fully adjusted model, with progressively lower odds of reporting better self-rated health as smoking intensity increased, using exclusive e-cigarette users as the reference group. Heavy smokers (≥ 20 cigarettes/day) had the lowest odds of reporting better self-rated health (OR = 0.63, 95% CI 0.49-0.80, p < 0.001), followed by moderate smokers (10 to < 20 cigarettes/day) (OR = 0.81, 95% CI 0.66-0.99, p = 0.047). In contrast, light smokers (< 10 cigarettes/day) showed no significant difference in self-rated health compared to exclusive e-cigarette users (OR = 0.94, 95% CI 0.75-1.18, p = 0.614). These findings indicate that exclusive e-cigarette use is associated with better self-rated health compared to exclusive cigarette smoking, particularly among moderate and heavy smokers. Additional analyses revealed no significant differences in self-rated health among exclusive e-cigarette users based on prior smoking history (OR = 0.94, 95% CI 0.43-2.08, p = 0.882) or among exclusive cigarette smokers based on prior e-cigarette use (OR = 0.87, 95% CI 0.69-1.09, p = 0.219). These findings suggest that prior use is unlikely to explain the observed association between exclusive e-cigarette use and better self-rated health compared to exclusive cigarette smoking. Given the subjective nature of self-rated health, these findings should be interpreted with caution. Future longitudinal studies incorporating objective health measures are essential to assess the long-term impacts of e-cigarette use and inform evidence-based harm reduction policies.

Patterns of Use of e-Cigarettes and Their Respiratory Effects: A Critical Umbrella Review

E-cigarettes (ECs) are a well-established consumer product. To study their respiratory health effects, there is the issue of heterogenous patterns of use: concurrently with cigarette smoking (dual use), exclusive use after smoking cessation (exclusive use), or use initiated without any prior or current use of cigarettes (naïve use). Our primary goal was to synthesize the evidence on the respiratory effects of ECs use in adults, categorized by their pattern of use. Additionally, we identified the highest quality systematic reviews and critically evaluated the current literature on this topic. The review was developed with published umbrella review guidelines. The database searches were Medline, Scopus, Cochrane, Epistemonikos, LILACS, and grey literature databases. The criterion for inclusion of systematic reviews was analyses of respiratory tests from randomized controlled trials or cohort studies. Quality assessments were performed with AMSTAR2 and a checklist of reporting biases. A narrative analysis was synthesized by test method: spirometry, impulse oscillometry, breath gasses, biomarkers, and clinical serious adverse events. Twelve systematic reviews were included. The findings on respiratory functioning were statistically non-significant across all patterns of use. Reporting bias was frequently observed. Based on the current research, there is no evidence of significant change in the short or medium term in respiratory function with any pattern of ECs use. We attribute the null findings to the weaknesses of acute studies, the participants' smoking history masking testing, and the inclusion of participants with a low frequency of use.

Association between e-cigarette exposure and ventilation homogeneity in young adults: a cross-sectional study

BACKGROUND

The number of young people who use e-cigarettes is rising. It remains unclear whether e-cigarette use impairs lung function. We aimed to compare ventilation distribution between young adults exposed to e-cigarettes and an unexposed group.

METHODS

Study participants included otherwise healthy young adults (18-24 years) who self-reported e-cigarette use and unexposed participants who had no history of e-cigarette, tobacco or cannabis exposure. Exposure to e-cigarettes was defined using three measures: 1) ever-exposed, 2) daily use and 3) puff frequency, which includes none (unexposed), minimal (<2 puffs·h-1), moderate (3-4 puffs·h-1) and heavy (≥5 puffs·h-1). Ventilation distribution was measured using the multiple-breath washout test and reported as lung clearance index (LCI).

RESULTS

A total of 93 participants were recruited; 38 unexposed and 41 exposed participants had LCI measures. The exposed group consisted predominately of participants who used flavoured e-liquids (94.5%) that contained nicotine (93.5%). The magnitude and direction of the difference in LCI across the exposure definitions was similar. Compared with the unexposed group, in the unadjusted models LCI was higher in those with any e-cigarette use (mean difference 0.15, 95% CI -0.004-0.31), daily users (mean difference 0.10, 95% CI -0.08-0.28) and heavy users (mean difference 0.22, 95% CI 0.03-0.41).

CONCLUSION

This preliminary work suggests that LCI may be a useful biomarker to measure the effects of e-cigarette use on ventilation distribution and to track early functional impairment of the small airways.

Comparing self-rated health among exclusive e-cigarette users and traditional cigarette smokers: an analysis of the Health Survey for England 2019

The health implications of e-cigarette use compared to traditional cigarette smoking continue to attract significant public health interest. This study examines self-rated health (SRH) outcomes among exclusive e-cigarette users versus exclusive traditional cigarette smokers, using data from the Health Survey for England 2019. From an initial sample of 10,299 participants, the study focused on 8204 adults, excluding those aged 0-15. Further refinement to exclusive nicotine product users led to 274 e-cigarette users and 1017 cigarette smokers, after excluding dual users, never users, ex-users, non-responders, and users of other tobacco products such as pipes and cigars. SRH was derived from participants' responses to a question asking how they rated their general health, with five possible options: "very good", "good", "fair", "bad", and "very bad". For the purposes of this study, these responses were collapsed into two categories: "Good Health" (combining "very good" and "good") and "Poor Health" (combining "fair", "bad", and "very bad"). Consequently, 834 participants were classified as reporting good health, while 457 reported poor health. Binary logistic regression, adjusted for factors such as age, sex, ethnicity, residence, education, body mass index, alcohol use, age started smoking, physical or mental health conditions, and frequency of GP visits, revealed that exclusive e-cigarette users were significantly more likely to report good health compared to exclusive cigarette smokers, with an odds ratio (OR) of 1.59 (95% CI: 1.10 - 2.32, p = 0.014). As a sensitivity analysis, a generalized ordered logistic regression model was performed using the original five SRH categories. The adjusted model confirmed consistent results, with exclusive e-cigarette users showing higher odds of reporting better health across the full range of SRH outcomes (OR = 1.40, 95% CI: 1.08-1.82, p = 0.011). These findings suggest that exclusive e-cigarette users perceive their health more positively than traditional cigarette smokers, contributing useful insights to the discussions around harm reduction strategies.

[Safety of use of electronic cigarettes: A systematic review of bronchopulmonary, cardiovascular and cancer risks]

As the effects of electronic cigarettes (ECs) have rapidly become widely known, we propose to take stock of recent findings on the bronchopulmonary and cardiovascular adverse effects (AEs) and the risks of cancer occurrence entailed by EC use. METHOD: We carried out a search from 2018 to October 19, 2023 on PubMed, adopting the PRISMA guidelines (2020) with the following keywords in "Titles and abstracts": electronic cigarette, or e-cigarette, or ENDS, AND safety or toxicology or effect or health effect, using "Systematic Review" as a filter. The inclusion criteria were: systematic review of in vitro or in vivo studies in English or French dealing with the risks of ECs for the bronchopulmonary system, the cardiovascular system, or cancer occurrence. CONCLUSION: Twenty-eight systematic reviews on the adverse effects (AE) of electronic cigarettes (EC) in selected humans show that the toxic substances they generate can cause cancers and increase the risk of cardiac and pulmonary disorders. New studies on the potential dangerousness of EC use are essential and urgent.

Impact of smoke-free legislation on stroke risk: A systematic review and meta-analysis

PURPOSE

Secondhand smoke significantly increases the risk of cerebrovascular diseases, prompting recent public smoking bans. We aimed to ascertain the effects of smoke-free legislation on stroke incidence and mortality.

METHODS

We systematically searched Medline, Embase, Cochrane Library, and Scopus up to August 13, 2023, for studies reporting changes in stroke incidence following partial or comprehensive smoking bans. A random-effects meta-analysis was conducted on hospital admissions and mortality for stroke, stratified based on comprehensiveness of the ban ((i) workplaces-only, (ii) workplaces and restaurants, (iii) workplaces, restaurants and bars). The effect of post-ban follow-up duration was assessed visually by a forest plot, while meta-regression was employed to evaluate for any dose-response relationship between ban comprehensiveness and stroke risk.

FINDINGS

Of 3987 records identified, 15 studies analysing bans across a median follow-up time of 24 months (range: 3-67) were included. WRB bans were associated with reductions in the rates of hospital admissions for stroke (nine studies; RR, 0.918; 95% CI, 0.872-0.967) and stroke mortality (three studies; RR, 0.987; 95% CI, 0.952-1.022), although the latter did not reach statistical significance. There was no significant difference in the risk of stroke admissions for studies with increased ban comprehensiveness and no minimum duration for significant post-ban effects to be observed.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION

Legislative smoking bans were associated with significant reductions in stroke-related hospital admissions, providing evidence for its utility as a public health intervention.

Patterns of Use of e-Cigarettes and Their Respiratory Effects: Protocol for an Umbrella Review

BACKGROUND

Electronic nicotine delivery systems (ENDS)-e-cigarettes or vapes-have been shown to substantially reduce or eliminate many toxins compared with cigarette smoke, but simultaneously ENDS use also produces their own unique toxins. Yet the patterns of use among people who use ENDS are not homogeneous. Some people who use ENDS also smoke cigarettes (dual use). Other people who formerly smoked cigarettes are completely substituting ENDS (exclusive use). A small number of people who have never smoked cigarettes are using ENDS (naïve use of nicotine). Each of these patterns of use results in different exposures to toxins. Unfortunately, epidemiological studies routinely group together any ENDS use regardless of other tobacco use.

OBJECTIVE

This umbrella review primarily aims to present all the evidence available on the respiratory effects of ENDS use by adults based on their pattern of use: dual use, exclusive use, and naïve use. With each of these patterns of use, are there benefits, no changes, or harmful effects on respiratory functioning? Our objective is to provide clinicians with a detailed analysis of how different patterns of ENDS use impact respiratory functioning and to point to the best sources of evidence.

METHODS

This umbrella review follows the Methods for Overviews of Reviews framework and the PRIOR (Preferred Reporting Items for Overviews of Reviews) statement. Systematic reviews published since 2019 will be searched across 4 databases and 3 gray literature sources. Additional searches will include citation chasing, references lists, and referrals from respiratory specialists. The quality of included reviews will be evaluated using the AMSTAR2 (A Measurement Tool to Assess Systematic Reviews) checklist. We will document biases in 3 areas: protocol deviations, biases from the Oxford Catalogue of Bias, and internal data discrepancies. Two reviewers will independently conduct the search and quality assessments. Our analysis will focus on reviews rated as moderate or high confidence by AMSTAR2. We will use the Vote Counting Direction of Effect method to manage expected data heterogeneity, assessing whether ENDS use is beneficial or detrimental, or has no effect on respiratory functions based on the pattern of use.

RESULTS

The review is expected to be completed by December 2024. The database search was concluded in April 2024, and data extraction and bias assessment were completed in June 2024. The analysis phase is planned to be completed by October 2024.

CONCLUSIONS

A thorough and comprehensive assessment of the evidence will better inform the contentious debate over the respiratory effects of ENDS providing much needed clarity by linking their effects to specific usage patterns. This analysis is particularly crucial in understanding the risks associated with continued cigarette smoking.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

PROSPERO CRD42024540034; https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?RecordID=540034.

INTERNATIONAL REGISTERED REPORT IDENTIFIER (IRRID)

DERR1-10.2196/60325.

Current perspective on e-cigarette use and respiratory outcomes: mechanisms and messaging

INTRODUCTION

There has been an increasing amount of research on the consequences of e-cigarette use for respiratory outcomes, which is significant for public health and respiratory medicine. We discuss recent findings and lay out implications for prevention and treatment.

AREAS COVERED

Based on literature searches using several databases (PubMed, Web of Science, Google Scholar) for keywords, including synonyms, 'e-cigarettes,' with 'pulmonary function,' 'oxidative stress,' and 'inflammation,' we review studies on acute effects of e-cigarette use for measures of pulmonary function and discuss selected laboratory studies on mechanisms of effect, focusing on processes with known relation to respiratory disease; oxidative stress and inflammation. We discuss available studies that have tested the effectiveness of communication strategies for prevention of e-cigarette use oriented to different audiences, including nonsmoking adolescents and adult smokers.

EXPERT OPINION

We conclude that the evidence presents a mixed picture. Evidence is found for adverse consequences of e-cigarette use on measures of lung function and two disease-related biological processes, sometimes but not always less than for cigarette smoking. How to best communicate these results to a complex audience of users, from younger susceptible adolescents to long-term adult smokers interested in quitting, is a question of significant interest and empirically validated communication strategies are greatly needed.

Longitudinal impact of perceived harm and addiction on e-cigarette initiation among tobacco-naïve youth: Population Assessment of Tobacco and Health study (Waves 1-5)

OBJECTIVES

This study investigates the effect of e-cigarette-related harm and addiction perceptions on e-cigarette initiation among US tobacco-naïve adolescents.

STUDY DESIGN

This is a longitudinal study.

METHODS

Using data from five waves (2013-2019) of the Population Assessment of Tobacco and Health Study, we created a longitudinal data set for 2775 youth aged 12-17 years who had no prior use of tobacco products at Wave 1. E-cigarette initiation was defined as transitioning from non-use at Wave 1 to ever use in subsequent waves. Kaplan-Meier survival and Cox proportional hazard regression models were used to assess the impact of harm and addiction perceptions on e-cigarette initiation.

RESULTS

Our analytic sample comprised 63.1% of youth who had never used tobacco products at Wave 1 and consequently initiated e-cigarette use in subsequent waves. Over time, fewer individuals perceived e-cigarettes as harmless (14.1%-2.1%), whereas more perceived them as likely to cause addiction (53.7%-76.6%). Compared with perceiving e-cigarettes as a lot of harm, those perceiving some harm (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR] = 1.30, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.12-1.52), little harm (aHR = 1.42, 95% CI: 1.20-1.68), or no harm (aHR = 2.09, 95% CI: 1.64-2.65) were more likely to initiate e-cigarette use. Demographic factors for initiation included being Black or Hispanic ethnicity (vs White), younger age (12-14 vs15-17 years), and receiving over $20 per week (vs $0) in pocket money, with P-values <0.05. However, in adjusted results, addiction perceptions did not significantly impact e-cigarette initiation (P-values >0.05).

CONCLUSIONS

Among youth without prior tobacco/nicotine use, perceiving e-cigarettes as having low harm significantly predicted initiation over time. Effective prevention strategies, including targeted risk communication interventions, are essential for discouraging e-cigarette use among youth.

The stigma of smoking among women: A systematic review

BACKGROUND

Smoking stigma has been well documented, but little is known regarding its specific features and effects on women. Notably, women face unique social, cultural, and economic challenges that may interact with smoking stigma and impact health outcomes. This review investigates the extent to which smoking women encounter and internalise stigma, while examining the various coping mechanisms they employ to manage these negative experiences.

METHODS

In November 2022, major databases were systematically searched with no time restrictions. After applying inclusion and exclusion criteria, 23 studies (three quantitative and 20 qualitative) met our criteria. We conducted a quality assessment and summarised the findings pertaining to public stigma, self-stigma, and coping strategies.

RESULTS

The stigma about smoking emerges from a variety of sources, such as family, healthcare providers, or internet forums. Women smokers are universally aware of the negative image they have in society. Yet, their experiences and management of the stigma of smoking are shaped by other variables such as cultural background, social class, or motherhood status. Smoking stigma produces ambivalent effects, such as concealment, reduced usage of support services, and to a lesser extent, smoking cessation motivation.

CONCLUSIONS

These results indicate that smoking stigma is an important social justice and public health issue and that further research is needed to better prevent its effects on women's well-being and health behaviours.

Electronic Cigarette Use during Pregnancy: Is It Harmful?

Although combustible cigarette smoking rates have declined in recent years, alternative tobacco product use, particularly electronic cigarette use ("vaping"), has increased among young adults. Recent studies indicate that vaping during pregnancy is on the rise, possibly due to the perception that it is a safer alternative to combustible cigarette smoking. However, e-cigarette aerosols may contain several newer, potentially toxic compounds, including some known developmental toxicants that may adversely impact both the mother and the fetus. However, there is paucity of studies that have examined the effects of vaping during pregnancy. While the adverse perinatal outcomes of cigarette smoking during pregnancy are well established, the specific risks associated with inhaling vaping aerosols during pregnancy requires more research. In this article, we discuss the existing evidence and knowledge gaps on the risks of vaping during pregnancy. Studies that investigate vaping-associated systemic exposure and its effects (i.e., biomarker analyses) and maternal and neonatal clinical health outcomes are needed to reach more robust conclusions. We particularly emphasize the need to go beyond comparative studies with cigarettes, and advocate for research that objectively evaluates the safety of e-cigarettes and other alternative tobacco products.

E-cigarettes and Vaping: A Smoking Cessation Method or Another Smoking Innovation?

The prevalence of using e-cigarettes (vaping) has risen rapidly since its introduction in 2007, mostly among male youth. Although research on the health risks of e-cigarettes is still limited, there is growing evidence of debilitating pulmonary conditions and general immune weakness from e-cigarettes, leading to various infections. Moreover, there are concerns that vaping could be used as a new model of cannabis consumption, increasing cannabis addiction among adolescents. With well-known health risks from traditional smoking, e-cigarettes are viewed as a safe way of smoking, appealing more to youth. Additionally, extensive e-cigarette marketing boosted by the internet and fame has resulted in worries that e-cigarettes can lead to a renormalization of cigarette smoking and can be used as a new method to consume vaporized drugs. Although the concern that e-cigarettes are as harmful as traditional smoking has been raised, youth and most healthcare providers remain relatively unaware. Therefore, this review explored the association between e-cigarettes and traditional smoking. With the introduction of e-cigarettes in the last two decades, the topic is still new and less studied. Therefore, this review will help us understand the topic to better care for e-cigarette smokers and reduce the increasing public health burden from vaping.