Effect of smoking abstinence and reduction in asthmatic smokers switching to electronic cigarettes: evidence for harm reversal

Beneficial and Harmful Tobacco-Use Transitions Associated With ENDS in the U.S

INTRODUCTION

ENDS can benefit those who use combustible tobacco if they transition completely to ENDS. ENDS can also result in nicotine addiction among nicotine-naïve people.

METHODS

ENDS-related tobacco-use transitions were assessed among U.S. youth and adults using weighted Population Assessment of Tobacco and Health Study Waves 4 (2016-2017) and 5 (2018-2019) adult and youth data. A beneficial transition was defined as those who used combustible tobacco and transitioned exclusively to ENDS use or quit with the help of ENDS. A harmful transition was defined as (1) nonusers of any tobacco product who initiated ENDS (with or without combustible tobacco co-use) or (2) those who exclusively used ENDS and then added or transitioned to combustible tobacco use. Sensitivity analyses were conducted to examine modified definitions of beneficial and harmful transitions based on different assumptions. The analyses were conducted between August 2024 and November 2024.

RESULTS

Total sample size (N=31,733) represented ∼256 million people. For those using a combustible tobacco product in Wave 4, 2.1 million (∼4.6%) transitioned to exclusive ENDS use or to ENDS-assisted cessation of a combustible tobacco product (benefit). In addition, 4.6 million (∼%2.2) transitioned from nonuse to ENDS or, among people who use ENDS exclusively in Wave 4, added combustible or transitioned to combustible tobacco use in Wave 5 (harm).

CONCLUSIONS

For every 1 beneficial transition, ENDS use was associated with 2.15 harmful transitions; this ratio ranged from 0.75 to 2.77 in sensitivity analyses. With effective restrictions on ENDS access and marketing for tobacco-naïve people, the population benefits of ENDS could outweigh population harms.

Partial amelioration of a chronic cigarette-smoke-induced phenotype in mice by switching to electronic cigarettes

Electronic cigarettes ("e-cigarettes") are often marketed as smoking cessation tools and are used by smokers to reduce/quit cigarette smoking. The objective of this study was to assess the health effects of switching to e-cigarettes after long-term smoking in a mouse model and compare these effects with continued smoking, or quitting entirely. Adult BALB/c mice were whole-body exposed to mainstream cigarette smoke (2 h/day, 5 days/week) for 12 weeks prior to switching to flavoured e-cigarette aerosol (50:50 propylene glycol and glycerine) containing 18 mg/mL nicotine (2 h/day and 5 days/week), continuing cigarette smoking (2 h/day and 5 days/week), or quitting entirely for an additional 2 weeks. We then assessed a range of respiratory health outcomes including lung function and structure, pulmonary inflammation and changes in gene expression in the lung. Switching to e-cigarettes led to improvements in some aspects of respiratory health in mice compared with continued smoking, such as reduced neutrophilic inflammation in the lung. However, total cellular lung inflammation was still elevated and lung function was still impaired, in terms of airway responsiveness to methacholine, for e-cigarette use compared with quitting. Larger effects were typically seen in female mice compared to male. This study shows that switching to e-cigarettes after long-term cigarette smoking leads to improvements in some aspects of respiratory health, such as neutrophilic inflammation and the volume dependence of lung function compared with continued smoking. However, switching to e-cigarettes was not as effective as quitting smoking entirely.

Switching to E-cigarettes as Harm Reduction Among Individuals With Chronic Disease Who Currently Smoke: Results of a Pilot Randomized Controlled Trial

INTRODUCTION

E-cigarettes (ECs) may be an effective harm reduction strategy for individuals with conditions like chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), asthma, coronary artery disease (CAD), and peripheral arterial disease who smoke combustible cigarettes (CCs). Our aim was to examine how individuals with chronic conditions transition from CCs to ECs and its impact on health outcomes.

AIMS AND METHODS

In a pilot randomized controlled trial (RCT), patients with COPD, asthma, and CAD/PAD who currently smoke CCs and have not used nicotine replacement therapy (NRT) or ECs in the past 14 days were randomized to receive ECs or combination NRT with behavioral counseling. Disease symptoms, acceptability/satisfaction (TSQM-9) and feasibility, and cigarettes per day (CPD), and/or EC use were collected at baseline, 3-, and 6 months. Descriptive statistics and a linear regression were conducted to explore changes in CPD and chronic condition-specific assessments (CAT, SAQ-7, and ACT) that assess COPD, asthma, and CAD/PAD symptom change.

RESULTS

At 3 months, the EC group (n = 63, mean CPD = 9 ± 11) reduced their CPD by 54% versus 60% in the NRT group (n = 58, mean CPD = 7 ± 6), p = .56. At 6 months, 17.5% had switched completely to ECs while 23% quit smoking in the NRT arm. CAT scores showed a significant 6-point reduction in the EC arm (p = .03). Participants scored an average of 69 ± 27 for EC effectiveness, 87 ± 23 for convenience, and 75 ± 27 for overall satisfaction.

CONCLUSIONS

This pilot study suggests that ECs may be a safer alternative for chronic condition patients using CCs and warrants further research on expected smoking cessation/reduction among individuals who use ECs.

IMPLICATIONS

The findings from this pilot RCT hold significant implications for chronic conditions such as COPD, asthma, CAD, and peripheral arterial disease who smoke CCs. The observed reduction in CPD and improvement in respiratory symptoms suggest that switching to ECs appears feasible and acceptable among those with chronic diseases. These results suggest that ECs may offer an alternative for individuals struggling to quit CC smoking through existing pharmacotherapies. This study supports further exploration of switching to ECs as a harm reduction strategy among CC users who have been unsuccessful at quitting by other means.

Association Between E-cigarette Use and Asthma Exacerbations Using Nationally Representative Survey Data

Introduction Despite limited knowledge of its potential health effects, electronic cigarette (e-cigarette) use has become increasingly popular in the United States (US). Cigarette smoking is linked to a higher risk of asthma, and e-cigarettes may have similar effects. This study's aim was to examine the association between e-cigarette use and asthma exacerbations in US adults with known asthma. Methods The 2018 Asthma Call Back Survey (ACBS), paired with corresponding data from the 2018 Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System (BRFSS), was utilized for this analysis. Individuals were divided into the following categories: exclusive e-cigarette users, exclusive cigarette users, dual e-cigarette and cigarette users, and never users. A multivariable logistic regression model utilizing a complex survey design was completed after applying weights for population representation and adjusting for potential confounders. Results Of the 11,598 adults in the study, 453 (3.9%) were exclusive e-cigarette users, 3,735 (32.2%) were exclusive cigarette users, 1,484 (12.8%) were dual users, and 5,926 (51.1%) were never users. There was no statistically significant association between asthma exacerbations and exclusive e-cigarette use (OR: 0.88; 95% CI: 0.56-1.38), exclusive cigarette use (OR: 0.80; 95% CI: 0.60-1.05), or dual-use (OR: 0.98; 95% CI: 0.68-1.41). Conclusion There was no association among the categories of exclusive e-cigarette users, exclusive cigarette users, and dual users with asthma exacerbations among adults 18+ with asthma. The results emphasize a need to continue e-cigarette use research to assess future health effects and formulate appropriate public health recommendations.

Exploring the Experiences, Perceptions and Social Dynamics of Electronic Cigarette Users: A Qualitative Study

INTRODUCTION

Electronic cigarettes, or e-cigarettes, are rapidly gaining popularity throughout the globe as safer alternatives to traditional cigarette smoking. There are significant public health concerns due to the uncertainty of long-term health consequences. This study aims to examine the experiences, attitudes and social dynamics of e-cigarette users to provide guidance for public health policies and interventions.

METHODS

In this qualitative descriptive study, semi-structured interviews were conducted. Fifteen e-cigarette users were recruited using a snowball sampling strategy, where initial participants referred other suitable users. All participants had at least 6 months of regular e-cigarette use. Data were collected through face-to-face interviews with open-ended questions. The interviews were transcribed verbatim and reviewed by the researchers. This review identified four main themes and eight sub-themes.

RESULTS

The four main themes identified as a result of the analysis are as follows: (1) initiation and usage experiences; (2) perceptions of health effects; (3) social and environmental factors and (4) addiction and future plans. Participants primarily began using e-cigarettes out of curiosity, due to the appealing fragrance and the belief that they were less harmful than traditional cigarettes. Usage patterns varied among participants, with some reporting minimal cravings in the early morning hours. Opinions on the long-term health effects of e-cigarettes were diverse, with many participants acknowledging uncertainty. Peers and family members perceived e-cigarettes as more socially acceptable than traditional smoking, resulting in fewer negative reactions. Finally, participants' levels of addiction and intentions to quit varied, with some expressing a desire to reduce or cease usage due to health concerns.

CONCLUSION

The findings of this study indicate that the adoption of e-cigarettes is influenced by a confluence of factors, including curiosity, the perception of reduced damage in comparison to conventional cigarettes and social acceptance. Notwithstanding these claimed advantages, users have a diverse array of beliefs and understandings concerning the enduring health consequences of e-cigarettes. The presence of varying levels of addiction and the corresponding aspirations to cease the behaviour highlight the necessity for focused public health interventions.

PATIENT OR PUBLIC CONTRIBUTION

E-cigarette users were actively involved in this study, providing essential insights and feedback throughout. Their first-hand experiences shaped the interview guide and contributed to the identification of key themes. Participants also reviewed and confirmed the accuracy of the interview transcripts, ensuring the reliability of the data.

Sex-specific lung inflammation and mitochondrial damage in a model of electronic cigarette exposure in asthma

The prevalence of electronic cigarette (EC) use among adult with asthma has continued to increase over time, in part due to the belief of being less harmful than smoking. However, the extent of their toxicity and the involved mechanisms contributing to the deleterious impact of EC exposure on patients with preexisting asthma have not been delineated. In the present project, we tested the hypothesis that EC use contributes to respiratory damage and worsening inflammation in the lungs of patients with asthma. To define the consequences of EC exposure in established asthma, we used a mouse model with/without preexisting asthma for short-term exposure to EC aerosols. C57/BL6J mice were sensitized and challenged with a DRA (dust mite, ragweed, Aspergillus fumigates, 200 µg/mL) mixture and exposed daily to EC with nicotine (2% nicotine in 30:70 propylene glycol: vegetable glycerin) or filtered air for 2 wk. The mice were evaluated at 24 h after the final EC exposure. After EC exposure in asthmatic mice, lung inflammatory cell infiltration and goblet cell hyperplasia were increased, whereas EC alone did not cause airway inflammation. Our data also show that mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) content and a key mtDNA regulator, mitochondrial transcription factor A (TFAM), are reduced in asthmatic EC-exposed mice in a sex-dependent manner. Together, these results indicate that TFAM loss in lung epithelium following EC contributes to male-predominant sex pathological differences, including mitochondrial damage, inflammation, and remodeling in asthmatic airways.NEW & NOTEWORTHY Respiratory immunity is dysregulated in preexisting asthma, and further perturbations by EC use could exacerbate asthma severity. However, the extent of their toxicity and the involved mechanisms contributing to the deleterious impact of EC exposure on patients with preexisting asthma have not been delineated. We found that EC has unique biological impacts in lungs and potential sex differences with loss of TFAM, a key mtDNA regulator, in lung epithelial region from our animal EC study.

Respiratory health effects of e-cigarette substitution for tobacco cigarettes: a systematic review

BACKGROUND

E-cigarettes (electronic nicotine delivery system, ENDS) have been presented as a harm reduction strategy for people who smoke tobacco cigarettes but who cannot achieve abstinence, or for those who wish to continue to enjoy nicotine and the habit of smoking. What are the health effects of the substitution of ENDS for tobacco cigarettes? This systematic review evaluates the evidence of human clinical tests on the respiratory effects of ENDS use in participants who smoke tobacco cigarettes.

METHODS

A registered and published protocol was developed conforming to PRISMA 2020 and AMSTAR2 standards. The literature search was conducted in PubMed, Scopus, and the CENTRAL Cochrane Library and updated to May 2022. Three supplementary searches and a grey literature search were performed. Studies were evaluated with the JBI quality tools and the Oxford Catalogue of Bias. Due to the heterogeneity (diversity) of the studies, a narrative data synthesis was performed on the test findings plus three sub-group analyses.

RESULTS

The review consists of sixteen studies and twenty publications. Spirometry tests comprised the majority of the data. In total, 66 respiratory test measurements were reported, out of which 43 (65%) were not significant. Statistically significant findings were mixed, with 9 tests showing improvements and 14 measuring declines, none of which was clinically relevant. Ten studies were rated at a high risk of bias, and six had some concerns primarily due to inadequate research designs and the conduct of the studies. Reporting bias was documented in thirteen studies.

CONCLUSIONS

Most of the studies showed no difference in respiratory parameters. This indicates that ENDS substitution for smoking likely does not result in additional harm to respiratory health. Due to the low quality of the studies, confidence in the conclusions is rated as low. Robust studies with a longer duration and sufficient power are required to validate any potential benefits or possible harms of ENDS substitution. Registration PROSPERO #CRD42021239094, International Registered Report Identifier (IRRID): DERR1-10.2196/29084.

Mobile Phone Text Messages to Support People to Stop Smoking by Switching to Vaping: Codevelopment, Coproduction, and Initial Testing Study

BACKGROUND

SMS text messages are affordable, scalable, and effective smoking cessation interventions. However, there is little research on SMS text message interventions specifically designed to support people who smoke to quit by switching to vaping.

OBJECTIVE

Over 3 phases, with vapers and smokers, we codeveloped and coproduced a mobile phone SMS text message program. The coproduction paradigm allowed us to collaborate with researchers and the community to develop a more relevant, acceptable, and equitable SMS text message program.

METHODS

In phase 1, we engaged people who vape via Twitter and received 167 responses to our request to write SMS text messages for people who wish to quit smoking by switching to vaping. We screened, adjusted, refined, and themed the messages, resulting in a set of 95 that were mapped against the Capability, Opportunity, and Motivation-Behavior constructs. In phase 2, we evaluated the 95 messages from phase 1 via a web survey where participants (66/202, 32.7% woman) rated up to 20 messages on 7-point Likert scales on 9 constructs: being understandable, clear, believable, helpful, interesting, inoffensive, positive, and enthusiastic and how happy they would be to receive the messages. In phase 3, we implemented the final set of SMS text messages as part of a larger randomized optimization trial, in which 603 participants (mean age 38.33, SD 12.88 years; n=369, 61.2% woman) received SMS text message support and then rated their usefulness and frequency and provided free-text comments at the 12-week follow-up.

RESULTS

For phase 2, means and SDs were calculated for each message across the 9 constructs. Those with means below the neutral anchor of 4 or with unfavorable comments were discussed with vapers and further refined or removed. This resulted in a final set of 78 that were mapped against early, mid-, or late stages of quitting to create an order for the messages. For phase 3, a total of 38.5% (232/603) of the participants provided ratings at the 12-week follow-up. In total, 69.8% (162/232) reported that the SMS text messages had been useful, and a significant association between quit rates and usefulness ratings was found (χ21=9.6; P=.002). A content analysis of free-text comments revealed that the 2 most common positive themes were helpful (13/47, 28%) and encouraging (6/47, 13%) and the 2 most common negative themes were too frequent (9/47, 19%) and annoying (4/47, 9%).

CONCLUSIONS

In this paper, we describe the initial coproduction and codevelopment of a set of SMS text messages to help smokers stop smoking by transitioning to vaping. We encourage researchers to use, further develop, and evaluate the set of SMS text messages and adapt it to target populations and relevant contexts.

Electronic cigarettes and health outcomes: umbrella and systematic review of the global evidence

OBJECTIVE

To review and synthesise the global evidence regarding the health effects of electronic cigarettes (e-cigarettes, vapes).

STUDY DESIGN

Umbrella review (based on major independent reviews, including the 2018 United States National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine [NASEM] report) and top-up systematic review of published, peer-reviewed studies in humans examining the relationship of e-cigarette use to health outcomes published since the NASEM report.

DATA SOURCES

Umbrella review: eight major independent reviews published 2017-2021. Systematic review: PubMed, MEDLINE, Scopus, Web of Science, the Cochrane Library, and PsycINFO (articles published July 2017 - July 2020 and not included in NASEM review).

DATA SYNTHESIS

Four hundred eligible publications were included in our synthesis: 112 from the NASEM review, 189 from our top-up review search, and 99 further publications cited by other reviews. There is conclusive evidence linking e-cigarette use with poisoning, immediate inhalation toxicity (including seizures), and e-cigarette or vaping product use-associated lung injury (EVALI; largely but not exclusively for e-liquids containing tetrahydrocannabinol and vitamin E acetate), as well as for malfunctioning devices causing injuries and burns. Environmental effects include waste, fires, and generation of indoor airborne particulate matter (substantial to conclusive evidence). There is substantial evidence that nicotine e-cigarettes can cause dependence or addiction in non-smokers, and strong evidence that young non-smokers who use e-cigarettes are more likely than non-users to initiate smoking and to become regular smokers. There is limited evidence that freebase nicotine e-cigarettes used with clinical support are efficacious aids for smoking cessation. Evidence regarding effects on other clinical outcomes, including cardiovascular disease, cancer, development, and mental and reproductive health, is insufficient or unavailable.

CONCLUSION

E-cigarettes can be harmful to health, particularly for non-smokers and children, adolescents, and young adults. Their effects on many important health outcomes are uncertain. E-cigarettes may be beneficial for smokers who use them to completely and promptly quit smoking, but they are not currently approved smoking cessation aids. Better quality evidence is needed regarding the health impact of e-cigarette use, their safety and efficacy for smoking cessation, and effective regulation.

REGISTRATION

Systematic review: PROSPERO, CRD42020200673 (prospective).

A critique of the Australian National Health and Medical Research Council CEO statement on electronic cigarettes

This paper critically analyses a statement by Australia's National Health and Medical Research Council (NHMRC) on e-cigarettes in May 2022 that will be used to guide national policy. We reviewed the evidence and the conclusions drawn in the NHMRC Statement. In our view, the Statement is not a balanced reflection of the benefits and risks of vaping because it exaggerates the risks of vaping and fails to compare them to the far greater risks of smoking; it uncritically accepts evidence of harms from e-cigarettes while adopting a highly sceptical attitude towards evidence of their benefits; it incorrectly claims that the association between adolescent vaping and subsequent smoking is causal; and it understates the evidence of the benefits of e-cigarettes in assisting smokers to quit. The Statement dismisses the evidence that vaping is probably already having a positive net public health effect and misapplies the precautionary principle. Several sources of evidence supporting our assessment were published after the NHMRC Statement's publication and are also referenced. The NHMRC Statement on e-cigarettes does not present a balanced assessment of the available scientific literature and fails to meet the standard expected of a leading national scientific body.

Electronic cigarettes for smoking cessation

BACKGROUND

Electronic cigarettes (ECs) are handheld electronic vaping devices which produce an aerosol by heating an e-liquid. Some people who smoke use ECs to stop or reduce smoking, although some organizations, advocacy groups and policymakers have discouraged this, citing lack of evidence of efficacy and safety. People who smoke, healthcare providers and regulators want to know if ECs can help people quit smoking, and if they are safe to use for this purpose. This is a review update conducted as part of a living systematic review.

OBJECTIVES

To examine the effectiveness, tolerability, and safety of using electronic cigarettes (ECs) to help people who smoke tobacco achieve long-term smoking abstinence.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Tobacco Addiction Group's Specialized Register, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, Embase, and PsycINFO to 1 July 2022, and reference-checked and contacted study authors.  SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and randomized cross-over trials, in which people who smoke were randomized to an EC or control condition. We also included uncontrolled intervention studies in which all participants received an EC intervention. Studies had to report abstinence from cigarettes at six months or longer or data on safety markers at one week or longer, or both.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We followed standard Cochrane methods for screening and data extraction. Our primary outcome measures were abstinence from smoking after at least six months follow-up, adverse events (AEs), and serious adverse events (SAEs). Secondary outcomes included the proportion of people still using study product (EC or pharmacotherapy) at six or more months after randomization or starting EC use, changes in carbon monoxide (CO), blood pressure (BP), heart rate, arterial oxygen saturation, lung function, and levels of carcinogens or toxicants, or both. We used a fixed-effect Mantel-Haenszel model to calculate risk ratios (RRs) with a 95% confidence interval (CI) for dichotomous outcomes. For continuous outcomes, we calculated mean differences. Where appropriate, we pooled data in meta-analyses.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 78 completed studies, representing 22,052 participants, of which 40 were RCTs. Seventeen of the 78 included studies were new to this review update. Of the included studies, we rated ten (all but one contributing to our main comparisons) at low risk of bias overall, 50 at high risk overall (including all non-randomized studies), and the remainder at unclear risk. There was high certainty that quit rates were higher in people randomized to nicotine EC than in those randomized to nicotine replacement therapy (NRT) (RR 1.63, 95% CI 1.30 to 2.04; I2 = 10%; 6 studies, 2378 participants). In absolute terms, this might translate to an additional four quitters per 100 (95% CI 2 to 6). There was moderate-certainty evidence (limited by imprecision) that the rate of occurrence of AEs was similar between groups (RR 1.02, 95% CI 0.88 to 1.19; I2 = 0%; 4 studies, 1702 participants). SAEs were rare, but there was insufficient evidence to determine whether rates differed between groups due to very serious imprecision (RR 1.12, 95% CI 0.82 to 1.52; I2 = 34%; 5 studies, 2411 participants). There was moderate-certainty evidence, limited by imprecision, that quit rates were higher in people randomized to nicotine EC than to non-nicotine EC (RR 1.94, 95% CI 1.21 to 3.13; I2 = 0%; 5 studies, 1447 participants). In absolute terms, this might lead to an additional seven quitters per 100 (95% CI 2 to 16). There was moderate-certainty evidence of no difference in the rate of AEs between these groups (RR 1.01, 95% CI 0.91 to 1.11; I2 = 0%; 5 studies, 1840 participants). There was insufficient evidence to determine whether rates of SAEs differed between groups, due to very serious imprecision (RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.56 to 1.79; I2 = 0%; 8 studies, 1272 participants). Compared to behavioural support only/no support, quit rates were higher for participants randomized to nicotine EC (RR 2.66, 95% CI 1.52 to 4.65; I2 = 0%; 7 studies, 3126 participants). In absolute terms, this represents an additional two quitters per 100 (95% CI 1 to 3). However, this finding was of very low certainty, due to issues with imprecision and risk of bias. There was some evidence that (non-serious) AEs were more common in people randomized to nicotine EC (RR 1.22, 95% CI 1.12 to 1.32; I2 = 41%, low certainty; 4 studies, 765 participants) and, again, insufficient evidence to determine whether rates of SAEs differed between groups (RR 1.03, 95% CI 0.54 to 1.97; I2 = 38%; 9 studies, 1993 participants).  Data from non-randomized studies were consistent with RCT data. The most commonly reported AEs were throat/mouth irritation, headache, cough, and nausea, which tended to dissipate with continued EC use. Very few studies reported data on other outcomes or comparisons, hence evidence for these is limited, with CIs often encompassing clinically significant harm and benefit.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

There is high-certainty evidence that ECs with nicotine increase quit rates compared to NRT and moderate-certainty evidence that they increase quit rates compared to ECs without nicotine. Evidence comparing nicotine EC with usual care/no treatment also suggests benefit, but is less certain. More studies are needed to confirm the effect size. Confidence intervals were for the most part wide for data on AEs, SAEs and other safety markers, with no difference in AEs between nicotine and non-nicotine ECs nor between nicotine ECs and NRT. Overall incidence of SAEs was low across all study arms. We did not detect evidence of serious harm from nicotine EC, but longest follow-up was two years and the number of studies was small. The main limitation of the evidence base remains imprecision due to the small number of RCTs, often with low event rates, but further RCTs are underway. To ensure the review continues to provide up-to-date information to decision-makers, this review is a living systematic review. We run searches monthly, with the review updated when relevant new evidence becomes available. Please refer to the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews for the review's current status.

A Close Look at Vaping in Adolescents and Young Adults in the United States

Vaping by adolescents and young adults is a legitimate concern as there is a risk that some may start smoking and that electronic cigarette (EC) use may have adverse effects in the developing lungs of adolescents. This commentary provides updated information on vaping patterns among adolescents and young adults in the United States, as well as the impact of EC usage on respiratory health. EC use has surged greatly among high school students and young adults over the last decade but fortunately has declined significantly since its peak in 2019. During the same time period, smoking rates have constantly fallen to new low record levels. These trends argue against EC use as a gateway to smoking. Most EC usage is infrequent and unlikely to increase a person's risk of negative health consequences. Furthermore, the majority of EC usage has happened among those who have previously smoked. There is a dearth of data on the long-term health implications of EC usage in adolescents and young adults. We do not know whether short-term or intermittent use of EC in youth can lead to negative health outcomes in adulthood, and long-term high-quality studies in well-defined groups are needed. Although vaping has been linked to respiratory symptoms, they tend to be transient and of uncertain significance. This commentary provides up-to-date information so health care providers can give objective and responsible medical advice on EC usage.

Update on new forms of tobacco use

Smoking remains the leading cause of morbidity and mortality worldwide. Because of its clear influence on cardiovascular and respiratory diseases, it is an important factor in internal medicine consultations. Although the rate of smoking cessation has been increasing in recent years, there is a percentage of patients who continue to smoke because they are unable or unwilling to quit, despite having tried existing pharmacological and non-pharmacological therapies. For this group of patients there are strategies based on interventions aimed at reducing the negative effects of smoking without the need for complete cessation. In this review it is shown that due to the absence of combustion of organic matter in conventional cigarettes, snus, e-cigarettes and heated tobacco products generate significantly lower levels of toxic substances.

Transcriptomic Evidence That Switching from Tobacco to Electronic Cigarettes Does Not Reverse Damage to the Respiratory Epithelium

The health benefits of switching from tobacco to electronic cigarettes (ECs) are neither confirmed nor well characterized. To address this problem, we used RNA-seq analysis to compare the nasal epithelium transcriptome from the following groups (n = 3 for each group): (1) former smokers who completely switched to second generation ECs for at least 6 months, (2) current tobacco cigarette smokers (CS), and (3) non-smokers (NS). Group three included one former cigarette smoker. The nasal epithelial biopsies from the EC users vs. NS had a higher number of differentially expressed genes (DEGs) than biopsies from the CS vs. NS and CS vs. EC sets (1817 DEGs total for the EC vs. NS, 407 DEGs for the CS vs. NS, and 116 DEGs for the CS vs. EC comparison). In the EC vs. NS comparison, enriched gene ontology terms for the downregulated DEGs included cilium assembly and organization, whereas gene ontologies for upregulated DEGs included immune response, keratinization, and NADPH oxidase. Similarly, ontologies for cilium movement were enriched in the downregulated DEGs for the CS vs. NS group. Reactome pathway analysis gave similar results and also identified keratinization and cornified envelope in the upregulated DEGs in the EC vs. NS comparison. In the CS vs. NS comparison, the enriched Reactome pathways for upregulated DEGs included biological oxidations and several metabolic processes. Regulator effects identified for the EC vs. NS comparison were inflammatory response, cell movement of phagocytes and degranulation of phagocytes. Disease Ontology Sematic Enrichment analysis identified lung disease, mouth disease, periodontal disease and pulmonary fibrosis in the EC vs. NS comparison. Squamous metaplasia associated markers, keratin 10, keratin 13 and involucrin, were increased in the EC vs. NS comparison. Our transcriptomic analysis showed that gene expression profiles associated with EC use are not equivalent to those from non-smokers. EC use may interfere with airway epithelium recovery by promoting increased oxidative stress, inhibition of ciliogenesis, and maintaining an inflammatory response. These transcriptomic alterations may contribute to the progression of diseases with chronic EC use.

Biomarkers of Exposure and Biomarkers of Potential Harm in Adult Smokers Who Switch to e-Vapor Products Relative to Cigarette Smoking in a 24-week, Randomized, Clinical Trial

INTRODUCTION

Long-term health effects of e-vapor products (EVPs) are not well-established. We compared biomarkers of exposure (BoE) to select harmful and potentially harmful constituents and biomarkers of potential harm (BoPH) in adult smokers who switched to EVPs versus continued smoking for 24 weeks.

METHODS

Adult smokers (n = 450, >10 cigarettes per day for ≥10 years) were randomly assigned to continue smoking (control) or switch to one of two cartridge-based EVPs (test 1: classic; test 2: menthol, 4% nicotine). BoE and BoPH were measured at baseline and 12 weeks. The results presented here are from a subset of 150 control and EVP subjects (switchers with exhaled carbon monoxide <8 ppm and <10% baseline cigarettes per day) followed for 24 total weeks.

RESULTS

Total 4-(methylnitrosamino)-1-(3-pyridyl)-1-butanol and carboxyhemoglobin were significantly reduced (p < .0001) in tests 1 and 2 at 24 weeks. Urinary nicotine equivalents were not statistically significantly different between the control and EVP groups. At week 24, statistically significant reductions (p < .05) were observed for white blood cell counts, 11-dehydrothromboxane β2, and sICAM in both test groups, and there were several significant changes in measures of pulmonary function. High-density lipoprotein cholesterol and 8-epi-prostaglandin-F2α were directionally favorable in both EVP groups versus control.

CONCLUSIONS

We demonstrate that significant reductions of selected harmful and potentially harmful constituents in EVP aerosol results in significant reductions in BoEs and favorable changes in BoPHs after switching to EVPs for 24 weeks. These changes approached those reported for smoking cessation, suggesting that switching to exclusive use of the EVPs may be less harmful than continuing smoking.

IMPLICATIONS

Cigarette smoking causes serious diseases. Switching from cigarettes to a noncombustible product is a potential harm reduction pathway for adult smokers unable or unwilling to quit. Long-term health effects of e-vapor products (EVPs) compared with continued smoking have not been extensively studied. We present biomarker of exposure evidence on select harmful and potentially harmful constituents and biomarkers of potential harm related to inflammation and oxidative stress in adult smokers switching to two EVPs. This study demonstrates significant reductions in biomarkers of exposure (except for nicotine) accompanied with favorable changes in various biomarkers of potential harm, including pulmonary function. The totality of evidence suggests that exclusive EVP use may present lower health risks compared with smoking cigarettes.

Enhancing the Community Health through Restricting Electronic Cigarettes

Smoking electronic cigarettes has become the subject of considerable debate among scientists, with its proponents claiming that it has a benefit for smoking cessation, since its drawbacks are much lower compared to conventional cigarettes. Moreover, proponents believe that electronic cigarettes can be used as nicotine replacement therapies (NTRs) in order to mitigate tobacco withdrawal syndrome and are the best choice for asthmatic smokers who cannot quit to smoke. However, the opponents argue that electronic cigarettes have numerous negative effects on people, especially the impacts of chemical substances (including fine and ultrafine particles), its role to undermine tobacco control and its influences on the ex-smokers or even non-smokers to start smoking. This essay will assess to assess the hazards of electronic cigarette use and its impacts on public health. Firstly, it will discuss the potential hazards generated by using e-cigarettes over a long exposure, including the adverse effects, followed by the drawbacks of e-cigarettes use on public health related to tobacco control and the decrease of people’s awareness.

Electronic cigarette related topics with conflicting arguments in Chinese newspapers

INTRODUCTION

While debates on e-cigarettes are mainly conducted in scientific fora, media are the most accessible information source for the public, shaping their perceptions of health issues. This study is the first to examine e-cigarette related topics with conflicting arguments presented in Chinese newspapers.

METHODS

The Chinese terms for 'e-cigarettes' were searched in a widely used Chinese news database Wisenews. Content analysis of the full text of 639 news articles was conducted to identify topics with conflicting arguments and examine whether the dominant argument in each topic changed across four time periods from 2004 to 2019.

RESULTS

Twelve e-cigarette related topics with conflicting arguments were identified. The most frequently reported topic was health impact of e-cigarettes, followed by impact of secondhand aerosol exposure, smoking cessation, relative health impact of e-cigarettes compared to cigarettes, and e-cigarette policies outside China. At the same time, the price was the least frequently reported topic. Overall, negative arguments outnumbered positive arguments in the study period. The dominant arguments within many topics changed across time periods; however, within the topics of relative health impact of e-cigarettes compared to cigarettes, taste/flavor, and economic prospects of the industry, positive arguments were more frequently reported in almost all periods. Within the topics of addiction, policies in China, and policies outside China, negative arguments were more frequently reported in virtually all periods.

CONCLUSIONS

Though overall the dominant argument about e-cigarettes and health was 'e-cigarettes are harmful', in the early time periods, e-cigarettes were reported as 'harmless' or even 'healthy'. As China began to regulate e-cigarettes, the reporting on e-cigarettes more frequently included the 'e-cigarettes are harmful' argument. The consistent, more frequent reporting of 'good e-cigarette taste/flavor' has the potential to attract young people to e-cigarette products. The increased reporting on policies unfavorable to e-cigarettes aligned with the growing number of regulations restricting e-cigarettes.

Perimenstrual Asthma in Adolescents: A Shared Condition in Pediatric and Gynecological Endocrinology

Asthma is a frequent medical condition in adolescence. The worsening of the most common symptoms perimenstrually is defined as perimenstrual asthma (PMA). The cause of PMA remains unclear, but a role for hormonal milieu is plausible. Data on PMA in adolescents are limited, and its management is not fully established. We aimed to discuss the PMA phenomenon in young females from pathophysiology to preventive strategies, focusing on the relationship with the hormonal pattern. The fluctuation of estrogens at ovulation and before menstruation and the progesterone secretion during the luteal phase and its subsequent withdrawal seem to be the culprits, because the deterioration of asthma is cyclical during the luteal phase and/or during the first days of the menstrual cycle. Conventional asthma therapies are not always effective for PMA. Preventive strategies may include innovative hormonal contraception. Even a possible beneficial effect of other hormonal treatments, including estrogens, progestogens, and androgens, as well as leukotriene receptor antagonists and explorative approach using microbial-directed therapy, is considered. The underlying mechanisms, through which sex-hormone fluctuations influence asthma symptoms, represent a challenge in the clinical management of such a distressing condition. Further studies focused on young females are mandatory to promote adolescent health.

Optimal use of smoking cessation pharmacotherapy

The most effective intervention for stopping smoking is a combination of professional counselling and pharmacotherapy. Medicines are recommended for all smokers who are motivated to quit and are nicotine dependent. Combination nicotine replacement therapy with a patch and an oral product is more effective than the patch alone. An adequate dose of nicotine must be used for an adequate duration. Varenicline is the most effective oral drug. It is safe in people with stable mental illness. Vaping nicotine is a second-line treatment which can be considered for smokers who are unable to quit with other methods.

Electronic cigarettes for smoking cessation

BACKGROUND

Electronic cigarettes (ECs) are handheld electronic vaping devices which produce an aerosol formed by heating an e-liquid. Some people who smoke use ECs to stop or reduce smoking, but some organizations, advocacy groups and policymakers have discouraged this, citing lack of evidence of efficacy and safety. People who smoke, healthcare providers and regulators want to know if ECs can help people quit and if they are safe to use for this purpose. This is an update conducted as part of a living systematic review.

OBJECTIVES

To examine the effectiveness, tolerability, and safety of using electronic cigarettes (ECs) to help people who smoke tobacco achieve long-term smoking abstinence.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Tobacco Addiction Group's Specialized Register, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, Embase, and PsycINFO to 1 May 2021, and reference-checked and contacted study authors. We screened abstracts from the Society for Research on Nicotine and Tobacco (SRNT) 2021 Annual Meeting.   SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and randomized cross-over trials, in which people who smoke were randomized to an EC or control condition. We also included uncontrolled intervention studies in which all participants received an EC intervention. Studies had to report abstinence from cigarettes at six months or longer or data on safety markers at one week or longer, or both.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We followed standard Cochrane methods for screening and data extraction. Our primary outcome measures were abstinence from smoking after at least six months follow-up, adverse events (AEs), and serious adverse events (SAEs). Secondary outcomes included the proportion of people still using study product (EC or pharmacotherapy) at six or more months after randomization or starting EC use, changes in carbon monoxide (CO), blood pressure (BP), heart rate, arterial oxygen saturation, lung function, and levels of carcinogens or toxicants or both. We used a fixed-effect Mantel-Haenszel model to calculate risk ratios (RRs) with a 95% confidence interval (CI) for dichotomous outcomes. For continuous outcomes, we calculated mean differences. Where appropriate, we pooled data in meta-analyses.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 61 completed studies, representing 16,759 participants, of which 34 were RCTs. Five of the 61 included studies were new to this review update. Of the included studies, we rated seven (all contributing to our main comparisons) at low risk of bias overall, 42 at high risk overall (including all non-randomized studies), and the remainder at unclear risk. There was moderate-certainty evidence, limited by imprecision, that quit rates were higher in people randomized to nicotine EC than in those randomized to nicotine replacement therapy (NRT) (risk ratio (RR) 1.53, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.21 to 1.93; I2 = 0%; 4 studies, 1924 participants). In absolute terms, this might translate to an additional three quitters per 100 (95% CI 1 to 6). There was low-certainty evidence (limited by very serious imprecision) that the rate of occurrence of AEs was similar (RR 0.98, 95% CI 0.80 to 1.19; I2 = 0%; 2 studies, 485 participants). SAEs were rare, but there was insufficient evidence to determine whether rates differed between groups due to very serious imprecision (RR 1.30, 95% CI 0.89 to 1.90: I2 = 0; 4 studies, 1424 participants). There was moderate-certainty evidence, again limited by imprecision, that quit rates were higher in people randomized to nicotine EC than to non-nicotine EC (RR 1.94, 95% CI 1.21 to 3.13; I2 = 0%; 5 studies, 1447 participants). In absolute terms, this might lead to an additional seven quitters per 100 (95% CI 2 to 16). There was moderate-certainty evidence of no difference in the rate of AEs between these groups (RR 1.01, 95% CI 0.91 to 1.11; I2 = 0%; 3 studies, 601 participants). There was insufficient evidence to determine whether rates of SAEs differed between groups, due to very serious imprecision (RR 1.06, 95% CI 0.47 to 2.38; I2 = 0; 5 studies, 792 participants). Compared to behavioural support only/no support, quit rates were higher for participants randomized to nicotine EC (RR 2.61, 95% CI 1.44 to 4.74; I2 = 0%; 6 studies, 2886 participants). In absolute terms this represents an additional six quitters per 100 (95% CI 2 to 15). However, this finding was of very low certainty, due to issues with imprecision and risk of bias. There was some evidence that non-serious AEs were more common in people randomized to nicotine EC (RR 1.22, 95% CI 1.12 to 1.32; I2 = 41%, low certainty; 4 studies, 765 participants), and again, insufficient evidence to determine whether rates of SAEs differed between groups (RR 1.51, 95% CI 0.70 to 3.24; I2 = 0%; 7 studies, 1303 participants).  Data from non-randomized studies were consistent with RCT data. The most commonly reported AEs were throat/mouth irritation, headache, cough, and nausea, which tended to dissipate with continued use. Very few studies reported data on other outcomes or comparisons, hence evidence for these is limited, with CIs often encompassing clinically significant harm and benefit.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

There is moderate-certainty evidence that ECs with nicotine increase quit rates compared to NRT and compared to ECs without nicotine. Evidence comparing nicotine EC with usual care/no treatment also suggests benefit, but is less certain. More studies are needed to confirm the effect size. Confidence intervals were for the most part wide for data on AEs, SAEs and other safety markers, with no difference in AEs between nicotine and non-nicotine ECs. Overall incidence of SAEs was low across all study arms. We did not detect  evidence of harm from nicotine EC, but longest follow-up was two years and the  number of studies was small. The main limitation of the evidence base remains imprecision due to the small number of RCTs, often with low event rates, but further RCTs are underway. To ensure the review continues to provide up-to-date information to decision-makers, this review is now a living systematic review. We run searches monthly, with the review updated when relevant new evidence becomes available. Please refer to the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews for the review's current status.

Development and testing of relative risk-based health messages for electronic cigarette products

BACKGROUND

Health messages on e-cigarette packs emphasise nicotine addiction or harms using similar wording to warnings on cigarette packs. These may not be appropriate for e-cigarettes which constitute a reduced risk alternative for smokers. This research aimed to (1) develop and test a selection of relative risk messages for e-cigarette products; (2) compare these to the two current EU Tobacco Products Directive (TPD) nicotine addiction messages; and (3) explore differences between smokers, non-smokers and dual users.

METHOD

Twenty-six messages focusing on either harm-reduction or cessation were developed and rated by multidisciplinary experts for accuracy, persuasiveness and clarity. The eight highest ranking messages were compared alongside the TPD messages in a sample of 983 European residents (316 smokers, 327 non-smokers, 340 dual users) on understandability, believability and convincingness.

RESULTS

On all three constructs combined, the two TPD messages rated the highest, closely followed by four relative risk messages "Completely switching to e-cigarettes lowers your risk of smoking related diseases", "Use of this product is much less harmful than smoking", "Completely switching to e-cigarettes is a healthier alternative to smoking", and "This product presents substantially lower risks to health than cigarettes" which did not differ statistically from the TPD messages. Non-smokers rated TPD1 significantly higher overall than dual users. Dual users rated "This product is a safer alternative to smoking" significantly higher than non-smokers. Messages did not differ on understandability.

CONCLUSIONS

These alternative messages provide a useful resource for future research and for policy makers considering updating e-cigarette product labelling.

Balancing Consideration of the Risks and Benefits of E-Cigarettes

The topic of e-cigarettes is controversial. Opponents focus on e-cigarettes' risks for young people, while supporters emphasize the potential for e-cigarettes to assist smokers in quitting smoking. Most US health organizations, media coverage, and policymakers have focused primarily on risks to youths. Because of their messaging, much of the public-including most smokers-now consider e-cigarette use as dangerous as or more dangerous than smoking. By contrast, the National Academies of Science, Engineering, and Medicine concluded that e-cigarette use is likely far less hazardous than smoking. Policies intended to reduce adolescent vaping may also reduce adult smokers' use of e-cigarettes in quit attempts. Because evidence indicates that e-cigarette use can increase the odds of quitting smoking, many scientists, including this essay's authors, encourage the health community, media, and policymakers to more carefully weigh vaping's potential to reduce adult smoking-attributable mortality. We review the health risks of e-cigarette use, the likelihood that vaping increases smoking cessation, concerns about youth vaping, and the need to balance valid concerns about risks to youths with the potential benefits of increasing adult smoking cessation.

Electronic Cigarettes and Asthma: What Do We Know So Far?

Electronic cigarettes (EC) are a novel product, marketed as an alternative to tobacco cigarette. Its effects on human health have not been investigated widely yet, especially in specific populations such as patients with asthma. With this review, we use the existing literature in order to answer four crucial questions concerning: (1) ECs' role in the pathogenesis of asthma; (2) ECs' effects on lung function and airway inflammation in patients with asthma; (3) ECs' effects on asthma clinical characteristics in asthmatics who use it regularly; and (4) ECs' effectiveness as a smoking cessation tool in these patients. Evidence suggests that many EC compounds might contribute to the pathogenesis of asthma. Lung function seems to deteriorate by the use of EC in this population, while airway inflammation alters, with the aggravation of T-helper-type-2 (Th2) inflammation being the most prominent but not the exclusive effect. EC also seems to worsen asthma symptoms and the rate and severity of exacerbations in asthmatics who are current vapers, whilst evidence suggests that its effectiveness as a smoking cessation tool might be limited. Asthmatic patients should avoid using EC.

Electronic cigarettes for smoking cessation

BACKGROUND

Electronic cigarettes (ECs) are handheld electronic vaping devices which produce an aerosol formed by heating an e-liquid. Some people who smoke use ECs to stop or reduce smoking, but some organizations, advocacy groups and policymakers have discouraged this, citing lack of evidence of efficacy and safety. People who smoke, healthcare providers and regulators want to know if ECs can help people quit and if they are safe to use for this purpose. This is an update of a review first published in 2014.

OBJECTIVES

To examine the effectiveness, tolerability, and safety of using electronic cigarettes (ECs) to help people who smoke achieve long-term smoking abstinence.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Tobacco Addiction Group's Specialized Register, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, Embase, and PsycINFO to 1 February 2021, together with reference-checking and contact with study authors.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and randomized cross-over trials in which people who smoke were randomized to an EC or control condition. We also included uncontrolled intervention studies in which all participants received an EC intervention. To be included, studies had to report abstinence from cigarettes at six months or longer and/or data on adverse events (AEs) or other markers of safety at one week or longer.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We followed standard Cochrane methods for screening and data extraction. Our primary outcome measures were abstinence from smoking after at least six months follow-up, adverse events (AEs), and serious adverse events (SAEs). Secondary outcomes included changes in carbon monoxide, blood pressure, heart rate, blood oxygen saturation, lung function, and levels of known carcinogens/toxicants. We used a fixed-effect Mantel-Haenszel model to calculate the risk ratio (RR) with a 95% confidence interval (CI) for dichotomous outcomes. For continuous outcomes, we calculated mean differences. Where appropriate, we pooled data from these studies in meta-analyses.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 56 completed studies, representing 12,804 participants, of which 29 were RCTs. Six of the 56 included studies were new to this review update. Of the included studies, we rated five (all contributing to our main comparisons) at low risk of bias overall, 41 at high risk overall (including the 25 non-randomized studies), and the remainder at unclear risk. There was moderate-certainty evidence, limited by imprecision, that quit rates were higher in people randomized to nicotine EC than in those randomized to nicotine replacement therapy (NRT) (risk ratio (RR) 1.69, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.25 to 2.27; I2 = 0%; 3 studies, 1498 participants). In absolute terms, this might translate to an additional four successful quitters per 100 (95% CI 2 to 8). There was low-certainty evidence (limited by very serious imprecision) that the rate of occurrence of AEs was similar) (RR 0.98, 95% CI 0.80 to 1.19; I2 = 0%; 2 studies, 485 participants). SAEs occurred rarely, with no evidence that their frequency differed between nicotine EC and NRT, but very serious imprecision led to low certainty in this finding (RR 1.37, 95% CI 0.77 to 2.41: I2 = n/a; 2 studies, 727 participants). There was moderate-certainty evidence, again limited by imprecision, that quit rates were higher in people randomized to nicotine EC than to non-nicotine EC (RR 1.70, 95% CI 1.03 to 2.81; I2 = 0%; 4 studies, 1057 participants). In absolute terms, this might again lead to an additional four successful quitters per 100 (95% CI 0 to 11). These trials mainly used older EC with relatively low nicotine delivery. There was moderate-certainty evidence of no difference in the rate of AEs between these groups (RR 1.01, 95% CI 0.91 to 1.11; I2 = 0%; 3 studies, 601 participants). There was insufficient evidence to determine whether rates of SAEs differed between groups, due to very serious imprecision (RR 0.60, 95% CI 0.15 to 2.44; I2 = n/a; 4 studies, 494 participants). Compared to behavioral support only/no support, quit rates were higher for participants randomized to nicotine EC (RR 2.70, 95% CI 1.39 to 5.26; I2 = 0%; 5 studies, 2561 participants). In absolute terms this represents an increase of seven per 100 (95% CI 2 to 17). However, this finding was of very low certainty, due to issues with imprecision and risk of bias. There was no evidence that the rate of SAEs differed, but some evidence that non-serious AEs were more common in people randomized to nicotine EC (AEs: RR 1.22, 95% CI 1.12 to 1.32; I2 = 41%, low certainty; 4 studies, 765 participants; SAEs: RR 1.17, 95% CI 0.33 to 4.09; I2 = 5%; 6 studies, 1011 participants, very low certainty). Data from non-randomized studies were consistent with RCT data. The most commonly reported AEs were throat/mouth irritation, headache, cough, and nausea, which tended to dissipate with continued use. Very few studies reported data on other outcomes or comparisons and hence evidence for these is limited, with confidence intervals often encompassing clinically significant harm and benefit.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

There is moderate-certainty evidence that ECs with nicotine increase quit rates compared to ECs without nicotine and compared to NRT. Evidence comparing nicotine EC with usual care/no treatment also suggests benefit, but is less certain. More studies are needed to confirm the size of effect, particularly when using modern EC products. Confidence intervals were for the most part wide for data on AEs, SAEs and other safety markers, though evidence indicated no difference in AEs between nicotine and non-nicotine ECs. Overall incidence of SAEs was low across all study arms. We did not detect any clear evidence of harm from nicotine EC, but longest follow-up was two years and the overall number of studies was small. The evidence is limited mainly by imprecision due to the small number of RCTs, often with low event rates. Further RCTs are underway. To ensure the review continues to provide up-to-date information, this review is now a living systematic review. We run searches monthly, with the review updated when relevant new evidence becomes available. Please refer to the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews for the review's current status.

Electronic Cigarettes and Their Impact on Allergic Respiratory Diseases: A Work Group Report of the AAAAI Environmental Exposures and Respiratory Health Committee

The explosive rise in popularity of electronic cigarette (e-cig) devices over the past decade has led to controversies over the role of these devices in smoking cessation and harm reduction from combustible cigarette smoking. Increased recognition of potential direct harms of e-cigs, including life-threatening and fatal cases of e-cig and vaping product use-associated lung injury, has emphasized the need to curb use until safety can be established. Of particular concern is the steep rise in e-cig use among teenagers and young adults who have never smoked and among individuals with underlying lung disease, such as asthma. In this report, we describe the different types of e-cig devices available, summarize the available data on the potential health benefits and detriments of e-cig use, and highlight the findings of studies examining e-cigs as smoking cessation tools. Because e-cigs have only gained popularity in the last few years, very few studies have been able to demonstrate an impact of e-cig use on harm reduction related to combustible cigarettes. Moreover, the health effects of e-cigs at a population level must be balanced against the harms of e-cig use, which include nicotine dependence and promoting initiation of cigarette use amongst "never smokers." With respect to smoking cessation, e-cigs appear to serve as switching products that may help individuals reduce or quit cigarette use, but do not address nicotine addiction. Finally, we discuss our recommendations for ways that health care providers can screen and counsel patients on e-cig use. The goal of this report is to provide health care providers with the most recent information on this topic so that they can educate patients on the potential pros and cons of e-cig use.

Reduction of bronchial response to mannitol after partial switch from conventional tobacco to electronic cigarette consumption

BACKGROUND

Regarding the multiple health effects of e-cigarettes, there are insufficient data on potential effects on bronchial reactivity (BHR). In the present study, we assessed the impact of a switch from conventional to e-cigarettes on BHR under realistic conditions over a period of 3 months.

METHODS

Sixty subjects who declared to reduce or stop their tobacco consumption by inhalation of nicotine-containing liquids via e-cigarette, and 20 volunteers participating in a stop-smoking program were included. Data was analysed using parametric and non-parametric statistical procedures. Spirometry, determinations of exhaled carbon monoxide (eCO) and nitric oxide (FeNO), provocation testing with mannitol as an indirect bronchial stimulus, and cotinine measurements were used to investigate BHR and nicotine abstinence.

RESULTS

BHR to mannitol significantly decreased in the group using e-cigarettes and nicotine-containing liquids over a period of three months in this real-life setting. Participants reduced their tobacco consumption to about 25% or lower, confirmed by a reduction in eCO. Changes in lung function and FeNO were small and not statistically significant, and changes in the stop-smoking group were similar to those in the e-cigarette group.

CONCLUSION

The reduction in BHR that can be expected after a reduction of cigarette consumption was not abolished by the concomitant use of e-cigarettes. Whether the decrease in BHR observed after 3 months is maintained when using e-cigarettes over longer time periods or has an individual prognostic value, must be clarified in long-term studies.

Estimating the Population Attributable Fraction of Asthma Due to Electronic Cigarette Use and Other Risk Factors Using Kentucky Behavioral Risk Factor Survey Data, 2016-2017

Introduction: Electronic nicotine delivery systems ENDS have become popular in the United States among both new users of nicotine and those seeking less harmful alternatives to traditional cigarettes. Users often perceive ENDS as being less harmful than traditional cigarettes. This study investigated the relationship between use of ENDS and asthma in a representative sample of adults. Methods: For this cross-sectional study, we used data from the Kentucky Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System telephone survey data from 2016-2017. Using a weighted multivariable logistic regression analysis, we identified important covariates to adjust for to calculate the population attributable fraction (PAF) of asthma due to ENDS and other modifiable risk factors factors (cigarette use, obesity, education, and employment). The confidence intervals for the PAFs were estimated using bootstrap methods of variance estimation. Results: We found that 10.6% of those aged 18-30 reported currently had asthma. After adjusting for noted covariates, ENDS use did not significantly increase the odds of asthma. In the final PAF model, the PAF of asthma due to ENDS was 0.4% (95% CI: -5.41, 6.21). Conclusion: While these findings suggest only modest effects of ENDS use on asthma prevalence, future research including older age groups and more long-term users might produce different results.

[Smoking cessation in asthmatic patients and its impact]

INTRODUCTION

The prevalence of smoking in asthmatic patients is similar to, or even higher than in the general population.

OBJECTIVES

This systematic review addresses (1) the effects of smoking on asthma, (2) smoking cessation strategies in asthmatic patients, and (3) the consequences of smoking cessation for people with asthma.

RESULTS

Active or passive smoking can promote the development of asthma. The few studies on smoking cessation in asthma confirm the efficacy of validated smoking cessation strategies in these patients (nicotine replacement therapy, varenicline, bupropion, cognitive and behavioural therapies). Smoking cessation in parents with asthmatic children is essential and is based on the same strategies. Electronic cigarettes may be a useful help to quit smoking in some patients. Smoking cessation is beneficial in asthmatic smokers and associated with (1) a reduction of asthma symptoms, acute exacerbations, bronchial hyperresponsiveness, and bronchial inflammation, (2) decreased use of rescue medications and in doses of inhaled corticosteroids, (3) improved asthma control, quality of life, and lung function.

CONCLUSION

In asthmatic patients, it is essential to assess smoking status and health professionals must assist them to quit smoking.

Clearing the Haze: What Do We Still Need to Learn about Electronic Nicotine Delivery Systems?

Electronic nicotine delivery systems (ENDS; i.e., electronic cigarettes, e-cigarettes, vaping devices, vape pens) were introduced to the U.S. market in 2007 as a potential harm reduction alternative for people who smoked combustible cigarettes. Since that time, ENDS popularity grew very quickly, particularly among individuals who smoke cigarettes. However, young people and never smokers also started using ENDS, cohorts for whom these products were not intended. There are now a broad range of devices and e-liquid constituents. ENDS devices vary considerably in their design and generation of potentially toxic chemicals, with higher power devices likely much more hazardous than lower power devices. This landscape may further change after September 9, 2020, when all ENDS manufacturers are required to submit a premarket tobacco product application to the FDA to obtain authorization for marketing. Research has not kept pace with this rapidly changing technology and important questions remain regarding the relative benefits versus risks of ENDS. In light of these challenges, we propose key ENDS research priorities to address these gaps.

Well-being and harm reduction, the consolidated reality of electronic cigarettes ten years later from this emerging phenomenon: A narrative review

Tobacco use is the greatest threat to public health worldwide, killing more than seven million people annually. This paper, about 10 years after the first review on electronic cigarettes, analyses the evolution that this tool has had in these years. It concludes with comments on the significance of the research and why it constitutes an original contribution. We searched PubMed (National Library of Medicine), and PsycINFO (Ovid) (2006-2020) for studies on e-cigarettes (harms and benefits, e-cigarette use, craving and smoking cessation) and smoking cessation treatment (smoking cessation treatment or varenicline or tobacco cessation or reduction or bupropion or NRT or behavioral treatment or ecigarette) and evidence suggests that they may effective as smoking cessation tool and may be less harmful alternatives to combustible cigarette smoking. Consequently, e-cigarettes could be considered as an applicable instrument for Tobacco Harm Reduction (THR) and smoking cessation.

Electronic cigarettes for smoking cessation

BACKGROUND

Electronic cigarettes (ECs) are handheld electronic vaping devices which produce an aerosol formed by heating an e-liquid. People who smoke report using ECs to stop or reduce smoking, but some organisations, advocacy groups and policymakers have discouraged this, citing lack of evidence of efficacy and safety. People who smoke, healthcare providers and regulators want to know if ECs can help people quit and if they are safe to use for this purpose. This review is an update of a review first published in 2014.

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the effect and safety of using electronic cigarettes (ECs) to help people who smoke achieve long-term smoking abstinence.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Tobacco Addiction Group's Specialized Register, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, Embase, and PsycINFO for relevant records to January 2020, together with reference-checking and contact with study authors.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and randomized cross-over trials in which people who smoke were randomized to an EC or control condition. We also included uncontrolled intervention studies in which all participants received an EC intervention. To be included, studies had to report abstinence from cigarettes at six months or longer and/or data on adverse events (AEs) or other markers of safety at one week or longer.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We followed standard Cochrane methods for screening and data extraction. Our primary outcome measures were abstinence from smoking after at least six months follow-up, AEs, and serious adverse events (SAEs). Secondary outcomes included changes in carbon monoxide, blood pressure, heart rate, blood oxygen saturation, lung function, and levels of known carcinogens/toxicants. We used a fixed-effect Mantel-Haenszel model to calculate the risk ratio (RR) with a 95% confidence interval (CI) for dichotomous outcomes. For continuous outcomes, we calculated mean differences. Where appropriate, we pooled data from these studies in meta-analyses.

MAIN RESULTS

We include 50 completed studies, representing 12,430 participants, of which 26 are RCTs. Thirty-five of the 50 included studies are new to this review update. Of the included studies, we rated four (all which contribute to our main comparisons) at low risk of bias overall, 37 at high risk overall (including the 24 non-randomized studies), and the remainder at unclear risk. There was moderate-certainty evidence, limited by imprecision, that quit rates were higher in people randomized to nicotine EC than in those randomized to nicotine replacement therapy (NRT) (risk ratio (RR) 1.69, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.25 to 2.27; I2 = 0%; 3 studies, 1498 participants). In absolute terms, this might translate to an additional four successful quitters per 100 (95% CI 2 to 8). There was low-certainty evidence (limited by very serious imprecision) of no difference in the rate of adverse events (AEs) (RR 0.98, 95% CI 0.80 to 1.19; I2 = 0%; 2 studies, 485 participants). SAEs occurred rarely, with no evidence that their frequency differed between nicotine EC and NRT, but very serious imprecision led to low certainty in this finding (RR 1.37, 95% CI 0.77 to 2.41: I2 = n/a; 2 studies, 727 participants). There was moderate-certainty evidence, again limited by imprecision, that quit rates were higher in people randomized to nicotine EC than to non-nicotine EC (RR 1.71, 95% CI 1.00 to 2.92; I2 = 0%; 3 studies, 802 participants). In absolute terms, this might again lead to an additional four successful quitters per 100 (95% CI 0 to 12). These trials used EC with relatively low nicotine delivery. There was low-certainty evidence, limited by very serious imprecision, that there was no difference in the rate of AEs between these groups (RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.73 to 1.36; I2 = 0%; 2 studies, 346 participants). There was insufficient evidence to determine whether rates of SAEs differed between groups, due to very serious imprecision (RR 0.25, 95% CI 0.03 to 2.19; I2 = n/a; 4 studies, 494 participants). Compared to behavioural support only/no support, quit rates were higher for participants randomized to nicotine EC (RR 2.50, 95% CI 1.24 to 5.04; I2 = 0%; 4 studies, 2312 participants). In absolute terms this represents an increase of six per 100 (95% CI 1 to 14). However, this finding was very low-certainty, due to issues with imprecision and risk of bias. There was no evidence that the rate of SAEs varied, but some evidence that non-serious AEs were more common in people randomized to nicotine EC (AEs: RR 1.17, 95% CI 1.04 to 1.31; I2 = 28%; 3 studies, 516 participants; SAEs: RR 1.33, 95% CI 0.25 to 6.96; I2 = 17%; 5 studies, 842 participants). Data from non-randomized studies were consistent with RCT data. The most commonly reported AEs were throat/mouth irritation, headache, cough, and nausea, which tended to dissipate over time with continued use. Very few studies reported data on other outcomes or comparisons and hence evidence for these is limited, with confidence intervals often encompassing clinically significant harm and benefit.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

There is moderate-certainty evidence that ECs with nicotine increase quit rates compared to ECs without nicotine and compared to NRT. Evidence comparing nicotine EC with usual care/no treatment also suggests benefit, but is less certain. More studies are needed to confirm the degree of effect, particularly when using modern EC products. Confidence intervals were wide for data on AEs, SAEs and other safety markers. Overall incidence of SAEs was low across all study arms. We did not detect any clear evidence of harm from nicotine EC, but longest follow-up was two years and the overall number of studies was small. The main limitation of the evidence base remains imprecision due to the small number of RCTs, often with low event rates. Further RCTs are underway. To ensure the review continues to provide up-to-date information for decision-makers, this review is now a living systematic review. We will run searches monthly from December 2020, with the review updated as relevant new evidence becomes available. Please refer to the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews for the review's current status.

Impact of Air Pollution on Asthma Outcomes

Asthma is a chronic respiratory disease characterized by variable airflow obstruction, bronchial hyperresponsiveness, and airway inflammation. Evidence suggests that air pollution has a negative impact on asthma outcomes in both adult and pediatric populations. The aim of this review is to summarize the current knowledge on the effect of various outdoor and indoor pollutants on asthma outcomes, their burden on its management, as well as to highlight the measures that could result in improved asthma outcomes. Traffic-related air pollution, nitrogen dioxide and second-hand smoking (SHS) exposures represent significant risk factors for asthma development in children. Nevertheless, a causal relation between air pollution and development of adult asthma is not clearly established. Exposure to outdoor pollutants can induce asthma symptoms, exacerbations and decreases in lung function. Active tobacco smoking is associated with poorer asthma control, while exposure to SHS increases the risk of asthma exacerbations, respiratory symptoms and healthcare utilization. Other indoor pollutants such as heating sources and molds can also negatively impact the course of asthma. Global measures, that aim to reduce exposure to air pollutants, are highly needed in order to improve the outcomes and management of adult and pediatric asthma in addition to the existing guidelines.

Current E-Cigarette Research in the Context of Asthma

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

The purpose of this review is to integrate recent research on the respiratory immune effects of e-cigarettes with the pathogenesis of asthma to better understand how e-cigarettes may affect asthmatics and to note critical knowledge gaps regarding the effects of e-cigarettes on asthmatics.

RECENT FINDINGS

Human, rodent, and cell culture studies show that key cellular functions of epithelial cells, macrophages, and neutrophils are altered by e-cigarette exposure. Because respiratory immunity is already dysregulated in asthma, further alteration of cellular function by e-cigarettes could impact asthma development, severity, and/or exacerbations. Future research is needed to more directly investigate this relationship using controlled human exposure studies and exposure of cell culture or animal models of asthma to e-cigarettes.

Factors associated with electronic cigarette use among adolescents asthma in the Republic Of Korea

OBJECTIVES

Despite the rapid increase in electronic cigarette (e-cigarette) smoking, little is known about the factors associated with their use, particularly in adolescents with asthma. Our study investigated the prevalence of, and factors associated with asthma.

METHODS

We analyzed data from the Korean Youth Risk Behavior Web-based Survey of 44,479 adolescents with physician-diagnosed asthma and 445,692 subjects without asthma. Sociodemographic factors, psychosocial factors, and e-cigarette smoking patterns were investigated by self-report questionnaires. Multiple logistic regression was used to investigate the factors associated with ever or current e-cigarette risks in adolescents with asthma, with adjustment for confounding factors.

RESULTS

Significantly more subjects had a smoking habit in the asthma group than in the non-asthma group. Among the adolescents with asthma, 4,420 (9.9%) smoked e-cigarettes (ever-users), and 1,962 (4.4%) smoked e-cigarettes within the last 30 days (current users). Multiple logistic regression showed that both ever and current e-cigarette use were significantly associated with male gender, higher family income, residence in an urban area, alcohol drinking, substance use experience, sexual experience, and friends' smoking. Current e-cigarette use was also significantly associated with high caffeine intake, no regular exercise, and experience of violence in adolescents with asthma.

CONCLUSIONS

E-cigarette smoking behavior was significantly more frequent in adolescents with asthma than in those without asthma, and multiple psychosocial factors were associated with e-cigarette smoking. Our results could inform e-smoking control programs and help identify adolescents with asthma at high risk of e-cigarette smoking, to ultimately prevent and reduce this behavior.

Five-Day Changes in Biomarkers of Exposure Among Adult Smokers After Completely Switching From Combustible Cigarettes to a Nicotine-Salt Pod System

INTRODUCTION

This study examined changes in biomarkers of exposure (BoE) after 5 days of nicotine-salt pod system (NSPS) use, compared with continuation of usual-cigarette smoking and cigarette abstinence, among adult combustible cigarette smokers.

AIMS AND METHODS

A randomized, open-label, parallel-cohort, confinement study of healthy adult smokers, naive to NSPS use, was conducted. Participants (N = 90) were randomized to six cohorts (n = 15 each): exclusive ad libitum use of NSPS (four flavors: Virginia Tobacco, Mint, Mango, Creme), continuation of usual-brand cigarette smoking, or cigarette abstinence. Total nicotine equivalents and BoE (NNN, NNAL, 3-HPMA, MHBMA, S-PMA, HMPMA, CEMA, 1-OHP, and COHb) were measured.

RESULTS

Eight non-nicotine BoEs, measured in urine, were reduced by an aggregate of 85.0% in the pooled NSPS cohort; increased by 14.4% in the cigarette cohort (p < .001 for pooled NSPS vs. cigarette); and reduced by 85.3% in the abstinence cohort (p > .05; 99.6% relative reduction between pooled NSPS vs. abstinence). Similar changes in individual BoEs were also observed (p < .001 for each BoE between pooled NSPS vs. cigarettes; and abstinence vs. pooled NSPS; p > .05 for each BoE between pooled NSPS vs. abstinence). Blood COHb decreased by 71.8% in the pooled NSPS cohort and 69.1% in the abstinence cohort (p > .05) and increased by 13.3% in the cigarette cohort (p < .001). Mean total urine nicotine equivalents increased in the pooled NSPS and cigarette cohorts by 9% and 26%, respectively, and did not significantly differ (p > .05).

CONCLUSION

Complete switching from cigarettes to NSPS produced significant reductions in key non-nicotine BoEs associated with cigarette smoking.

IMPLICATIONS

The results of this study concorded with evidence that complete switching from combustible cigarettes to tobacco and nontobacco-flavored vapor products may reduce exposure to key carcinogens and other toxicants known to be associated with tobacco-related diseases. Future research is needed to assess the long-term health effects of NSPS use. These results should not be interpreted to mean that the use of NSPS is without any risk, particularly for nonusers of tobacco products.

A Qualitative Exploration of Consumers' Perceived Impacts, Behavioural Reactions, and Future Reflections of the EU Tobacco Products Directive (2017) as Applied to Electronic Cigarettes

BACKGROUND

Electronic cigarette regulations included in the Tobacco Products Directive (TPD), Article 20, implemented in Europe by May 2017, aimed to improve safety for e-cigarette consumers, and prevent uptake among non-smokers, particularly young people. Before implementation, there were significant concerns from consumers, industry, and some in the scientific community about the potential negative impact of the TPD on people using e-cigarettes to remain abstinent from smoking. To date, there is limited evidence on how the TPD has affected consumers. This study aimed to add insight into how consumers perceived and experienced the regulations.

METHODS

Qualitative data, collected between March 2018 and March 2019, relating to participant views of the TPD were extracted from 160 interviews/extended surveys of e-cigarette consumers as part of a wider study into e-cigarette use trajectories (ECtra study). Data were thematically analysed.

RESULTS

Awareness of the TPD among consumers was not universal. Participants' smoking behaviour did not appear to be influenced by the legislation. Participants were reassured by manufacturing regulations and requirements for ingredients labels. Participants responded negatively to changes perceived to cause inconvenience and extra plastic waste. The product restrictions prompted some participants to purchase non-compliant products illegally, potentially putting their safety at risk.

CONCLUSIONS

E-cigarette regulation should focus on ensuring product safety. Raising awareness of the TPD among consumers and smokers could be beneficial.

Vaping effects on asthma: results from a web survey and clinical investigation

It is well known that tobacco smoking worsens asthma. Conversely, few data are currently available in the literature on the effects of vaping in asthmatic patients. This work aims to investigate the effects of vaping on asthmatic patients and in asthmatic patients that switched from tobacco smoking to electronic cigarette (e-cig), in particular focusing on quality of life, asthma control, and pulmonary function. We designed a two-group study. One group encompassed vapers with asthma selected through a web survey with questions on quality of life and symptoms worsening; the other group encompassed vapers that switched from tobacco smoking to e-cig, and that volunteered to undergo clinical visits at our outpatient clinic. 2787 people responded to the web survey, including 631 asthmatics. In the second group, 55 volunteers, including 15 asthmatics, were enrolled after a visit. The visit included physical examination and pulmonary function tests (PFT). Internationally validated questionnaires were administered to all subjects: Asthma Control Test (ACT), Asthma Control Questionnaire (ACQ), 36-Item Short Form Survey (SF-36) and Asthma Quality of Life Questionnaire (AQLQ). The 382 asthmatic vapers-only in the web survey were mainly males (86.9%), 31-65 years old. 90% of them declared that vaping did not worsen asthma symptoms and would recommend asthmatic smokers to switch to vaping (98.4%). There was worsening of asthma symptoms due to the actual asthma therapy used by the participants, while no relationship was found with other aspects analysed. In the second group, the analysis of variance in the questionnaires administered to the 10 asthmatics showed a significant improvement in ACQ, ACT and SF-36 for asthmatics that switched from tobacco to vaping, while PFT remained stable throughout the three visits. Almost all of the asthmatics who previously smoked would recommend switching to e-cig, and vaping did not worsen their asthma symptoms. Furthermore, switching from tobacco smoking to e-cigs showed a significant improvement in asthma control and quality of life, not showing, in the period studied, to affect pulmonary function tests.

Tobacco smoking, related harm and motivation to quit smoking in people with schizophrenia spectrum disorders

This narrative review focuses on the topic of tobacco smoking amongst people with schizophrenia spectrum disorders. We searched PubMed, PsycInfo and Scopus databases for schizophrenia spectrum disorders and smoking and included articles about the epidemiology of tobacco smoking in people with schizophrenia spectrum disorders, examining the relationship between smoking and mental health. This narrative review describes that a higher prevalence, frequency and impact of both high nicotine dependence and its harmful effects in patients with schizophrenia spectrum disorders compared with those in the general population. Despite several existent theories, the reasons for high smoking rates, the high dependence on nicotine and severity of nicotine withdrawal symptoms are not fully understood. The main aim of this paper is to inform mental health personnel and particularly clinical and health psychologists about the impact and role of tobacco smoking for smokers with schizophrenia spectrum disorders.

Acute Effects of Electronic Cigarette Inhalation on the Vasculature and the Conducting Airways

The use of electronic cigarettes has increased exponentially since its introduction onto the global market in 2006. However, short- and long-term health effects remain largely unknown due to the novelty of this product. The present study examines the acute effects of e-cigarette aerosol inhalation, with and without nicotine, on vascular and pulmonary function in healthy volunteers. Seventeen healthy subjects inhaled electronic cigarette aerosol with and without nicotine on two separate occasions in a double-blinded crossover fashion. Blood pressure, heart rate, and arterial stiffness measured by pulse wave velocity and pulse wave analysis were assessed at baseline, and then at 0 h, 2 h, and 4 h following exposure. Dynamic spirometry and impulse oscillometry were measured following vascular assessments at these time points, as well as at 6 h following exposure. e-Cigarette aerosol with nicotine caused a significant increase in heart rate and arterial stiffness. Furthermore, e-cigarette aerosol-containing nicotine caused a sudden increase in flow resistance as measured by impulse oscillometry, indicating obstruction of the conducting airways. Both aerosols caused an increase in blood pressure. The present study indicates that inhaled e-cigarette aerosol with nicotine has an acute impact on vascular and pulmonary function. Thus, chronic usage may lead to long-term adverse health effects. Further investigation is warranted.

Electronic cigarette and combustible cigarette use following a campus-wide ban: Prevalence of use and harm perceptions

The current study examined changes in prevalence of e-cigarette use and perceptions of the harmfulness of e-cigarette and combustible cigarettes following a campus-wide tobacco ban. Undergraduate students completed surveys of tobacco use and perceived product harmfulness. Four samples were collected: in 2013 prior to the ban (n = 792) and in fall 2014 (n = 310), 2015 (n = 208), and 2016 (n = 417). E-cigarette use increased in the years following the ban (p = .01) while combustible cigarette use decreased from 2013 to 2016 (p = .02). Men were more likely than women to use both products (ps < .05). Students' perceptions of the harmfulness of combustible and electronic cigarettes remained stable in the years following the ban (p > .05). This study is the first to examine the impact of including e-cigarettes in tobacco free policies. Combustible cigarette use declined, but e-cigarette use increased in the years following the e-cigarette ban. Prospective research is needed to understand the long-term impacts of e-cigarette bans.

Neurotoxicity of e-cigarettes

It appears that electronic cigarettes (EC) are a less harmful alternative to conventional cigarette (CC) smoking, as they generate substantially lower levels of harmful carcinogens and other toxic compounds. Thus, switching from CC to EC may be beneficial for smokers. However, recent accounts of EC- or vaping-associated lung injury (EVALI) has raised concerns regarding their adverse health effects. Additionally, the increasing popularity of EC among vulnerable populations, such as adolescents and pregnant women, calls for further EC safety evaluation. In this state-of-the-art review, we provide an update on recent findings regarding the neurological effects induced by EC exposure. Moreover, we discuss possible neurotoxic effects of nicotine and numerous other chemicals which are inherent both to e-liquids and EC aerosols. We conclude that in recognizing pertinent issues associated with EC usage, both government and scientific researchers must address this public health issue with utmost urgency.

Electronic cigarettes – an important progress or just another risk for health?

Liquids for electronic cigarettes and the vapor generated from them were examined by chemical and biological methods in order to reveal potential risk factors and their acceptability for consumers. Although the majority of the liquids on the market appear to be safe, some aroma compositions have been identified as possibly toxic for human vein epithelial cells, similar to tobacco smoke, thus indicating potential health risks and suggesting suitable test procedures before marketing the liquids.

The Evolving Landscape of e-Cigarettes: A Systematic Review of Recent Evidence

Smoking continues to be a burden to economies and health-care systems across the world. One proposed solution to the problem has been e-cigarettes; however, because they are a relatively new product in the market, little is known about their potential health impacts. Furthermore, e-cigarettes continue to evolve at a rapid rate, making it necessary to regularly review and summarize available studies. Although e-cigarettes are marketed as a smoking cessation tool by some manufacturers, the reality is that many nonsmokers, including youth, are using them. This review focuses on two major demographic groups (smokers and nonsmokers) and evaluates the most recent data (early 2017 to mid 2019) regarding the potential health effects of e-cigarettes. We assessed peer-reviewed studies on the health impacts of e-cigarettes, with a particular focus on common questions asked by policy makers, clinicians, and scientists: (1) What are the effects of e-cigarettes compared with air/not smoking?; (2) Is there any direct evidence of harm or benefit to humans?; (3) Is there a risk from secondhand exposure?; (4) What are the risks and/or benefits of e-cigarettes compared with tobacco cigarette use?; (5) Are there risks or benefits to specific populations (eg, people with COPD or asthma, pregnant women [and their offspring])?; (6) What are the effects of flavoring chemicals?; (7) What are the effects of including nicotine in e-liquids?; (8) How often is nicotine concentration labeling incorrect?; and (9) What are the risks when e-cigarettes explode?

A pilot study to examine the acceptability and health effects of electronic cigarettes in HIV-positive smokers

INTRODUCTION

Some HIV-positive smokers report ambivalence about quitting. Switching to electronic cigarettes (ECs) may be a viable option to reduce the negative health effects for smokers who are unable or unwilling to quit smoking combustible cigarettes (CCs). This study examined the acceptability and health-related effects of ECs in HIV-positive smokers who were not seeking smoking cessation treatment.

METHODS

HIV-positive smokers (N = 19) were enrolled and followed for 12 weeks. Cartridge-based ECs were provided at baseline, and E-liquid was provided weekly for 8 weeks. At baseline, weeks 1-8, and week 12, EC and CC use, cardiopulmonary function, respiratory symptoms, and carbon monoxide (CO) levels were measured.

RESULTS

At week 8, cigarettes per day (CPD) were reduced by more than 80%, with reduction maintained at week 12 (p's < .001). Cigarette dependence scores were 40% lower at week 8 than at baseline (p <  .001). Seven (36.8%) participants reported transitioning completely from CCs to ECs. Mean CO decreased significantly from BL to week 8 (p < .05) and remained significantly lower at week 12 (p <  .001). Intention to quit increased significantly over time.

CONCLUSIONS

Switching from CCs to ECs in HIV-positive smokers who are not ready to quit smoking in the next 30 days appears to be feasible. Beneficial effects were seen, such as reduced CPD, reduced CO and CC dependence, and increased motivation to quit. ECs may be promising as a harm reduction approach among HIV-positive smokers who are unable or unwilling to quit smoking.

E-cigarettes and Smoking Cessation in Smokers With Chronic Conditions

INTRODUCTION

Many smokers with chronic medical conditions use e-cigarettes. This study assessed the association between e-cigarette use and subsequent smoking-cessation efforts in adult smokers with and without chronic medical conditions.

METHODS

This was a longitudinal cohort study of adult cigarette smokers using Waves 1 and 2 of the Population Assessment of Tobacco and Health Study (2013-2015), analyzed in 2018‒2019. The exposure was the initiation of e-cigarette use by Wave 2. The outcomes at Wave 2 were: (1) past 12-month attempts to quit, (2) cigarette abstinence, (3) ≥50% reduction in cigarette use, and (4) past 12-month use of evidence-based smoking-cessation treatment.

RESULTS

E-cigarette use initiation was associated with increased odds of attempting to quit smoking at Wave 2 among smokers with any chronic medical condition (AOR=1.92, 95% CI=1.42, 2.59) and without chronic medical conditions (AOR=1.81, 95% CI=1.50, 2.18). E-cigarette use initiation was also significantly associated with Wave 2 smoking abstinence in smokers with (AOR=1.95, 95% CI=1.11, 3.43) and without chronic medical conditions (AOR=1.63, 95% CI=1.17, 2.28).

CONCLUSIONS

At a population level, e-cigarette use by smokers with chronic medical conditions is associated with more quitting activity and smoking abstinence. Future studies are needed to assess e-cigarette safety and efficacy to determine whether they may provide an alternative smoking-cessation or harm-reduction strategy for adults with smoking-sensitive disease who cannot achieve these goals with other methods.