Association of Electronic Cigarette Exposure on Cardiovascular Health: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Cardiovascular Health Effects and Synthetic Cooling Agents in E-cigarettes Labeled as 'clear' Marketed in Massachusetts After the Tobacco Product Flavoring Ban

Introduction

Massachusetts (MA) enacted statewide regulation on all flavored tobacco products in June 2020. Thereafter, electronic cigarettes (e-cigarettes) labeled 'clear' emerged on the market. We aimed to combine cardiovascular health effects with chemical analysis of 'clear' e-cigarettes.

Methods

We measured acute changes in blood pressure and heart rate following a 10-minute structured use of participants' own e-cigarette, comparing 'clear' e-cigarette users with other flavored e-cigarette users and non-users. Chemical characterization and quantification of relevant flavorings and cooling agents (WS-3, WS-23) of 19 'clear'-labeled disposable e-cigarette liquids was carried out by GC/MS.

Results

After the ban, participants that used 'clear' labeled e-cigarettes increased from 0% to 21%. Increase in diastolic blood pressure and heart rate was significantly greater in 'clear' e-cigarettes users (n=22) compared to both non-'clear' flavored e-cigarette users (n=114) and non-users (n=72). We saw similar results in heart rate when comparing Juul e-cigarette and 'clear' users; Juul was used as a reference as synthetic coolants WS-3 or WS-23 were not detected in these.All (19/19) 'clear' e-liquids were found to contain synthetic cooling agents WS-23 and/or WS-3, menthol (18/19), as well as other flavorings (12/19).

Discussion

The detected presence of menthol alongside other flavorings in tested 'clear' products is a direct violation of the MA flavored tobacco product regulation, warranting stricter monitoring for new products and constituents. 'clear' e-cigarette use led to greater hemodynamic effects compared to other flavored e-cigarettes and Juul, which raises questions about the effect of cooling agents on users.

Unveiling the Impact of Electronic Cigarettes (EC) on Health: An Evidence-Based Review of EC as an Alternative to Combustible Cigarettes

Cigarette smoking has been considered a major public health concern due to its serious impact on health. However, smokers intending to quit may find long-term abstinence challenging. When smoking an electronic cigarette (EC), users can experience a sensation and taste similar to that of smoking a combustible cigarette. Therefore, manufacturers promote these products as a viable substitute for combustible cigarettes. However, several researchers report the serious health impacts experienced by EC users. Therefore, this review aims to examine the health impacts of EC use. Based on the findings of the research papers reported in the literature, the role of EC as a smoking cessation tool is unclear. Several researchers have also reported a significant association between EC usage among non-smokers at baseline and the future initiation of combustible cigarette smoking. EC use significantly impacts user health. The nicotine that is present in EC e-liquids can elevate blood pressure, resulting in blood vessel constriction and an increase in heart rate, ultimately leading the body to an ischemic condition, resulting in myocardial infarction (MI), stroke, and increased arterial stiffness. Researchers report a higher likelihood of prediabetes among EC users; its usage was associated with higher OR of having asthma attacks and higher OR of reporting depression and has an impact on birth outcomes among pregnant women. Men using EC are more likely to report erectile dysfunction than non-users. EC also has a significant impact on oral health, which includes periodontal diseases, mucosal lesions, irritation in the mouth and throat, reduced salivary flow, and an increased risk of developing cancer. The physical injury resulting from exploding EC is another health concern. The frequently burned areas included the hands, face, genitalia, and thighs. Marketers promote EC as an alternative to combustible cigarettes and a tool for quitting smoking. However, the Food and Drug Administration has not approved them for smoking cessation. EC can have a serious impact on the health of their users; hence, the findings of this paper have several implications, including the need for regulation of the sales and marketing of these products and educating the users on the impact of these products on their health and safety.

Population-Based Disease Odds for E-Cigarettes and Dual Use versus Cigarettes

Disease Odds for E-Cigarettes and Dual Use versus CigarettesE-cigarettes have been promoted as less harmful than cigarettes. In this meta-analysis, Glantz et al. show that for some diseases, e-cigarette disease risks were similar to cigarettes, and for others e-cigarettes were nearly as risky as cigarettes. The risks associated with dual use were higher than those for smoking alone.

Effects of Electronic Cigarette Vaping on Cardiac and Vascular Function, and Post-myocardial Infarction Remodeling in Rats

The effect of electronic cigarette (E-cig) vaping on cardiac and vascular function during the healing phase of myocardial infarction (MI), and post-MI remodeling was investigated. Sprague Dawley rats were subjected to left coronary artery ligation to induce MI. One week later, rats were randomized to receive either 12 weeks of exposure to purified air (n = 37) or E-cig vapor (15 mg/ml of nicotine) (n = 32). At 12 weeks, cardiac and vascular function, and post-MI remodeling were assessed. Baseline blood flow in the femoral artery did not differ between groups, but peak reperfusion blood flow was blunted in the E-cig group (1.59 ± 0.15 ml/min) vs. the air group (2.11 ± 0.18 ml/min; p = 0.034). Femoral artery diameter after reperfusion was narrower in the E-cig group (0.54 ± 0.02 mm) compared to the air group (0.60 ± 0.02 mm; p = 0.023). Postmortem left ventricular (LV) volumes were similar in the E-cig (0.69 ± 0.04 ml) and air groups (0.73 ± 0.04 ml; p = NS); and myocardial infarct expansion index did not differ between groups (1.4 ± 0.1 in E-cig group versus 1.3 ± 0.1 in air group; p = NS). LV fractional shortening by echo did not differ between groups at 12 weeks (E-cig at 29 ± 2% and air at 27 ± 1%; p = NS). Exposure to E-cig during the healing phase of MI was associated with altered vascular function with reduced femoral artery blood flow and diameter at reperfusion, but not with worsened LV dilation or worsened cardiac function.

[Intended and unintended effects of e-cigarettes in clinical studies: a plea for (more) transparency]

E-cigarettes are used in clinical trials to facilitate smoking cessation. Due to the health risks associated with the use of e-cigarettes, the results of clinical trials should be fully reported, including continued exclusive use and dual use of tobacco and e-cigarettes. Nicotine cessation outcomes should be reported as the primary endpoint as well as the analysis of tobacco cessation alone. As there is currently no robust evidence that reducing cigarette consumption provides substantial health benefits, cigarette consumption reduction should not be used as a health outcome in clinical trials. Continued nicotine dependence should be included as an "adverse event" in the reporting of trial results.

Electronic cigarettes for smoking cessation

BACKGROUND

Electronic cigarettes (ECs) are handheld electronic vaping devices which produce an aerosol by heating an e-liquid. 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 safety, tolerability and effectiveness of using electronic cigarettes (ECs) to help people who smoke tobacco achieve long-term smoking abstinence, in comparison to non-nicotine EC, other smoking cessation treatments and no treatment.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Tobacco Addiction Group's Specialized Register to 1 February 2023, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, Embase, and PsycINFO to 1 July 2023, and reference-checked and contacted study authors.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included 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 as these studies have the potential to provide further information on harms and longer-term use. Studies had to report an eligible outcome.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We followed standard Cochrane methods for screening and data extraction. Critical outcomes were abstinence from smoking after at least six months, adverse events (AEs), and serious adverse events (SAEs). 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 pairwise and network meta-analyses (NMA).

MAIN RESULTS

We included 88 completed studies (10 new to this update), representing 27,235 participants, of which 47 were randomized controlled trials (RCTs). Of the included studies, we rated ten (all but one contributing to our main comparisons) at low risk of bias overall, 58 at high risk overall (including all non-randomized studies), and the remainder at unclear risk. There is high certainty that nicotine EC increases quit rates compared to nicotine replacement therapy (NRT) (RR 1.59, 95% CI 1.29 to 1.93; I2 = 0%; 7 studies, 2544 participants). In absolute terms, this might translate to an additional four quitters per 100 (95% CI 2 to 6 more). There is moderate-certainty evidence (limited by imprecision) that the rate of occurrence of AEs is similar between groups (RR 1.03, 95% CI 0.91 to 1.17; I2 = 0%; 5 studies, 2052 participants). SAEs were rare, and there is insufficient evidence to determine whether rates differ between groups due to very serious imprecision (RR 1.20, 95% CI 0.90 to 1.60; I2 = 32%; 6 studies, 2761 participants; low-certainty evidence). There is moderate-certainty evidence, limited by imprecision, that nicotine EC increases quit rates compared to non-nicotine EC (RR 1.46, 95% CI 1.09 to 1.96; I2 = 4%; 6 studies, 1613 participants). In absolute terms, this might lead to an additional three quitters per 100 (95% CI 1 to 7 more). There is 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 is insufficient evidence to determine whether rates of SAEs differ between groups, due to very serious imprecision (RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.56 to 1.79; I2 = 0%; 9 studies, 1412 participants; low-certainty evidence). Due to issues with risk of bias, there is low-certainty evidence that, compared to behavioural support only/no support, quit rates may be higher for participants randomized to nicotine EC (RR 1.88, 95% CI 1.56 to 2.25; I2 = 0%; 9 studies, 5024 participants). In absolute terms, this represents an additional four quitters per 100 (95% CI 2 to 5 more). There was some evidence that (non-serious) AEs may be more common in people randomized to nicotine EC (RR 1.22, 95% CI 1.12 to 1.32; I2 = 41%, low-certainty evidence; 4 studies, 765 participants) and, again, insufficient evidence to determine whether rates of SAEs differed between groups (RR 0.89, 95% CI 0.59 to 1.34; I2 = 23%; 10 studies, 3263 participants; very low-certainty evidence). Results from the NMA were consistent with those from pairwise meta-analyses for all critical outcomes, and there was no indication of inconsistency within the networks. 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 both 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 due to risk of bias inherent in the study design. 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 the 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. 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.

Safety and efficacy of e-cigarettes in those with atherosclerotic disease: a review

Smoking cessation is the most effective intervention to reduce mortality in patients with established atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD), with 'e-cigarettes' becoming an increasingly used intervention to achieve smoking cessation. The current review aims to summarise the current evidence base for their efficacy and safety in the ASCVD cohort. A search of the PUBMED and MEDLINE databases using the terms 'e-cigarette', 'cessation', 'safety' and 'efficacy' since 2012 yielded 706 results. Both observational and experimental studies were included, while those with an unavailable full text, non-English or duplicates were excluded, yielding 78 relevant articles, with 13 subsequent additional articles included from a search of reference lists, for a total of 91 included papers. E-cigarette vapour contains many known pro-atherosclerotic substances and has been demonstrated to potentiate traditional atherosclerotic mechanisms. While e-cigarettes may be more effective in promoting smoking cessation in the general population over a medium term (>6 months), when compared with nicotine replacement therapy (NRT), few studies specifically examined those with ASCVD, despite the latter having a higher baseline quit rate (52% vs 2%). Most studies compare e-cigarettes with NRT alone and do not include pharmacotherapy, which may be more effective in the ASCVD cohort. The single randomised controlled trial addressing the research question favoured traditional methods. Those that successfully quit smoking using e-cigarettes are more likely to continue to use the intervention at 1 year (90% vs 9%). Conflicting advice exists regarding the utilisation of e-cigarettes for smoking cessation. E-cigarettes may be inferior to standard care for smoking cessation in those with ASCVD, and their use is likely to promote the key drivers of the atherosclerotic process already active in this cohort.

Electronic Cigarette Harms: Aggregate Evidence Shows Damage to Biological Systems

Evidence of the harms of e-cigarettes has been unfolding slowly and has been documented in many reviews and reports worldwide. A narrative review of new evidence is presented since, as research has continued, newly aggregated evidence of the dangers of electronic cigarettes on the brain, heart, and lungs is vital to inform decisions on restricting the use of e-cigarettes. Several biomedical research databases were searched for electronic cigarette health effects, emphasizing reviews, systematic reviews, and meta-analyses. Over 50 review studies, primarily in 2022 and 2023, illustrate some of the latest information on e-cigarette harms. Results show studies of respiratory, neurological, and cardiovascular effects. Researchers call for expanding studies through new methods to elaborate on initial findings of multiple harms emerging in clinical investigations. Since the use of electronic cigarettes for adult cessation is not sanctioned in most countries, it is clear that health authorities see significant costs to the health of the general population if the promotion and use of electronic cigarettes occur worldwide. Regulatory action to control electronic cigarettes should consider the substantial evidence of electronic cigarette harm.

The cardiovascular consequences of electronic cigarette smoking: a narrative review

INTRODUCTION

E-cigarettes have emerged as a popular alternative to traditional tobacco smoking in recent years. Despite their growing popularity, concerns have arisen regarding the cardiovascular implications of e-cigarette use.

AREAS COVERED

This narrative review aims to highlight the latest evidence on the impact of e-cigarettes on cardiovascular health.

EXPERT OPINION

Numerous studies have demonstrated that e-cigarette use can lead to acute adverse cardiovascular effects. Inhalation of e-cigarette aerosols exposes users to a wide range of potentially harmful substances that have been implicated in critical pathophysiologic pathways of cardiovascular disease, namely endothelial dysfunction, oxidative stress, inflammation, sympathetic overdrive, and arterial stiffness. While long-term epidemiological studies specifically focusing on the cardiovascular effects of e-cigarettes are still relatively scarce, early evidence suggests a potential association between e-cigarette use and an increased risk of adverse cardiovascular events. However, it is essential to recognize that e-cigarettes are relatively new products, and the full extent of their long-term cardiovascular impact has not been fully elucidated. In the meantime, promoting tobacco cessation strategies that are evidence-based and regulated, along with rigorous monitoring of e-cigarette use patterns and associated health outcomes, are essential steps in safeguarding cardiovascular health in the face of this emerging public health challenge.