E-Cigarettes: Harmful or Harm-Reducing? Evaluation of a Novel Online CME Program for Health Care Providers

E-cigarette or vaping-associated lung injury (EVALI): a review of international case reports from outside the United States of America

INTRODUCTION

E-cigarette or vaping-associated lung injury has been reported extensively throughout the United States without a corresponding number of international cases. Cannabinoid-based products have been implicated in the majority of cases.

OBJECTIVES

To collate published reports of E-cigarette or vaping-associated lung injury outside the United States and to identify the reasons behind the discrepancy in reported cases between the United States and the international community.

METHODS

PubMed and Healthcare Databases Advanced Search were used to identify published case reports of E-cigarette or vaping-associated lung injury prior to February 2021 using the search terms "e-cigarette", "e-cigarettes", "vaping", "vape" and, "lung injury", "pulmonary", "respiratory". Cases occurring in the United States were excluded. Non-United States case reports were excluded if they did not meet the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention "probable case" criteria. This requires use of a vaping device within 90 days of symptom onset, the presence of pulmonary infiltrates on plain film chest radiography or ground glass opacities on computerised tomography, clinical suspicion that infection was not the underlying cause of lung injury, and the absence of other plausible medical processes to account for the presentation. Patient demographics, nature of exposure, symptomatology and outcome were compared to 125 cases from three regional United States based case series, which were chosen on the basis of having complete data for these comparative factors.

RESULTS

Seventeen international cases from 13 countries were identified for analysis. There was a male predominance in both non-United States and United States cohorts (76% vs 58-83%), with a marginally higher median patient age in non-United States cases (31 vs 27, 19, 27 years). Reported use of nicotine/flavoured e-liquids was more common in non-United States cases (100% vs 58-67%), and use of cannabinoid-based products was less common (24% vs 78-92%). The most common symptoms across all cohorts were shortness of breath (76% vs 85-91%), cough (59% vs 78-83%) and fever (47% vs 78-83%). The majority of patients were hypoxic (76% vs 69-86%) and required hospital admission (88% vs 90-94%). Fewer of the non-United States patients required intensive care admission (24% vs 55-67%) though their median length of stay was longer (15 days vs 5, 6, 7 days).

DISCUSSION

Uniformity amongst non-United States cases in regards to nicotine based and/or flavoured e-liquid exposure may underestimate the role of these substances in e-cigarette or vaping-associated lung injury. This is consistent with prior United States based research demonstrating increased presentations to emergency departments prior to the recognised "outbreak" of e-cigarette or vaping-associated lung injury at a time of increased nicotine based e-liquid uptake. A longer length of hospital stay, lower rate of intensive care admission and a higher rate of bronchoscopy in the non-United States cohort could be indicative of clinician inexperience internationally. It is unclear why the non-United States cases also had a lower incidence of gastrointestinal symptoms however this may also be explained by poorer diagnostic awareness.

CONCLUSIONS

E-cigarette or vaping-associated lung injury is not limited to cannabinoid-based products. Apparent similarities in patient demographics, clinical features, and clinical course between non-United States and United States cases raise concern for underreporting of E-cigarette or vaping- associated lung injury internationally.

Exploring the Study of Simulation as a Continuing Professional Development Strategy for Physicians

INTRODUCTION

Practicing physicians have the responsibility to engage in lifelong learning. Although simulation is an effective experiential educational strategy, physicians seldom select it for continuing professional development (CPD) for reasons that are poorly understood. The objective of this study was to explore existing evidence on simulation-based CPD and the factors influencing physicians' engagement in simulation-based CPD.

METHODS

A scoping review of the literature on simulation-based CPD included MEDLINE, Embase, and CINAHL databases. Studies involving the use of simulation for practicing physicians' CPD were included. Information related to motivations for participating in simulation-based CPD, study objectives, research question(s), rationale(s), reasons for using simulation, and simulation features was abstracted.

RESULTS

The search yielded 8609 articles, with 6906 articles undergoing title and abstract screening after duplicate removal. Six hundred sixty-one articles underwent full-text screening. Two hundred twenty-five studies (1993-2021) were reviewed for data abstraction. Only four studies explored physicians' motivations directly, while 31 studies described incentives or strategies used to enroll physicians in studies on simulation-based CPD. Most studies focused on leveraging or demonstrating the utility of simulation for CPD. Limited evidence suggests that psychological safety, direct relevance to clinical practice, and familiarity with simulation may promote future engagement.

DISCUSSION

Although simulation is an effective experiential educational method, factors explaining its uptake by physicians as a CPD strategy are unclear. Additional evidence of simulation effectiveness may fail to convince physicians to participate in simulation-based CPD unless personal, social, educational, or contextual factors that shape physicians' motivations and choices to engage in simulation-based CPD are explored.

An Evaluation of the Knowledge and Perceptions of Pharmacy Staff and Pre-Registration Students of E-Cigarettes Use: A Systematic Review

INTRODUCTION

Pharmacy staff are a trusted source of advice on the safe and appropriate use of medicines and devices. Retail pharmacies deliver smoking cessation services and sell e-cigarettes in the UK. This review asks 'what knowledge, experience and ability do staff have to support e-cigarette users to quit smoking'.

METHODS

A systematic literature search was undertaken drawn on predefined eligibility criteria and a comprehensive search strategy following the PRISMA guideline. Eligible papers reported survey-research published in English from 2015 to 2020. PubMed, Google Scholar, OVID, EMBASE and MEDLINE Databases were searched. No restrictions on study design or language were applied. Two reviewers independently screened for inclusion/exclusion and then extracted the relevant information from the articles for synthesis.

RESULTS

Of 12 potentially eligible full-text studies, 1 was a duplicate, 7 were excluded as per eligibility criteria. Four papers were finally included in this literature review. Two studies indicated that pharmacy staff are less confident in giving advice on e-cigarette use. Knowledge on the adverse effects of e-cigarettes compared to traditional smoking cessation aids remain unclear. In one study, 42% of community pharmacists did not believe that e-cigarettes could be used for smoking cessation. Three studies identified need for specific regulations and professional support. The overall certainty of the evidence is 'low' or 'very low', with moderate levels of bias.

CONCLUSION

Pharmacists may be well placed to implement e-cigarette smoking cessation interventions, but most practitioners lacked knowledge and ability to support these customers citing unclear risk of harm. Pharmacists felt secure in recommending traditional cessation tools. Further regulation, guidelines and training is needed. Findings may be less generalizable in countries where e-cigarettes are banned. Their extent of knowledge, experience and ability to support users of e-cigarettes within their community to quit smoking is lacking.