Electronic Cigarette Use and Blood Pressure Endpoints: a Systematic Review

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.

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.

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.

Lifestyle management of hypertension: International Society of Hypertension position paper endorsed by the World Hypertension League and European Society of Hypertension

Hypertension, defined as persistently elevated systolic blood pressure (SBP) >140 mmHg and/or diastolic blood pressure (DBP) at least 90 mmHg (International Society of Hypertension guidelines), affects over 1.5 billion people worldwide. Hypertension is associated with increased risk of cardiovascular disease (CVD) events (e.g. coronary heart disease, heart failure and stroke) and death. An international panel of experts convened by the International Society of Hypertension College of Experts compiled lifestyle management recommendations as first-line strategy to prevent and control hypertension in adulthood. We also recommend that lifestyle changes be continued even when blood pressure-lowering medications are prescribed. Specific recommendations based on literature evidence are summarized with advice to start these measures early in life, including maintaining a healthy body weight, increased levels of different types of physical activity, healthy eating and drinking, avoidance and cessation of smoking and alcohol use, management of stress and sleep levels. We also discuss the relevance of specific approaches including consumption of sodium, potassium, sugar, fibre, coffee, tea, intermittent fasting as well as integrated strategies to implement these recommendations using, for example, behaviour change-related technologies and digital tools.

A modern day perspective on smoking in peripheral artery disease

Peripheral artery disease (PAD) is associated with increased risk of cardiovascular morbidity and mortality, poor functional status, and lower quality of life. Cigarette smoking is a major preventable risk factor for PAD and is strongly associated with a higher risk of disease progression, worse post-procedural outcomes, and increased healthcare utilization. The arterial narrowing due to atherosclerotic lesions in PAD leads to decreased perfusion to the limbs and can ultimately cause arterial obstruction and limb ischemia. Endothelial cell dysfunction, oxidative stress, inflammation, and arterial stiffness are among the key events during the development of atherogenesis. In this review, we discuss the benefits of smoking cessation among patients with PAD and the use of smoking cessation methods including pharmacological treatment. Given that smoking cessation interventions remain underutilized, we highlight the importance of incorporating smoking cessation treatments as part of the medical management of patients with PAD. Regulatory approaches to reduce the uptake of tobacco product use and support smoking cessation have the potential to reduce the burden of PAD.

Time-varying association between cigarette and ENDS use on incident hypertension among US adults: a prospective longitudinal study

OBJECTIVE

Electronic nicotine delivery systems (ENDS) products have emerged as the most popular alternative to combustible cigarettes. However, ENDS products contain potentially dangerous toxicants and chemical compounds, and little is known about their health effects. The aim of the present study was to examine the prospective association between cigarette and ENDS use on self-reported incident hypertension.

DESIGN

Longitudinal cohort study.

SETTING

Nationally representative sample of the civilian, non-institutionalised population in the USA.

PARTICIPANTS

17 539 adults aged 18 or older who participated at follow-up and had no self-reported heart condition or previous diagnosis of hypertension or high cholesterol at baseline.

MEASURES

We constructed a time-varying tobacco exposure, lagged by one wave, defined as no use, exclusive established use (every day or some days) of ENDS or cigarettes, and dual use. We controlled for demographics (age, sex, race/ethnicity and household income), clinical risk factors (family history of heart attack, obesity, diabetes and binge drinking) and smoking history (cigarette pack-years).

OUTCOMES

Self-reported incident hypertension diagnosis.

RESULTS

The self-reported incidence of hypertension was 3.7% between wave 2 and wave 5. At baseline, 18.0% (n=5570) of respondents exclusively smoked cigarettes; 1.1% (n=336) exclusively used ENDS; and 1.7% (n=570) were dual users. In adjusted models, exclusive cigarette use was associated with an increased risk of self-reported incident hypertension compared with non-use (adjusted HR (aHR) 1.21, 95% CI 1.06 to 1.38), while exclusive ENDS use (aHR 1.00, 95% CI 0.68 to 1.47) and dual use (aHR 1.15, 95% CI 0.87 to 1.52) were not.

CONCLUSIONS

We found that smoking increased the risk of self-reported hypertension, but ENDS use did not. These results highlight the importance of using prospective longitudinal data to examine the health effects of ENDS use.

Clinical testing of the cardiovascular effects of e-cigarette substitution for smoking: a living systematic review

Some persons who smoke have substituted e-cigarettes for tobacco cigarettes, either completely or partially. What effect does this have on cardiovascular functioning? We conducted a living systematic review on human clinical studies measuring the cardiovascular effects of e-cigarette substitution for smoking. The Scopus, PubMed, and CENTRAL Cochrane Library databases were searched on January 31 and April 29, 2021. Three secondary searches and a grey literature search were conducted. Included study designs were randomized controlled trials, quasi-experimental clinical trials, and cohort studies. Risk of bias and study quality were evaluated with the JBI Critical Appraisal tools and the Oxford Catalogue of Bias. The systematic review covered 25 studies comprising 1810 participants who smoked. Twenty studies were rated at high risk of bias, and five as some concerns. A tabular synthesis by direction of effect was conducted due to heterogeneity in the data. Nearly two-thirds of the test analyses indicated that e-cigarette use had no significance difference compared with tobacco cigarettes on heart rate, blood pressure, and in other cardiovascular tests. In two studies, participants with hypertension experienced a clinically relevant reduction in systolic blood pressure after 1 year of e-cigarette use. E-cigarette substitution incurs no additional cardiovascular risks, and some possible benefits may be obtained, but the evidence is of low to very low certainty. An update search on May 30, 2022 retrieved five studies that did not alter our conclusion.Registration PROSPERO #CRD42021239094.

2022 Taiwan lipid guidelines for primary prevention

Elevated circulating low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) is a major risk factor of atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD). Early control of LDL-C to prevent ASCVD later in life is important. The Taiwan Society of Lipids and Atherosclerosis in association with the other seven societies developed this new lipid guideline focusing on subjects without clinically significant ASCVD. In this guideline for primary prevention, the recommended LDL-C target is based on risk stratification. A healthy lifestyle with recommendations for foods, dietary supplements and alcohol drinking are described. The pharmacological therapies for LDL-C reduction are recommended. The aim of this guideline is to decrease the risk of ASCVD through adequate control of dyslipidemia in Taiwan.

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.

Chronic health effects associated with electronic cigarette use: A systematic review

Introduction

Over the last decade, e-cigarette use has been on the rise but with growing health concerns. The objective of this systematic review was to update findings for chronic health outcomes associated with e-cigarette use from the 2018 National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine (NASEM) report.

Methods

Three bibliographic databases were searched to identify studies comparing the chronic health effects of e-cigarette users (ECU) to non-smokers (NS), smokers, and/or dual users indexed between 31 August 2017 and 29 January 2021. Two independent reviewers screened abstracts and full texts. Data were extracted by one reviewer and verified by a second one. Outcomes were synthesized in a narrative manner using counts and based on statistical significance and direction of the association stratified by study design and exposure type. Risk of bias and certainty of evidence was assessed. The protocol was prospectively registered on Open Science Framework https://osf.io/u9btp.

Results

A total of 180 articles were eligible. This review focused on 93 studies for the 11 most frequently reported outcomes and from which 59 reported on daily e-cigarette use. The certainty of evidence for all outcomes was very low because of study design (84% cross-sectional) and exposure type (27% reported on exclusive ECU, i.e., never smoked traditional cigarettes). Overall, the summary of results for nearly all outcomes, including inflammation, immune response, periodontal and peri-implant clinical parameters, lung function, respiratory symptoms, and cardiovascular disease, suggested either non-significant or mixed results when daily ECU was compared to NS. This was also observed when comparing exclusive ECU to NS. The only notable exception was related to oral health where most (11/14) studies reported significantly higher inflammation among daily ECU vs. NS. Compared to the smokers, the exclusive-ECUs had no statistically significant differences in inflammation orperiodontal clinical parameters but had mixed findings for peri-implant clinical parameters.

Conclusions

This review provides an update to the 2018 NASEM report on chronic health effects of e-cigarette use. While the number of studies has grown, the certainty of evidence remains very low largely because of cross-sectional designs and lack of reporting on exclusive e-cigarette exposure. There remains a need for higher quality intervention and prospective studies to assess causality, with a focus on exclusive e-cigarette use.

Risk and safety profile of electronic nicotine delivery systems (ENDS): an umbrella review to inform ENDS health communication strategies

OBJECTIVES

This umbrella review aims to summarise the evidence about electronic nicotine delivery systems' (ENDS) risk and safety health profile to inform ENDS health communication strategies.

DATA SOURCES AND STUDY SELECTION

Six databases were searched for systematic reviews presenting evidence on ENDS-related health effects. Ninety reviews divided into five categories were included: toxicity=20, health effects=40, role in smoking cessation=24, role in transition to combustible cigarettes (CCs)=13 and industry marketing claims=4.

DATA EXTRACTION

Findings were synthesised in narrative summaries. Meta-analyses were conducted by study type when appropriate. Quality assessment was conducted using the Measurement Tool to Assess Systematic Reviews. The Institute of Medicine's Levels of Evidence Framework was used to classify the evidence into high-level, moderate, limited-suggestive and limited-not-conclusive.

DATA SYNTHESIS

We found high-level evidence that ENDS exposes users to toxic substances; increases the risk of respiratory disease; leads to nicotine dependence; causes serious injuries due to explosion or poisoning; increases smoking cessation in clinical trials but not in observational studies; increases CC initiation; and exposure to ENDS marketing increases its use/intention to use. Evidence was moderate for ENDS association with mental health and substance use, limited-suggestive for cardiovascular, and limited-not-conclusive for cancer, ear, ocular and oral diseases, and pregnancy outcomes.

CONCLUSIONS

As evidence is accumulating, ENDS communication can focus on high-level evidence on ENDS association with toxicity, nicotine addiction, respiratory disease, ENDS-specific harm (explosion, poisoning) and anti-ENDS industry sentiment. Direct comparison between the harm of CCs and ENDS should be avoided.

PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER

CRD42021241630.

E-Cigarettes Reexamined: Product Toxicity

The introduction of e-cigarettes, or electronic nicotine delivery systems (ENDS), has been accompanied by controversy regarding their safety and effectiveness as a cessation aid and by an explosion in their use by youth. Their use does not involve the combustion of tobacco and the creation of harmful combustion products; they have been seen as a "harm reduction" tool that may be of assistance in promoting smoking cessation. Recognition that ENDS can deliver an array of chemicals and materials with known adverse consequences has spurred more careful examination of these products. Nicotine, nitrosamines, carbonyl compounds, heavy metals, free radicals, reactive oxygen species, particulate matter, and "emerging chemicals of concern" are among the constituents of the heated chemical aerosol that is inhaled when ENDS are used. They raise concerns for cardiovascular and respiratory health that merit the attention of clinicians and regulatory agencies. Frequently cited concerns include evidence of disordered respiratory function, altered hemodynamics, endothelial dysfunction, vascular reactivity, and enhanced thrombogenesis. The absence of evidence of the consequences of their long-term use is of additional concern. Their effectiveness as cessation aids and beneficial impact on health outcomes continue to be examined. It is important to ensure that their production and availability are thoughtfully regulated to optimise their safety and permit their use as harm reduction devices and potentially as smoking-cessation aids. It is equally vital to effectively prevent them from becoming ubiquitous consumer products with the potential to rapidly induce nicotine addiction among large numbers of youth. Clinicians should understand the nature of these products and the implications of their use.

An integral perspective of canonical cigarette and e-cigarette-related cardiovascular toxicity based on the adverse outcome pathway framework

BACKGROUND

Nowadays, cigarette smoking remains the leading cause of chronic disease and premature death, especially cardiovascular disease. As an emerging tobacco product, e-cigarettes have been advocated as alternatives to canonical cigarettes, and thus may be an aid to promote smoking cessation. However, recent studies indicated that e-cigarettes should not be completely harmless to the cardiovascular system.

AIM OF REVIEW

This review aimed to build up an integral perspective of cigarettes and e-cigarettes-related cardiovascular toxicity.

KEY SCIENTIFIC CONCEPTS OF REVIEW

This review adopted the adverse outcome pathway (AOP) framework as a pivotal tool and aimed to elucidate the association between the molecular initiating events (MIEs) induced by cigarette and e-cigarette exposure to the cardiovascular adverse outcome. Since the excessive generation of reactive oxygen species (ROS) has been widely approved to play a critical role in cigarette smoke-related CVD and may also be involved in e-cigarette-induced toxic effects, the ROS overproduction and subsequent oxidative stress are regarded as essential parts of this framework. As far as we know, this should be the first AOP framework focusing on cigarette and e-cigarette-related cardiovascular toxicity, and we hope our work to be a guide in exploring the biomarkers and novel therapies for cardiovascular injury.

Health Effects of Electronic Cigarettes: An Umbrella Review and Methodological Considerations

E-cigarettes are often marketed as a safer alternative to combustible cigarettes. However, their health effects, especially those associated with long-term use, remain largely uncertain. We conducted an umbrella review of the cardiopulmonary and carcinogenic risks of e-cigarette use, distinguishing between short-term and long-term health effects. The search for systematic reviews was conducted across four electronic databases through 25 January 2022. Methodological quality was assessed using the AMSTAR-2 quality appraisal tool. Seventeen systematic reviews, including five meta-analyses, were included in our umbrella review. There was a clear underreporting of e-cigarette devices and e-liquid types, e-cigarette and cigarette exposure, and the health and smoking status of study participants. Overall, the findings suggest that short-term use of e-cigarettes may be associated with acute cardiopulmonary risks, although to a lesser extent than cigarette use. Long-term e-cigarette use may have pulmonary/respiratory benefits in those who switch from chronic cigarette smoking, particularly in individuals with asthma and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). Evidence on intermediate and long-term carcinogenic effects is lacking. This umbrella review underscores the urgent need for systematic reviews with better adherence to established reporting guidelines, consistent definitions of duration of e-cigarette use, a focus on newer devices, and accounting for the impacts of former or current smoking.

Sex Differences in the Association of E-cigarette and Cigarette Use and Dual Use With Self-Reported Hypertension Incidence in US Adults

BACKGROUND

While there is some evidence and conceptual plausibility that tobacco product use is associated with hypertension incidence and that this association varies by sex, extant longitudinal research had been conducted prior to the emergence of e-cigarette and dual e-cigarette and cigarette use.

AIMS AND METHODS

Data were analyzed from the US Population Assessment of Tobacco and Health study for adults with no lifetime history of hypertension at wave 1 (2013-2014) who completed waves 2-4 follow-up surveys (2014-2018; n = 16 434). Sex-stratified weighted covariate-adjusted multivariable Cox regression models were used to examine the association between established current e-cigarette or cigarette exclusive or dual-use (as a time-varying and time-lagged regressor) and subsequent self-reported hypertension onset.

RESULTS

Weighted cumulative hypertension incidence by wave 4 varied by waves 1-3 e-cigarette, cigarette, and dual use status in females (nonuse [incidence: 9.9%], exclusive e-cigarette use [11.8%], exclusive cigarette use [14.8%], dual-use [12.4%]; p = .003 for omnibus differences among all groups) but not males (nonuse [12.6%], exclusive e-cigarette use [9.7%], exclusive cigarette use [13.7%], dual-use [9.3%]; p = .231). Among females, exclusive cigarette (vs. no) use (hazard ratio: 1.69, 95%CI 1.21 to 2.34; p = .002), but not exclusive e-cigarette or dual-use, was significantly associated with subsequent hypertension. Dose-response models were suggestive that consistent exclusive e-cigarette or dual-use versus nonuse across multiple may be associated with hypertension among females, but results were nonsignificant.

CONCLUSIONS

The association of e-cigarette, cigarette, and dual use with hypertension may differ by sex, whereby exclusive cigarette use could be a prospective risk factor for subsequent self-reported hypertension in US adult females.

IMPLICATIONS

This nationally representative cohort study provides the very first evidence of whether there are prospective associations of established e-cigarette and cigarette use and dual use with future hypertension onset among US adult females and males. We found that exclusive cigarette smoking was associated with an increased risk of incident hypertension among females, but not males. We observed a trend of a dose-response relationship between e-cigarette use and risk of incident hypertension among female exclusive e-cigarette users or dual e-cigarette and cigarette users. Our study will contribute to understanding the chronic health risks of vaping to prevent the potential long-term e-cigarette use-related health burden.

What Is or What Is Not a Risk Factor for Arterial Hypertension? Not Hamlet, but Medical Students Answer That Question

Hypertension is a leading cause of cardiovascular disease and premature death worldwide. The most important method of preventing hypertension is social awareness of its causes. An important role in educating society about hypertension is played by medical personnel. The study involved 327 students of medicine representing all years of study. The study used a proprietary questionnaire containing test questions about knowledge of the causes of hypertension (classical and non-classical factors), as well as questionable and false risk factors for the disease. The students’ knowledge of the complications of hypertension was also assessed. Most of the students rated their knowledge about hypertension as good. Classical risk factors for hypertension were identified by students in all years of study: I–III and IV–VI. Non-classical risk factors for hypertension were less often identified by the students. The students almost unanimously indicated that the complications of hypertension include heart failure, heart attack, stroke, aortic aneurysm, kidney failure, atherosclerosis, eye diseases and worse prognosis in COVID-19. Students’ knowledge of the causes of hypertension increased during medical studies. The knowledge of the respondents about classical risk factors for hypertension was extensive, whereas knowledge of non-classical risk factors it was insufficient. Most of the respondents were well aware of the complications of hypertension. Some students identified some factors incorrectly as increasing the risk of hypertension. Emphasis should be placed on the dissemination of knowledge about non-classical hypertension risk factors to medical students.

An Evaluation of Evidence Underpinning Management Recommendations in Tobacco Use Disorder Clinical Practice Guidelines

INTRODUCTION

Clinical practice guidelines(CPGs) are important tools for medical decision-making. Given the high prevalence and financial burden associated with tobacco use disorder(TUD), it is critical that recommendations within CPGs are based on robust evidence. Systematic reviews(SRs) are considered the highest level of evidence, thus, we evaluated the quality of SRs underpinning CPG recommendations for TUD.

METHODS

We used PubMed to search for CPGs relating to TUD published between January 1, 2010 and May 21, 2021. SRs were extracted from CPG references and evaluated using Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses(PRISMA) and A MeaSurement Tool to Assess Systematic Reviews(AMSTAR-2) tools. We then compared SRs conducted by the Cochrane Collaboration with non-Cochrane SRs using a Mann-Whitney U test and determined associations between PRISMA and AMSTAR-2 extracted characteristics using multiple regression.

RESULTS

Our search generated 10 CPGs with 98 SRs extracted. Mean PRISMA completion was 74.7%(SD = 16.7) and mean AMSTAR-2 completion was 53.8%(SD = 22.0) across all guidelines. Cochrane SRs were more complete than non-Cochrane studies in the PRISMA and AMSTAR-2 assessments. The regression model showed a statistically significant association between PRISMA completion and AMSTAR-2 rating, with those classified as "low" or "moderate" quality having higher PRISMA completion than those with "critically low" ratings.

CONCLUSION

We found substandard adherence to PRISMA and AMSTAR-2 checklists across SRs cited in TUD CPGs. A lack of recent SRs in CPGs could lead to outdated recommendations. Therefore, frequent guideline updates with recently published evidence may ensure more accurate clinical recommendations and improve patient care.

IMPLICATIONS

Systematic reviews used to underpin clinical practice guideline recommendations influence treatment decisions and, ultimately, patient outcomes. We found that many systematic reviews underpinning tobacco use disorder guideline recommendations were out of date and unsatisfactory in reporting and quality. Thus, including newer systematic reviews containing more recently conducted trials and better reporting could alter recommendations and improve the rate of successful tobacco cessation attempts.

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.

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.