Effects of electronic cigarette on platelet and vascular function after four months of use

The potential of new nicotine and tobacco products as tools for people who smoke to quit combustible cigarettes - a systematic review of common practices and guidance towards a robust study protocol to measure cessation efficacy

New types of nicotine and tobacco products like electronic cigarettes (ECs), heated tobacco products or nicotine pouches have been discussed as less harmful alternatives to combustible cigarettes and other toxic forms of tobacco products. Their harm reduction potential lay in the efficient transition away from smoking to those new products. Numerous studies addressing the cessation efficacy of ECs have been published with contradictory outcomes. Yet, a comprehensive Cochrane review concluded with high certainty on the cessation efficacy of ECs. This prompted us to perform a review to identify weaknesses in common study designs and to summarize best practices for the study design on the potential of new nicotine products as cessation aids. 120 articles retrieved from Medline were found to be eligible. Most of the studies in the field were interventional trials while observational studies played a minor role in the evaluation of smoking cessation. Efficacy was predominantly assessed for ECs in 77% of the reports while heated tobacco (17%) and non-combustible products (11%) were less frequently investigated up to now. Measures to determine the efficacy were questionnaire-based assessments as well as use documentation/prevalence and abstinence rates. Studies varied largely in their duration and sample size with medians of 3 months and 156.5 participants, respectively.With the help of this review, we identified several weaknesses in the common study designs. One major limitation in longitudinal trials was the lack of compliance measures suited to verify the use status over longer time periods, relying solely on self-reports. Moreover, the motivation of the participants to quit was rarely defined and a profound familiarization period was not taken into account for the majority of the studies. To what extent such weaknesses influence the outcome of the studies was beyond the scope of this review. We encourage researchers to consider the recommendations which resulted from this review in order to determine the abuse liability and cessation efficacy of the products in a more robust manner. Finally, we like to call attention to the missing data for low- and middle-income countries which would require quitting strategies most urgently to combat the tobacco smoking epidemic.

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.

The implications of vaping on surgical wound healing: A systematic review

BACKGROUND

E-cigarette use is rapidly growing, and little is known about the postoperative complications. Cigarette smoking has been well-established to be associated with delayed wound healing and increased complications in surgical patients. Due to the intricate and harmonious nature of the wound-healing process, vaping may impair tissue regeneration, posing a risk for patients undergoing surgery. This systematic review aimed to review the evidence on the implications of vaping on wound healing.

METHODS

A systematic search of PubMed and Scopus databases was conducted on October 2022 per Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines. The following keywords were used to conduct the search: vaping, vape, e-cigarettes, electronic cigarettes, wound healing, tissue regeneration, postoperative complications, wound infection, and blood flow.

RESULTS

Of 5,265 screened articles, only 37 were eligible for qualitative synthesis. A total of 18 articles studied the effect of e-cigarettes on human volunteers, 14 investigated e-cigarette extract on human cell lines, and 5 used animal rat models.

CONCLUSION

Despite limited objective data, the recommendation is that e-cigarettes be treated as tobacco cigarettes; hence, vaping should be stopped in the perioperative period to decrease the incidence of wound healing complications. Clinical trials are required to understand the health hazards of e-cigarettes further and maximize patient safety and clinical outcomes.

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.

Association between electronic cigarettes use and whole blood cell among adults in the USA-a cross-sectional study of National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey analysis

Electronic cigarettes (E-cigarettes) use is an emerging public health problem. Trying to assess the independent associations between E-cigarettes use and whole blood cell in a nationally representative sample of the US adults is very important for the smoking population. Using E-cigarettes data from NHANES (National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey) 2013-2018, 17,180 adults were included in this cross-sectional analysis. All participants were stratified into four different groups (non-smoke group N=10087, E-cigarettes group N=52, dual-smoke group N=249, cigarettes group N=6792) based on questions SMQ020 (smoked at least 100 cigarettes in life) and SMQ690H (used last 5 days E-cigarettes). Whole blood cell tests included white blood cell (WBC) with differentials, red blood cell (RBC) with characteristics, and platelet variables. With adjusted by age, gender, and race ethnicity, multivariate logistic regression analyses were used to assess independent associations between E-cigarettes group and other groups for different whole blood cell variables. A total of 17,180 participants were included in the study; 47.9% were males, with a mean age of 46.99 (±0.29). In WBC-related variables, non-smoke group had the lowest value in WBC counts (7.15±0.05), lymphocyte (2.15±0.02), and monocyte (0.57±0.01), among the four different groups. In RBC-related variables, non-smoke group had the lowest value in mean cell volume (MCV, 88.46±0.14, p<0.05) and mean cell hemoglobin (MCH, 29.73±0.06, p<0.05), among the four different groups. In adjusted analysis, WBC (OR = 0.97, 95% CI: 0.96-0.98, p<0.001), especially lymphocyte (OR = 0.97, 95% CI: 0.96-0.98, p<0.001) and monocyte (OR = 0.11, 95% CI: 0.02-0.66, p<0.001) of non-smoke group, showed negative significant effect for E-cigarettes group. Meanwhile, lower odds of MCV (OR = 0.91, 95% CI: 0.81-1.04, p<0.05) and MCH (OR = 0.81, 95% CI: 0.65-1.00, p<0.05) in non-smoke group were observed compared to E-cigarettes group. Conversely, for dual-smoke group and cigarette group, there was no significant results in all whole blood cell variables compared to E-cigarettes group. E-cigarettes use might be associated with a systemic response that could lead to an increase in WBC, especially lymphocytes and monocytes, in the US adults. Meanwhile, the properties of RBC might also be influenced simultaneously; MCV and MCH in E-cigarettes population were bigger than the non-smoke population.

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.

How Electronic Cigarette Affects the Vascular System

The popularity of the electronic cigarette has soared in the last decades. However, the health effect of smoking electronic cigarettes on the vascular system is unclear. This systematic review examines the electronic cigarettes’ effect on the vascular system from recent evidence. A systematic search was conducted in MEDLINE (PubMed) database from January 2016 to August 2021 for studies assessing the vascular effect of chronic use of electronic cigarettes on human and animal. The Cochrane Risk of Bias 2, NIH Quality Assessment for Cross-Sectional Study, and SYRCLE’s Risk of Bias were used to assess the risk of bias in interventional, observational, and animal study, respectively. A narrative synthesis of evidence is provided to describe results. From 101 retrieved studies related to electronic cigarettes effect on the vascular system, a total of 16 studies are included in this review. The overall results indicated that electronic cigarette use is associated with adverse events in the vascular, including the incident of elevated oxidative stress, endothelial dysfunction, inflammation, arterial stiffness, and the development of atherosclerotic lesion. Further studies should broaden perspectives and reveal more about the mechanism of how electronic cigarettes impact on vascular system.

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.

Protective Effect of Eurotium cristatum Fermented Loose Dark Tea and Eurotium cristatum Particle on MAPK and PXR/AhR Signaling Pathways Induced by Electronic Cigarette Exposure in Mice

Electronic-cigarette smoke (eCS) has been shown to cause a degree of oxidative stress and inflammatory damage in lung tissue. The aim of this study was to evaluate the repair mechanism of Eurotium cristatum fermented loose dark tea (ECT) and Eurotium cristatum particle metabolites (ECP) sifted from ECT after eCS-induced injury in mice. Sixty C57BL/6 mice were randomly divided into a blank control group, an eCS model group, an eCS + 600 mg/kg ECP treatment group, an eCS + 600 mg/kg ECT treatment group, an eCS + 600 mg/kg ECP prevention group, and an eCS + 600 mg/kg ECT prevention group. The results show that ECP and ECT significantly reduced the eCS-induced oxidative stress and inflammation and improved histopathological changes in the lungs in mice with eCS-induced liver injury. Western blot analysis further revealed that ECP and ECT significantly inhibited the eCS-induced upregulation of the phosphorylation levels of the extracellular Regulated protein Kinases (ERK), c-Jun N-terminal kinase (JNK) and p38mitogen-activated protein kinases (p38MAPK) proteins, and significantly increased the eCS-induced downregulation of the expression levels of the pregnane X receptor (PXR) and aryl hydrocarbon receptor (AhR) proteins. Conclusively, these findings show that ECP and ECT have a significant repairing effect on the damage caused by eCS exposure through the MAPK and PXR/AhR signaling pathways; ECT has a better effect on preventing eCS-induced injury and is suitable as a daily healthcare drink; ECP has a better therapeutic effect after eCS-induced injury, and might be a potential therapeutic candidate for the treatment of eCS-induced injury.

An assessment of vaping-induced inflammation and toxicity: A feasibility study using a 2-stage zebrafish and mouse platform

It is currently understood that tobacco smoking is a major cause of pulmonary disease due to pulmonary/lung inflammation. However, due to a highly dynamic market place and an abundance of diverse products, less is known about the effects of e-cigarette (E-cig) use on the lung. In addition, varieties of E-cig liquids (e-liquids), which deliver nicotine and numerous flavor chemicals into the lungs, now number in the 1000s. Thus, a critical need exists for safety evaluations of these E-cig products. Herein, we employed a "2-stage in vivo screening platform" (zebrafish to mouse) to assess the safety profiles of e-liquids. Using the zebrafish, we collected embryo survival data after e-liquid exposure as well as neutrophil migration data, a key hallmark for a pro-inflammatory response. Our data indicate that certain e-liquids induce an inflammatory response in our zebrafish model and that e-liquid exposure alone results in pro-inflammatory lung responses in our C57BL/6J model, data collected from lung staining and ELISA analysis, respectively, in the mouse. Thus, our platform can be used as an initial assessment to ascertain the safety profiles of e-liquid using acute inflammatory responses (zebrafish, Stage 1) as our initial metric followed by chronic studies (C57BL/6J, Stage 2).

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.

Association of COVID-19 with impaired endothelial glycocalyx, vascular function and myocardial deformation 4 months after infection

Aims

SARS‐CoV‐2 infection may lead to endothelial and vascular dysfunction. We investigated alterations of arterial stiffness, endothelial coronary and myocardial function markers 4 months after COVID‐19 infection.

Methods and results

In a case‐control prospective study, we included 70 patients 4 months after COVID‐19 infection, 70 age‐ and sex‐matched untreated hypertensive patients (positive control) and 70 healthy individuals. We measured (i) perfused boundary region (PBR) of the sublingual arterial microvessels (increased PBR indicates reduced endothelial glycocalyx thickness), (ii) flow‐mediated dilatation (FMD), (iii) coronary flow reserve (CFR) by Doppler echocardiography, (iv) pulse wave velocity (PWV), (v) global left and right ventricular longitudinal strain (GLS), and (vi) malondialdehyde (MDA), an oxidative stress marker, thrombomodulin and von Willebrand factor as endothelial biomarkers. COVID‐19 patients had similar CFR and FMD as hypertensives (2.48 ± 0.41 vs. 2.58 ± 0.88, P = 0.562, and 5.86 ± 2.82% vs. 5.80 ± 2.07%, P = 0.872, respectively) but lower values than controls (3.42 ± 0.65, P = 0.0135, and 9.06 ± 2.11%, P = 0.002, respectively). Compared to controls, both COVID‐19 and hypertensives had greater PBR5–25 (2.07 ± 0.15 µm and 2.07 ± 0.26 µm, P = 0.8 vs. 1.89 ± 0.17 µm, P = 0.001), higher PWV (carotid–femoral PWV 12.09 ± 2.50 vs. 11.92 ± 2.94, P = 0.7 vs. 10.04 ± 1.80 m/s, P = 0.036) and impaired left and right ventricular GLS (−19.50 ± 2.56% vs. −19.23 ± 2.67%, P = 0.864 vs. −21.98 ± 1.51%, P = 0.020 and −16.99 ± 3.17% vs. −18.63 ± 3.20%, P = 0.002 vs. −20.51 ± 2.28%, P < 0.001). MDA and thrombomodulin were higher in COVID‐19 patients than both hypertensives and controls (10.67 ± 0.32 vs 1.76 ± 0.03, P = 0.003 vs. 1.01 ± 0.05 nmol/L, P = 0.001 and 3716.63 ± 188.36 vs. 3114.46 ± 179.18 pg/mL, P = 0.017 vs. 2590.02 ± 156.51 pg/mL, P < 0.001). Residual cardiovascular symptoms at 4 months were associated with oxidative stress and endothelial dysfunction markers.

Conclusions

SARS‐CoV‐2 may cause endothelial and vascular dysfunction linked to impaired cardiac performance 4 months after infection.

Differential effects of heat-not-burn and conventional cigarettes on coronary flow, myocardial and vascular function

We compared the effects of Heat-not-Burn cigarette (HNBC) to those of tobacco cigarette (Tcig), on myocardial, coronary and arterial function as well as on oxidative stress and platelet activation in 75 smokers. In the acute study, 50 smokers were randomised into smoking a single Tcig or a HNBC and after 60 min were crossed-over to the alternate smoking. For chronic phase, 50 smokers were switched to HNBC and were compared with an external group of 25 Tcig smokers before and after 1 month. Exhaled carbon monoxide (CO), pulse wave velocity (PWV), malondialdehyde (MDA) and thromboxane B2 (TxB2) were assessed in the acute and chronic study. Global longitudinal strain (GLS), myocardial work index (GWI), wasted myocardial work (GWW), coronary flow reserve (CFR), total arterial compliance (TAC) and flow-mediated dilation (FMD) were assessed in the chronic study. Acute HNBC smoking caused a smaller increase of PWV than Tcig (change 1.1 vs 0.54 m/s, p < 0.05) without change in CO and biomarkers in contrast to Tcig. Compared to Tcig, switching to HNBC for 1-month improved CO, FMD, CFR, TAC, GLS, GWW, MDA, TxB2 (differences 10.42 ppm, 4.3%, 0.98, 1.8 mL/mmHg, 2.35%, 19.72 mmHg%, 0.38 nmol/L and 45 pg/mL respectively, p < 0.05). HNBCs exert a less detrimental effect on vascular and cardiac function than tobacco cigarettes.

Trial registration Registered on https://clinicaltrials.gov/ (NCT03452124, 02/03/2018).

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.

Critical appraisal of the European Union Scientific Committee on Health, Environmental and Emerging Risks (SCHEER) Preliminary Opinion on electronic cigarettes

BACKGROUND

In preparation for the 2021 revision of the European Union Tobacco Products Directive, the Scientific Committee on Health, Environmental and Emerging Risks (SCHEER) has posted its Preliminary Opinion on Electronic Cigarettes. They concluded that e-cigarettes only achieve a sub-optimal level of protection of human health. In this paper, we provide evidence that the Opinion's conclusions are not adequately backed up by scientific evidence and did not discuss the potential health benefits of using alternative combustion-free nicotine-containing products as substitute for tobacco cigarettes.

METHODS

Searches for articles were conducted in PubMed and by citation chasing in Google Scholar. Articles were also retrieved with a review of references in major publications. Primary data from World Health Organization surveys, the conclusions of reviews, and peer-reviewed non-industry studies were cited to address errors and omissions identified in the Opinion.

RESULTS

The Opinion omitted reporting on the individual and population health benefits of the substitution of e-cigarettes (ENDS) for cigarette smoking. Alternative hypotheses to the gateway theory were not evaluated. Its assessment of cardiovascular risk is contradicted by numerous reviews. It cites ever-use data that do not represent current patterns of use. It did not report non-nicotine use. It presented erroneous statements on trends in ENDS prevalence. It over-emphasized the role of flavours in youth ENDS initiation. It did not discuss cessation in sufficient length.

CONCLUSIONS

For the delivery of a robust and comprehensive final report, the members of the Working Group of the Scientific Committee on Health, Environmental and Emerging Risks will need to consider (1) the potential health benefits of ENDS substitution for cigarette smoking, (2) alternative hypotheses and contradictory studies on the gateway effect, (3) its assessment of cardiovascular risk, (4) the measurements of frequency of use, (5) non-nicotine use, (6) the role of flavours, and (7) a fulsome discussion of cessation.

Vaping and cardiac disease

Tobacco cigarette smoking is the most prevalent reversible risk factor for cardiovascular disease in the USA. Electronic cigarettes, invented as an alternative nicotine source for smokers unable or unwilling to stop smoking, have gained skyrocketing popularity, but their cardiovascular risk remains uncertain. Although data recently analysed in a Cochran report do support their superior effectiveness to other forms of nicotine replacement therapies for smoking cessation, electronic cigarettes are also frequently used by non-smokers-especially high school students. There are no long-term outcome studies on the cardiovascular risk of vaping electronic cigarettes, but the effects of electronic cigarettes on known risk factors for cardiovascular disease, including neurohumoural activation, oxidative stress and inflammation, endothelial function and thrombosis, have been studied. In this review, we summarise evidence in humans that supports the notion that while electronic cigarettes may be less harmful than traditional cigarettes, they are not harmless. Additionally, the increasing popularity of vaping marijuana with its unknown cardiovascular risks as well as the outbreak in 2019 of EVALI (electronic cigarette, or vaping, product use-associated lung injury) related to bootlegged vaping products raise further concerns. Before physicians can confidently advise their smoking patients about the role of electronic cigarettes as a means of smoking cessation to lower cardiovascular risk, improved regulation and quality control is necessary.

Effects of e-cigarettes and vaping devices on cardiac and pulmonary physiology

E-cigarette aerosols are exceedingly different from conventional tobacco smoke, containing dozens of chemicals not found in cigarette smoke. It is highly likely that chronic use of e-cigarettes will induce pathological changes in both the heart and lungs. Here we review human and animal studies published to date and summarize the cardiopulmonary physiological changes caused by vaping. In terms of cardiac physiology, acute exposure to e-cigarette aerosols in human subjects led to increased blood pressure and heart rate, similar to traditional cigarettes. Chronic exposure to e-cigarette aerosols using animal models caused increased arterial stiffness, vascular endothelial changes, increased angiogenesis, cardiorenal fibrosis and increased atherosclerotic plaque formation. Pulmonary physiology is also affected by e-cigarette aerosol inhalation, with increased airway reactivity, airway obstruction, inflammation and emphysema. Research thus far demonstrates that the heart and lung undergo numerous changes in response to e-cigarette use, and disease development will depend on how those changes combine with both environmental and genetic factors. E-cigarettes have been advertised as a healthy alternative to cigarette smoking, and users are under the impression that vaping of e-cigarettes is harmless, but these claims that e-cigarettes are safer and healthier are not based on evidence. Data from both humans and animal models are consistent in demonstrating that vaping of e-cigarettes causes health effects both similar to and disparate from those of cigarette smoking. Further work is needed to define the long-term cardiopulmonary effects of e-cigarette use in humans.