The Impact of E-liquid Propylene Glycol and Vegetable Glycerin Ratio on Ratings of Subjective Effects, Reinforcement Value, and Use in Current Smokers

A Multi-Year Characterization of Confiscated Vaping Products from Virginia School Youth

The United States (US) Food and Drug Administration's (FDA) regulatory oversight over electronic cigarettes (e-cigs) includes access restriction for persons <21 years of age and flavor restrictions for "cartridge-based" products. Despite the restrictions, consumption by US youth perseveres. Studies on youth e-cig use are limited by the reliability and accuracy of self-reports. As an alternative to self-reports, the current study examined nicotine, cannabinoid, and unlabeled e-cigs and other vaping products confiscated from Virginia public schools to characterize trends among students. Findings highlight a shift from JUUL and pod-based products to single use disposable e-cigs following the FDA flavor restrictions on cartridge-based e-cigs. Chemical analysis of e-liquids by gas chromatography-mass spectrometry identified a wide variety of flavorants and an increase in the prevalence of synthetic coolants. Most confiscated products were nicotine salt formulations, but the prevalence of cannabinoid-based vaping products increased. The popularity of flavored disposable e-cigs highlights the need for further restrictions to reduce youth consumption. The increasing use of synthetic coolants instead of menthol may suggest that manufacturers are employing tactics to bypass regulations. Continued youth access to e-cigs and the abundance of cannabinoid-based products is problematic from health and safety perspectives. Continued research incorporating confiscated product analysis can be used to understand youth access to vaping products and evolutions in manufacturing practices.

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.

Electronic cigarette exposure disrupts airway epithelial barrier function and exacerbates viral infection

The use of electronic cigarettes (e-cigs), especially among teenagers, has reached alarming and epidemic levels, posing a significant threat to public health. However, the short- and long-term effects of vaping on the airway epithelial barrier are unclear. Airway epithelial cells are the forefront protectors from viruses and pathogens. They contain apical junctional complexes (AJCs), which include tight junctions (TJs) and adherens junctions (AJs) formed between adjacent cells. Previously, we reported respiratory syncytial virus (RSV) infection, the leading cause of acute lower respiratory infection-related hospitalization in children and high-risk adults, induces a "leaky airway" by disrupting the epithelial AJC structure and function. We hypothesized chemical components of e-cigs disrupt airway epithelial barrier and exacerbate RSV-induced airway barrier dysfunction. Using confluent human bronchial epithelial (16HBE) cells and well-differentiated normal human bronchial epithelial (NHBE) cells, we found that exposure to extract and aerosol e-cig nicotine caused a significant decrease in transepithelial electrical resistance (TEER) and the structure of the AJC even at noncytotoxic concentrations. Western blot analysis of 16HBE cells exposed to e-cig nicotine extract did not reveal significant changes in AJC proteins. Exposure to aerosolized e-cig cinnamon or menthol flavors also induced barrier disruption and aggravated nicotine-induced airway barrier dysfunction. Moreover, preexposure to nicotine aerosol increased RSV infection and the severity of RSV-induced airway barrier disruption. Our findings demonstrate that e-cig exposure disrupts the airway epithelial barrier and exacerbates RSV-induced damage. Knowledge gained from this study will provide awareness of adverse e-cig respiratory effects and positively impact the mitigation of e-cig epidemic.NEW & NOTEWORTHY Electronic cigarette (e-cig) use, especially in teens, is alarming and at epidemic proportions, threatening public health. Our study shows that e-cig nicotine exposure disrupts airway epithelial tight junctions and increases RSV-induced barrier dysfunction. Furthermore, exposure to aerosolized flavors exaggerates e-cig nicotine-induced airway barrier dysfunction. Our study confirms that individual and combined components of e-cigs deleteriously impact the airway barrier and that e-cig exposure increases susceptibility to viral infection.

Quantifying PG : VG ratio and nicotine content in commercially available e-liquids using handheld Raman spectroscopy

Electronic cigarettes are a popular nicotine consumption product that have risen in popularity as an alternative to cigarettes. However, their recent meteoric rise in market size and various controversies have resulted in the analyses of e-liquid ingredients to be focused on powerful laboratory-based slow methods such as chromatography and mass spectrometry. Here we present a complementary technology based on Raman spectroscopy combined with chemometrics as a fast, inexpensive, and highly portable screening tool to detect and quantify the propylene glycol : glycerol (PG : VG) ratio and nicotine content of e-cigarette liquids. Through this, the PG : VG ratio of 20 out of 23 commercial samples was quantified to within 3% of their stated value, while nicotine was successfully quantified to within 1 mg g-1 for 16 out of 23 samples without the need for accurate knowledge of flavonoid composition. High linearity was also achieved when flavours were kept constant. Finally, the limitations of Raman spectroscopy are discussed, and potential solutions are suggested.

Impact of e-cigarette vaping aerosol exposure in pregnancy on mTOR signaling in rat fetal hippocampus

Electronic cigarette (e-cig) use during pregnancy has become a major health concern in recent years and many view them as less harmful and may help quit or reduce combustible cigarettes. Implementing a state-of-the-art engineered vaping system, comprising an atomizer similar to those sold in vape shops, we aimed to utilize a translational e-cig inhalation delivery method to provide crucial information on the impact of prenatal e-cig aerosols on the developing brain hippocampal mTOR system in a rat model system. Gestational e-cig vaping significantly increased P-mTOR levels (p < 0.05) in the rat fetal hippocampi in the nicotine group (comprising of VG/PG + nicotine) compared to the control and the juice (comprising of VG/PG) groups. Total mTOR expression was not different among groups. Immunofluorescence imaging demonstrated P-mTOR was detected exclusively in the granule cells of the dentate gyrus of the fetal hippocampus. E-cig did not alter DEPTOR, but RAPTOR and RICTOR were higher (p < 0.05) in the Nicotine group. Gestational e-cig vaping with nicotine increased (p < 0.05) the activity and expression of 4EBP1, p70S6K, but decreased (p < 0.05) P-PKCα in the fetal hippocampi. In summary, dysregulation of mTORC1 and the related mTORC2, their activity, and downstream proteins together may play a critical role in e-cig-vaping-induced neurobiological phenotypes during development.

Multi-omic assessment shows dysregulation of pulmonary and systemic immunity to e-cigarette exposure

Electronic cigarette (Ecig) use has become more common, gaining increasing acceptance as a safer alternative to tobacco smoking. However, the 2019 outbreak of Ecig and Vaping-Associated Lung Injury (EVALI) alerted the community to the potential for incorporation of deleterious ingredients such as vitamin E acetate into products without adequate safety testing. Understanding Ecig induced molecular changes in the lung and systemically can provide a path to safety assessment and protect consumers from unsafe formulations. While vitamin E acetate has been largely removed from commercial and illicit products, many Ecig products contain additives that remain largely uncharacterized. In this study, we determined the lung-specific effects as well as systemic immune effects in response to exposure to a common Ecig base, propylene glycol and vegetable glycerin (PGVG), with and without a 1% addition of phytol, a diterpene alcohol that has been found in commercial products. We exposed animals to PGVG with and without phytol and assessed metabolite, lipid, and transcriptional markers in the lung. We found both lung-specific as well as systemic effects in immune parameters, metabolites, and lipids. Phytol drove modest changes in lung function and increased splenic CD4 T cell populations. We also conducted multi-omic data integration to better understand early complex pulmonary responses, highlighting a central enhancement of acetylcholine responses and downregulation of palmitic acid connected with conventional flow cytometric assessments of lung, systemic inflammation, and pulmonary function. Our results demonstrate that Ecig exposure not only leads to changes in pulmonary function but also affects systemic immune and metabolic parameters.

Rat bronchoalveolar lavage proteome changes following e-cigarette aerosol exposures

E-cigarette liquids are complex mixtures of chemicals consisting of humectants, such as propylene glycol (PG) and vegetable glycerin (VG), with nicotine or flavorings added. Published literature emphasizes the toxicity of e-cigarette aerosols with flavorings whereas much less attention has been given to the biologic effects of humectants. The purpose of the current study was to provide a comprehensive view of the acute biologic effects of e-cigarette aerosols on rat bronchoalveolar lavage (BAL) using mass spectrometry-based global proteomics. Sprague-Dawley rats were exposed to e-cigarette aerosol for 3 h/day for three consecutive days. Groups included: PG/VG alone, PG/VG + 2.5% nicotine (N), or PG/VG + N + 3.3% vanillin (V). Right lung lobes were lavaged for BAL and supernatants prepared for proteomics. Extracellular BAL S100A9 concentrations and BAL cell staining for citrullinated histone H3 (citH3) were also performed. From global proteomics, ∼2,100 proteins were identified from rat BAL. The greatest change in number of BAL proteins occurred with PG/VG exposures alone compared with controls with biological pathways enriched for acute phase responses, extracellular trap formation, and coagulation. Extracellular BAL S100A9 concentrations and the number of citH3 + BAL cells also increased significantly in PG/VG and PG/VG + 2.5% N. In contrast to PG/VG or PG/VG + N, the addition of vanillin to PG/VG + N increased BAL neutrophilia and downregulated lipid transport proteins. In summary, global proteomics support e-cigarette aerosol exposures to PG/VG alone as having a significant biologic effect on the lung independent of nicotine or flavoring with increased markers of extracellular trap formation.

Measuring vaping-related expectancies in young adults: Psychometric evaluation of the Electronic Nicotine Vaping Outcomes (ENVO) scale

OBJECTIVE

Electronic cigarettes are the most commonly used tobacco products by young adults. Measures of beliefs about outcomes of use (i.e., expectancies) can be helpful in predicting use, as well as informing and evaluating interventions to impact use.

METHODS

We surveyed young adult students (N = 2296, Mean age=20.0, SD=1.8, 64 % female, 34 % White) from a community college, a historically black university, and a state university. Students answered ENDS expectancy items derived from focus groups and expert panel refinement using Delphi methods. Factor Analysis and Item Response Theory (IRT) methods were used to understand relevant factors and identify useful items.

RESULTS

A 5-factor solution [Positive Reinforcement (consists of Stimulation, Sensorimotor, and Taste subthemes, α = .92), Negative Consequences (Health Risks and Stigma, α = .94), Negative Affect Reduction (α = .95), Weight Control (α = .92), and Addiction (α = .87)] fit the data well (CFI=0.95; TLI=0.94; RMSEA=0.05) and was invariant across subgroups. Factors were significantly correlated with relevant vaping measures, including vaping susceptibility and lifetime vaping. Hierarchical linear regression demonstrated factors were significant predictors of lifetime vaping after controlling for demographics, vaping ad exposure, and peer/family vaping. IRT analyses indicated that individual items tended to be related to their underlying constructs (a parameters ranged from 1.26 to 3.18) and covered a relatively wide range of the expectancies continuum (b parameters ranged from -0.72 to 2.47).

CONCLUSIONS

A novel ENDS expectancy measure appears to be a reliable measure for young adults with promising results in the domains of concurrent validity, incremental validity, and IRT characteristics. This tool may be helpful in predicting use and informing future interventions.

IMPLICATIONS

Findings provide support for the future development of computerized adaptive testing of vaping beliefs. Expectancies appear to play a role in vaping similar to smoking and other substance use. Public health messaging should target expectancies to modify young adult vaping behavior.

Development of a nicotine aerosol self-administration model in rats and the effects of e-liquid flavors

Electronic nicotine delivery system (ENDS) use is maintained by the positive reinforcement associated with preferred flavors. These flavors become conditioned reinforcers through pairings with primary reinforcers. This study sought to extend prior research with intravenous nicotine self-administration and develop a more ecologically valid preclinical model of aerosol self-administration in rats that incorporated flavors paired with sucrose. Rats were first trained to respond for oral sucrose with or without raspberry flavor to establish the flavor as a conditioned reinforcer for some groups. Rats were then exposed to aerosol self-administration. All groups responded for raspberry-flavored aerosol with or without nicotine. Rats responded more for raspberry flavored sucrose than unflavored sucrose. Despite raspberry increasing responding for sucrose, the flavor did not function as a conditioned reinforcer during aerosol self-administration and did not increase responding for nicotine. Throughout the aerosol self-administration phase, most groups responded more on the active than inactive lever, and some groups increased their response when the fixed ratio value was increased. At the end of the study, rats in nicotine groups earned similar or fewer aerosol deliveries than rats in vehicle groups. Aerosolized nicotine did not function as a reinforcer in this study, whereas aerosolized raspberry flavor may have maintained self-administration. Further preclinical investigation is needed to articulate the impact of flavors on ENDS use and whether they offset some aversive effects of nicotine or maintain responding on their own. If flavors reduce some aversive effects of self-administered nicotine, then policies to regulate flavors in e-liquids are prudent.

Electronic Cigarette Usage Patterns and Perceptions in Adult Australians

Despite their increasing popularity, and Australia's unique regulatory environment, how and why Australian adults use e-cigarettes and their perceptions of their safety, efficacy and regulation have not been extensively reported before. In this study, we screened 2217 adult Australians with the aim of assessing these questions in a sample of current or former e-cigarette users. A total of 505 out of 2217 respondents were current or former e-cigarette users, with only these respondents completing the full survey. Key findings of this survey included the high proportion of respondents who indicated they were currently using e-cigarettes (307 out of 2217 = 13.8%), and the high proportion of current e-cigarette users that were also smokers (74.6%). The majority of respondents used e-liquids containing nicotine (70.3%), despite it being illegal in Australia without a prescription, and the majority bought their devices and liquids in Australia (65.7%). Respondents reported using e-cigarettes in a variety of places, including inside the home, inside public places (where it is illegal to smoke tobacco cigarettes), and around other people-which has implications for second and third hand exposures. A significant proportion of current e-cigarette users (30.6%) thought that e-cigarettes were completely safe to use long-term, although in general, there was a large amount of uncertainty/ambivalence with respect to perceptions of e-cigarette safety and efficacy as smoking cessation tools. This study shows that e-cigarette use is common in Australia, and that appropriate dissemination of unbiased research findings on their safety and efficacy in smoking cessation is urgently required.

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.

Propylene glycol, a component of electronic cigarette liquid, damages epithelial cells in human small airways

Background

Electronic cigarettes (e-cigarettes) are used worldwide as a substitute for conventional cigarettes. Although they are primarily intended to support smoking cessation, e-cigarettes have been identified as a gateway to smoking habits for young people. Multiple recent reports have described the health effects of inhaling e-cigarettes. E-cigarette liquid (e-liquid) is mainly composed of propylene glycol (PG) and glycerol (Gly), and the aerosol generated by these devices primarily contains these two components. Thus, this study aimed to evaluate the effects of PG and Gly on human small airway epithelial cells (SAECs).

Methods

SAECs were exposed to PG or Gly, and cell proliferation, cell viability, lactate dehydrogenase (LDH) release, DNA damage, cell cycle, and apoptosis were evaluated. Additionally, SAECs derived from chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) patients (COPD-SAECs) were investigated.

Results

Exposure of SAECs to PG significantly inhibited proliferation (1%, PG, p = 0.021; 2–4% PG, p < 0.0001) and decreased cell viability (1–4% PG, p < 0.0001) in a concentration-dependent manner. Gly elicited similar effects but to a reduced degree as compared to the same concentration of PG. PG also increased LDH release in a concentration-dependent manner (3% PG, p = 0.0055; 4% PG, p < 0.0001), whereas Gly did not show a significant effect on LDH release. SAECs exposed to 4% PG contained more cells that were positive for phosphorylated histone H2AX (p < 0.0001), a marker of DNA damage, and an increased proportion of cells in the G1 phase (p < 0.0001) and increased p21 expression (p = 0.0005). Moreover, caspase 3/7-activated cells and cleaved poly (ADP-ribose) polymerase 1 expression were increased in SAECs exposed to 4% PG (p = 0.0054). Furthermore, comparing COPD-SAECs to SAECs without COPD in PG exposure, cell proliferation, cell viability, DNA damage and apoptosis were significantly greater in COPD-SAECs.

Conclusion

PG damaged SAECs more than Gly. In addition, COPD-SAECs were more susceptible to PG than SAECs without COPD. Usage of e-cigarettes may be harmful to the respiratory system, especially in patients with COPD.

Chemosensory Contributions of E-Cigarette Additives on Nicotine Use

While rates of smoking combustible cigarettes in the United States have trended down in recent years, use of electronic cigarettes (e-cigarettes) has dramatically increased, especially among adolescents. The vast majority of e-cigarette users consume "flavored" products that contain a variety of chemosensory-rich additives, and recent literature suggests that these additives have led to the current "teen vaping epidemic." This review, covering research from both human and rodent models, provides a comprehensive overview of the sensory implications of e-cigarette additives and what is currently known about their impact on nicotine use. In doing so, we specifically address the oronasal sensory contributions of e-cigarette additives. Finally, we summarize the existing gaps in the field and highlight future directions needed to better understand the powerful influence of these additives on nicotine use.

Menthol Flavor in E-Cigarette Vapor Modulates Social Behavior Correlated With Central and Peripheral Changes of Immunometabolic Signalings

The use of electronic cigarette (e-cigarette) has been increasing dramatically worldwide. More than 8,000 flavors of e-cigarettes are currently marketed and menthol is one of the most popular flavor additives in the electronic nicotine delivery systems (ENDS). There is a controversy over the roles of e-cigarettes in social behavior, and little is known about the potential impacts of flavorings in the ENDS. In our study, we aimed to investigate the effects of menthol flavor in ENDS on the social behavior of long-term vapor-exposed mice with a daily intake limit, and the underlying immunometabolic changes in the central and peripheral systems. We found that the addition of menthol flavor in nicotine vapor enhanced the social activity compared with the nicotine alone. The dramatically reduced activation of cellular energy measured by adenosine 5′ monophosphate-activated protein kinase (AMPK) signaling in the hippocampus were observed after the chronic exposure of menthol-flavored ENDS. Multiple sera cytokines including C5, TIMP-1, and CXCL13 were decreased accordingly as per their peripheral immunometabolic responses to menthol flavor in the nicotine vapor. The serum level of C5 was positively correlated with the alteration activity of the AMPK-ERK signaling in the hippocampus. Our current findings provide evidence for the enhancement of menthol flavor in ENDS on social functioning, which is correlated with the central and peripheral immunometabolic disruptions; this raises the vigilance of the cautious addition of various flavorings in e-cigarettes and the urgency of further investigations on the complex interplay and health effects of flavoring additives with nicotine in e-cigarettes.

The Effects of e-Cigarette Aerosol on Oral Cavity Cells and Tissues: A Narrative Review

A wealth of research has comprehensively documented the harmful effects of traditional cigarette smoking and nicotine on human health. The lower rate of exposure to harmful chemicals and toxic substances offered by alternative electronic smoking devices (e-cigarettes, vaping, etc.) has made these methods of smoking popular, especially among adolescents and young adults, and they are regarded frequently as safer than regular cigarettes. During vaporization of these so-called e-liquids, toxins, carcinogens and various other chemical substances may be released and inhaled by the user. Data on the potential human health effect attendant on exposure to e-vapor are based mainly on animal and in vitro studies. The oral tissues are the first locus of direct interaction with the components of the inhaled vapor. However, the short-term as well as long-term effects of the exposure are not known. The aim of the review is to briefly present data on the effects of the chemical components and toxins of e-cigarette vapor on oral cavity cells and tissues of oral health.

Animal Models to Investigate the Impact of Flavors on Nicotine Addiction and Dependence

BACKGROUND

Tobacco use in humans is a long-standing public health concern. Flavors are common additives in tobacco and alternative tobacco products, added to mask nicotine's harsh orosensory effects and increase the appeal of these products. Animal models are integral for investigating nicotine use and addiction and are helpful for understanding the effects of flavor additives on the use of nicotine delivery products.

OBJECTIVE

This review focuses on preclinical models to evaluate the contribution of flavor additives to nicotine addiction.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

An electronic literature search was conducted by authors up to May 2022. Original articles were selected.

RESULTS

The behavioral models of rodents described here capture multiple dimensions of human flavored nicotine use behaviors, including advantages and disadvantages.

CONCLUSION

The consensus of the literature search was that human research on nicotine use behavior has not caught up with fast-changing product innovations, marketing practices, and federal regulations. Animal models are therefore needed to investigate mechanisms underlying nicotine use and addiction. This review provides a comprehensive overvie.

Drug and alcohol dependence acute effects of pod-style e-cigarettes in vaping-naïve smokers

BACKGROUND

This study investigated the acute effects of exposure to pod-style e-cigarettes on subjective, behavioral, and physiological outcomes indicative of the potential to encourage vaping-naïve smokers to switch to e-cigarettes.

METHODS

In a within-subject experiment, never-vaping adult smokers interested in trying e-cigarettes (n = 24) completed 4 laboratory visits following 16-hr tobacco abstinence. Visits involved controlled puffing from preferred brand cigarettes (OwnCig) or a standardized pod-style e-cigarette with either no nicotine (NoNic), nicotine freebase (NicFreebase; 0.5% nicotine concentration), or nicotine salt (NicSalt E-Cig; 2.8% concentration) solutions. Outcomes included smoking urge, mood, user experience, plasma nicotine, and a behavioral task assessing ability to delay smoking.

RESULTS

NoNic, NicFreebase, and NicSalt pod-style e-cigarettes were significantly less effective than OwnCig at reducing smoking urge and increasing plasma nicotine, positive affect, satisfying user experience ratings, and ability to delay smoking on the behavioral task. Differences among pod-style e-cigarette conditions were limited to: (a) NicFreebase (vs. NoNic) preferentially suppressed participants' urge to smoke to alleviate negative mood, (b) NicFreebase (vs. NicSalt) slightly preferentially increased plasma nicotine; and (c) NicFreebase and NicSalt (vs. NoNic) produced higher aversive user experience ratings.

CONCLUSIONS

In tobacco deprived smokers' initial vaping experience, controlled administration of certain pod-style e-cigarettes with 0.5% NicFreebase or 2.8% NicSalt may be deficient comparators to cigarettes in terms of their capacity to acutely improve mood, deliver nicotine, suppress smoking motivation, and offer a satisfying user experience. Future research is needed to test pod-style e-cigarettes with higher nicotine doses and confirm whether NicFreebase vs. NicSalt enhances nicotine absorption.

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.

Exposure to fruit-flavoring during adolescence increases nicotine consumption and promotes dose escalation

The rise of e-cigarette popularity has sparked interest in the role of palatable flavors on nicotine use. Despite growing evidence that sweet flavorants enhance nicotine reward, their influence on nicotine consumption has not been studied extensively. In addition, the impact that flavored nicotine use in adolescence could have on nicotine reward and dependence in adulthood remains unclear. This study examined the role of flavored nicotine access on nicotine preference and consumption longitudinally, from adolescence to adulthood. Male and female adolescent mice preferred a fruit-flavored nicotine solution over an unflavored nicotine solution. However, only adolescent female mice with access to flavored nicotine consumed higher doses. Furthermore, while adolescent male mice escalated consumption of both flavored and unflavored nicotine, female mice only escalated nicotine consumption when given access to flavored nicotine. As mice matured into adulthood, there was no evidence that a history of flavored-nicotine access altered preference for unflavored nicotine compared to a nicotine-free control in a classic two-bottle choice design. However, when the nicotine concentration was progressively reduced, mice that had consumed strawberry-flavored nicotine in adolescence maintained baseline nicotine consumption levels longer than mice that initiated nicotine use without flavor in adolescence. Finally, addition of fruit-flavorants into the nicotine solution during adulthood led to nicotine preference and increased levels of nicotine consumption, regardless of previous flavored-nicotine access or of familiarity with the selected flavorant. These results indicate that flavorants increase nicotine consumption independent of life stage, possibly posing a disproportionate risk to adolescent females. Our results also point to an effect of adolescent flavored-nicotine use on nicotine dose maintenance in adulthood, which could have implications for the success of future quit attempts.

Clinical Pharmacology of Electronic Nicotine Delivery Systems (ENDS): Implications for Benefits and Risks in the Promotion of the Combusted Tobacco Endgame

Electronic nicotine delivery systems (ENDS) such as e-cigarettes and heated tobacco products are novel battery-operated devices that deliver nicotine without combustion of tobacco. Because cigarette smoking is sustained by nicotine addiction and the toxic combustion products are mainly responsible for the harmful effects of smoking, ENDS could be used to promote smoking cessation while exposing users to lower levels of toxicants compared with conventional cigarettes. The currently available evidence from clinical and observational studies indicates a potential role of e-cigarettes as smoking cessation aids, although many continue to use e-cigarettes long after quitting smoking. Nicotine and toxicant delivery vary considerably by device and depend on the characteristics of the e-liquid formulation. Because smokers tend to titrate their nicotine intake to maintain their desired pharmacologic effects, device and liquid characteristics need to be considered when using ENDS as an aid to quit smoking. Factors potentially limiting their use are the currently still unknown long-term safety of these products and concerns regarding widespread use among youth. Implications of clinical pharmacology data on ENDS for the cigarette endgame and regulation by the U.S. Food and Drug administration are discussed.

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.

Toxicology of flavoring- and cannabis-containing e-liquids used in electronic delivery systems

Electronic cigarettes (e-cigarettes) were introduced in the United States in 2007 and by 2014 they were the most popular tobacco product amongst youth and had overtaken use of regular tobacco cigarettes. E-cigarettes are used to aerosolize a liquid (e-liquid) that the user inhales. Flavorings in e-liquids is a primary reason for youth to initiate use of e-cigarettes. Evidence is growing in the scientific literature that inhalation of some flavorings is not without risk of harm. In this review, 67 original articles (primarily cellular in vitro) on the toxicity of flavored e-liquids were identified in the PubMed and Scopus databases and evaluated critically. At least 65 individual flavoring ingredients in e-liquids or aerosols from e-cigarettes induced toxicity in the respiratory tract, cardiovascular and circulatory systems, skeletal system, and skin. Cinnamaldehyde was most frequently reported to be cytotoxic, followed by vanillin, menthol, ethyl maltol, ethyl vanillin, benzaldehyde and linalool. Additionally, modern e-cigarettes can be modified to aerosolize cannabis as dried plant material or a concentrated extract. The U.S. experienced an outbreak of lung injuries, termed e-cigarette, or vaping, product use-associated lung injury (EVALI) that began in 2019; among 2,022 hospitalized patients who had data on substance use (as of January 14, 2020), 82% reported using a delta-9-tetrahydrocannabinol (main psychoactive component in cannabis) containing e-cigarette, or vaping, product. Our literature search identified 33 articles related to EVALI. Vitamin E acetate, a diluent and thickening agent in cannabis-based products, was strongly linked to the EVALI outbreak in epidemiologic and laboratory studies; however, e-liquid chemistry is highly complex, and more than one mechanism of lung injury, ingredient, or thermal breakdown product may be responsible for toxicity. More research is needed, particularly with regard to e-cigarettes (generation, power settings, etc.), e-liquids (composition, bulk or vaped form), modeled systems (cell type, culture type, and dosimetry metrics), biological monitoring, secondhand exposures and contact with residues that contain nicotine and flavorings, and causative agents and mechanisms of EVALI toxicity.

E-cigarettes compromise the gut barrier and trigger inflammation

E-cigarette usage continues to rise, yet the safety of e-cigarette aerosols is questioned. Using murine models of acute and chronic e-cigarette aerosol inhalation, murine colon transcriptomics, and murine and human gut-derived organoids in co-culture models, we assessed the effects of e-cigarette use on the gut barrier. Histologic and transcriptome analyses revealed that chronic, but not acute, nicotine-free e-cigarette use increased inflammation and reduced expression of tight junction (TJ) markers. Exposure of murine and human enteroid-derived monolayers (EDMs) to nicotine-free e-cigarette aerosols alone or in co-culture with bacteria also causes barrier disruption, downregulation of TJ protein, and enhanced inflammation in response to infection. These data highlight the harmful effects of "non-nicotine" component of e-cigarettes on the gut barrier. Considering the importance of an intact gut barrier for host fitness and the impact of gut mucosal inflammation on a multitude of chronic diseases, these findings are broadly relevant to both medicine and public health.

E-cigarettes compromise the gut barrier and trigger inflammation

E-cigarette usage continues to rise, yet the safety of e-cigarette aerosols is questioned. Using murine models of acute and chronic e-cigarette aerosol inhalation, murine colon transcriptomics, and murine and human gut-derived organoids in co-culture models, we assessed the effects of e-cigarette use on the gut barrier. Histologic and transcriptome analyses revealed that chronic, but not acute, nicotine-free e-cigarette use increased inflammation and reduced expression of tight junction (TJ) markers. Exposure of murine and human enteroid-derived monolayers (EDMs) to nicotine-free e-cigarette aerosols alone or in co-culture with bacteria also causes barrier disruption, downregulation of TJ protein, and enhanced inflammation in response to infection. These data highlight the harmful effects of "non-nicotine" component of e-cigarettes on the gut barrier. Considering the importance of an intact gut barrier for host fitness and the impact of gut mucosal inflammation on a multitude of chronic diseases, these findings are broadly relevant to both medicine and public health.

E-cigarette constituents propylene glycol and vegetable glycerin decrease glucose uptake and its metabolism in airway epithelial cells in vitro

Electronic nicotine delivery systems, or e-cigarettes, utilize a liquid solution that normally contains propylene glycol (PG) and vegetable glycerin (VG) to generate vapor and act as a carrier for nicotine and flavorings. Evidence indicated these "carriers" reduced growth and survival of epithelial cells including those of the airway. We hypothesized that 3% PG or PG mixed with VG (3% PG/VG, 55:45) inhibited glucose uptake in human airway epithelial cells as a first step to reducing airway cell survival. Exposure of H441 or human bronchiolar epithelial cells (HBECs) to PG and PG/VG (30-60 min) inhibited glucose uptake and mitochondrial ATP synthesis. PG/VG inhibited glycolysis. PG/VG and mannitol reduced cell volume and height of air-liquid interface cultures. Mannitol, but not PG/VG, increased phosphorylation of p38 MAPK. PG/VG reduced transepithelial electrical resistance, which was associated with increased transepithelial solute permeability. PG/VG decreased fluorescence recovery after photobleaching of green fluorescent protein-linked glucose transporters GLUT1 and GLUT10, indicating that glucose transport function was compromised. Puffing PG/VG vapor onto the apical surface of primary HBECs for 10 min to mimic the effect of e-cigarette smoking also reduced glucose transport. In conclusion, short-term exposure to PG/VG, key components of e-cigarettes, decreased glucose transport and metabolism in airway cells. We propose that this was a result of PG/VG reduced cell volume and membrane fluidity, with further consequences on epithelial barrier function. Taking these results together, we suggest these factors contribute to reduced defensive properties of the epithelium. We propose that repeated/chronic exposure to these agents are likely to contribute to airway damage in e-cigarette users.

Electronic cigarettes for smoking cessation

BACKGROUND

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

OBJECTIVES

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

SEARCH METHODS

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

SELECTION CRITERIA

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

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

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

MAIN RESULTS

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

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

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

Recent findings in the pharmacology of inhaled nicotine: Preclinical and clinical in vivo studies

INTRODUCTION

The rise of vaping in adolescents, the recent entrance of new inhaled nicotine products such as iQOS on the market and e-cigarette or vaping product use-associated lung injury cases has created concern for the use of inhaled non-combustible nicotine products. This narrative review discusses recent experimental in vivo studies that utilize human, rat and mouse models to understand the pharmacological impact of nicotine from non-combustible products.

METHODS

The search engine PubMed was utilized with the following search terms: inhaled nicotine, nicotine e-cigarette, heated tobacco products, iQOS, electronic cigarette, nicotine inhaler, nicotine vaping. This review highlights recent primary in vivo studies of inhaled nicotine administration experimental paradigms that occurred in laboratory settings using human and rodent (rats and mice) models that have been published from January 2017-December 2019.

RESULTS

The pharmacokinetics of nicotine via e-cigarettes is influenced by the PG/VG and flavor constituents in e-liquids, the presence of nicotine salts in e-liquids, puff topography of nicotine and tobacco product users and the power of the e-cigarette device. The pharmacodynamic impact of inhaled nicotine has cardiovascular, pulmonary and central nervous system implications.

CONCLUSION

The articles reviewed here highlight the importance of both animal and human models to fully understand the impact of inhaled nicotine pharmacology There is a need for more rodent pharmacokinetic inhaled nicotine studies to understand the influences of factors such as flavor and nicotine salts. Additionally, consensus on nicotine measurement in both human and rodent studies is greatly needed.

History repeats itself: Role of characterizing flavors on nicotine use and abuse

The popularity of e-cigarettes has skyrocketed in recent years, and most vapers use flavored e-cigarette products. Consumption of flavored e-cigarettes exceeds that of combustible cigarettes and other tobacco products among adolescents, who are particularly vulnerable to becoming nicotine dependent. Flavorings have been used by the tobacco industry since the 17th century, but the use of flavors by the e-cigarette industry to create products with "characterizing" flavors (i.e. flavors other than tobacco or menthol) has sparked a public health debate. This review addresses the possibility that characterizing flavors make nicotine more appealing, rewarding and addictive. It also discusses ways in which preclinical and clinical studies could improve our understanding of the mechanisms by which flavors may alter nicotine reward and reinforcement. This article is part of the special issue on 'Contemporary Advances in Nicotine Neuropharmacology'.

Nicotine e-cigarette vapor inhalation effects on nicotine & cotinine plasma levels and somatic withdrawal signs in adult male Wistar rats

RATIONALE

Non-contingent chronic nicotine exposure procedures have evolved rapidly in recent years, culminating in electronic nicotine delivery systems (ENDS or e-cigarettes) to deliver vaporized drugs to rodents in standard housing chambers.

OBJECTIVES

The aim of the current work was to use ENDS to test concentration-dependent effects of nicotine e-cigarette vapor inhalation on blood-nicotine concentrations, blood-cotinine concentrations, and somatic withdrawal signs over time in rats.

METHODS

Male Wistar rats were exposed to vapor containing various concentrations of nicotine (20, 40, 80 mg/mL) for 11 days through ENDS, and blood concentrations of nicotine and cotinine, the major proximate metabolite of nicotine, as well as spontaneous and precipitated somatic withdrawal signs, were measured over time (across days of exposure and over hours after termination of vapor exposure).

RESULTS

Exposing male Wistar rats to non-contingent nicotine vapor inhalation through ENDS produces somatic withdrawal symptoms and measurable blood-nicotine and blood-cotinine levels that change according to (1) concentration of nicotine in vape solution, (2) number of days of nicotine vapor exposure, (3) time since termination of nicotine vapor exposure, and (4) relative to the withdrawal signs, whether withdrawal was spontaneous or precipitated (by mecamylamine).

CONCLUSIONS

The data presented here provide parameters that can be used as a reasonable starting point for future work that employs ENDS to deliver non-contingent nicotine vapor in rats, although many parameters can and should be altered to match the specific goals of future work.

Modeling drug exposure in rodents using e-cigarettes and other electronic nicotine delivery systems

Smoking tobacco products is the leading cause of preventable death worldwide. Coordinated efforts have successfully reduced tobacco cigarette smoking in the United States; however, electronic cigarettes (e-cigarette) and other electronic nicotine delivery systems (ENDS) recently have replaced traditional cigarettes for many users. While the clinical risks associated with long-term ENDS use remain unclear, advancements in preclinical rodent models will enhance our understanding of their overall health effects. This review examines the peripheral and central effects of ENDS-mediated exposure to nicotine and other drugs of abuse in rodents and evaluates current techniques for implementing ENDS in preclinical research.