Use of e-Cigarettes and Development of Respiratory Conditions in Women of Childbearing Age

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

BACKGROUND: E-cigarettes are promoted as less harmful than cigarettes. There has not been a direct comparison of health effects of e-cigarettes or dual use (concurrently using e-cigarettes and cigarettes) with those of cigarettes in the general population. METHODS: Studies in PubMed, EMBASE, Web of Science, and PsychINFO published through October 1, 2023, were pooled in a random-effects meta-analysis if five or more studies were identified with a disease outcome. We assessed risk of bias with Risk Of Bias In Non-randomized Studies of Exposure and certainty with Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluations. Outcomes with fewer studies were summarized but not pooled. RESULTS: We identified 124 odds ratios (94 cross-sectional and 30 longitudinal) from 107 studies. Pooled odds ratios for current e-cigarette versus cigarette use were not different for cardiovascular disease (odds ratio, 0.81; 95% confidence interval, 0.58 to 1.14), stroke (0.73; 0.47 to 1.13), or metabolic dysfunction (0.99; 0.91 to 1.09) but were lower for asthma (0.84; 0.74 to 0.95), chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (0.53; 0.38 to 0.74), and oral disease (0.87; 0.76 to 1.00). Pooled odds ratios for dual use versus cigarettes were increased for all outcomes (range, 1.20 to 1.41). Pooled odds ratios for e-cigarettes and dual use compared with nonuse of either product were increased (e-cigarette range, 1.24 to 1.47; dual use, 1.49 to 3.29). All included studies were assessed as having a low risk of bias. Results were generally not sensitive to study characteristics. Limited studies of other outcomes suggest that e-cigarette use is associated with additional diseases. CONCLUSIONS: There is a need to reassess the assumption that e-cigarette use provides substantial harm reduction across all cigarette-caused diseases, particularly accounting for dual use.

Health impact of e-cigarettes and heated tobacco products in chronic obstructive pulmonary disease: current and emerging evidence

INTRODUCTION

Quitting is the only proven method to attenuate the progression of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). However, most COPD smokers do not seem to respond to smoking cessation interventions and may benefit by lessening the negative health effects of long-term cigarette smoke exposure by switching to non-combustible nicotine delivery alternatives, such as heated tobacco products (HTPs) and e-cigarettes (ECs).

AREAS COVERED

Compared with conventional cigarettes, HTPs and ECs offer substantial reduction in exposure to toxic chemicals and have the potential to reduce harm from cigarette smoke when used as tobacco cigarette substitutes. In this review, we examine the available clinical studies and population surveys on the respiratory health effects of ECs and HTPs in COPD patients.

EXPERT OPINION

The current research on the impact of ECs and HTPs on COPD patients' health is limited, and more high-quality studies are needed to draw definitive conclusions. However, this review provides a comprehensive overview of the available literature for health professionals looking to advise COPD patients on the use of these products. While ECs and HTPs may offer some benefits in reducing harm from cigarette smoke, their long-term effects on COPD patients' health are still unclear.

The Health Effects of Real-World Dual Use of Electronic and Conventional Cigarettes versus the Health Effects of Exclusive Smoking of Conventional Cigarettes: A Systematic Review

BACKGROUND

A high prevalence of dual use of e-cigarettes and conventional cigarettes has been reported across the world.

METHODS

A systematic search was carried out. We included original articles on any topic relevant to health, excluding mental health, in all languages. The PRISMA guidelines were followed. Both reviewers independently screened and read all publications. We compared dual use with exclusive smoking of conventional cigarettes (ESCC).

RESULTS

Fifty-two publications (49 studies) were included. Thirteen papers/10 studies were prospective. There was great heterogeneity across studies. Many methodological weaknesses, such as inaccurate exposure measurement, lack of adjustment for former tobacco consumption, and lack of significance testing were identified. Most prospective studies found dual use to be at least as harmful as ESCC. The longest follow-up was six years. Most of the best available cross-sectional studies found dual use associated with the same and, in several studies, significantly higher risk of self-reported symptoms/disease than in ESCC. The intensity of cigarette smoking seems associated with worse health.

CONCLUSION

Existing studies indicate that dual use is at least as, or probably even more, harmful than ESCC. Due to the predominance of cross-sectional studies and the methodological weaknesses we judged the overall certainty of the evidence as "low certainty".

Electronic Cigarettes and Asthma: What Do We Know So Far?

Electronic cigarettes (EC) are a novel product, marketed as an alternative to tobacco cigarette. Its effects on human health have not been investigated widely yet, especially in specific populations such as patients with asthma. With this review, we use the existing literature in order to answer four crucial questions concerning: (1) ECs' role in the pathogenesis of asthma; (2) ECs' effects on lung function and airway inflammation in patients with asthma; (3) ECs' effects on asthma clinical characteristics in asthmatics who use it regularly; and (4) ECs' effectiveness as a smoking cessation tool in these patients. Evidence suggests that many EC compounds might contribute to the pathogenesis of asthma. Lung function seems to deteriorate by the use of EC in this population, while airway inflammation alters, with the aggravation of T-helper-type-2 (Th2) inflammation being the most prominent but not the exclusive effect. EC also seems to worsen asthma symptoms and the rate and severity of exacerbations in asthmatics who are current vapers, whilst evidence suggests that its effectiveness as a smoking cessation tool might be limited. Asthmatic patients should avoid using EC.

A Comparative Analysis of E-cigarette Users and State-Specific Prevalence Change in the United States Between 2017 and 2018

Introduction

Despite states’ regulatory efforts, e-cigarettes are gaining popularity, which poses a public health concern. The study objective is to compare demographic and state prevalence changes in e-cigarette use from 2017 to 2018.

Methods

A retrospective analysis was conducted using publicly available data from the Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System survey (2017-2018). The prevalence of current e-cigarette use was analyzed with direct age-adjustment based on the 2010 United States Census population.

Results

The overall use of e-cigarettes increased from 4.3% in 2017 to 5.4% in 2018. Although most demographics reported increased prevalence from 2017 to 2018, the most significant change was observed in younger adults (18-24), males, Hispanics, college graduates, non-smokers, marijuana non-users, and heavy alcoholics. Oklahoma (9.8%), Hawaii (7.8%), Arkansas (7.7%), and Colorado (7.3%) greater prevalence in 2018. Significant inclining prevalence was observed in Alaska, Connecticut, and Massachusetts, while Illinois reported a sharp decline. California, the District of Columbia, and Puerto Rico consistently reported the lowest prevalence. Idaho, Maine, Michigan, North Dakota, and Oregon are transitioning to a higher prevalence of e-cigarette use from 2017 to 2018.

Conclusion

The rising prevalence of e-cigarettes across demographics warrants a holistic approach to behavioural change interventions, health awareness and education, and regulatory efforts.

Prevalence and risk factors of e-cigarette use among working-age adults with and without disabilities in 2017-2018

BACKGROUND

Despite rapid growth in the use of electronic cigarettes (ECIGs) in the U.S., few studies have examined the national prevalence of ECIG use among adults with disabilities.

OBJECTIVE

To assess the national prevalence of and risk factors for ECIG use among working-age (18-64 years) adults with and without disabilities.

METHODS

This observational study relied on a sample of 560,858 working-age adults from the 2017-2018 Behavioral Risk Factor and Surveillance System (BRFSS). We conducted descriptive analyses to estimate the prevalence of ECIG use and multivariate logistic regression models to examine factors associated with ECIG use among adults with and without disabilities.

RESULTS

ECIG use was more prevalent among adults with a cognitive disability (12.0%), an independent living disability (11.0%), or two or more disabilities (9.2%), compared to adults without disabilities (4.8%). In the multivariate analysis, adults with a cognitive disability (OR = 1.45; p < .001), ambulatory disability (OR = 1.23; p < .05), and those with two or more disabilities (OR = 1.49; p < .001) had an increased likelihood of ECIG use compared to those without disabilities. Current smokers had greater odds of using ECIGs compared to never smokers (OR = 8.53, p < .001).

CONCLUSIONS

Adults with cognitive disabilities and independent living disabilities had more than twice the prevalence of ECIG use compared to adults without disabilities. Future studies should monitor the rising prevalence and risk factors for ECIG use as well as examine longitudinal associations between using ECIGs, dual use with cigarette smoking, and health outcomes among adults with disabilities.