Significance Electronic cigarettes, also known as e-cigarettes, are devices designed to imitate regular cigarettes and deliver nicotine via inhalation without combusting tobacco. They are purported to deliver nicotine without other toxicants and to be a safer alternative to regular cigarettes. However, little toxicity testing has been performed to evaluate the chemical nature of vapour generated from e–cigarettes. The aim of this study was to screen e-cigarette vapours for content of four groups of potentially toxic and carcinogenic compounds: carbonyls, volatile organic compounds, nitrosamines and heavy metals. Materials and methods Vapours were generated from 12 brands of e-cigarettes and the reference product, the medicinal nicotine inhaler, in controlled conditions using a modified smoking machine. The selected toxic compounds were extracted from vapours into a solid or liquid phase and analysed with chromatographic and spectroscopy methods. Results We found that the e-cigarette vapours contained some toxic substances. The levels of the toxicants were 9–450 times lower than in cigarette smoke and were, in many cases, comparable with trace amounts found in the reference product. Conclusions Our findings are consistent with the idea that substituting tobacco cigarettes with e-cigarettes may substantially reduce exposure to selected tobacco-specific toxicants. E-cigarettes as a harm reduction strategy among smokers unwilling to quit, warrants further study. (To view this abstract in Polish and German, please see the supplementary files online.)

/pdf/levels-of-selected-carcinogens-and-toxicants-in-vapour-from-cjl8sfic96.pdf

Levels of selected carcinogens and toxicants in vapour from electronic cigarettes

Electronic cigarettes for smoking cessation: a randomised controlled trial

Electronic cigarettes (e-cigarettes) are products that deliver a nicotine-containing aerosol (commonly called vapor) to users by heating a solution typically made up of propylene glycol or glycerol (glycerin), nicotine, and flavoring agents (Figure 1) invented in their current form by Chinese pharmacist Hon Lik in the early 2000s.1 The US patent application describes the e-cigarette device as “an electronic atomization cigarette that functions as substitutes [sic] for quitting smoking and cigarette substitutes ” (patent No. 8,490,628 B2). By 2013, the major multinational tobacco companies had entered the e-cigarette market. E-cigarettes are marketed via television, the Internet, and print advertisements (that often feature celebrities)2 as healthier alternatives to tobacco smoking, as useful for quitting smoking and reducing cigarette consumption, and as a way to circumvent smoke-free laws by enabling users to “smoke anywhere.”3



Figure 1. 
Examples of different electronic cigarette (e-cigarette) products. Reproduced from Grana et al.1



There has been rapid market penetration of e-cigarettes despite many unanswered questions about their safety, efficacy for harm reduction and cessation, and total impact on public health. E-cigarette products are changing quickly, and many of the findings from studies of older products may not be relevant to the assessment of newer products that could be safer and more effective as nicotine delivery devices. In addition, marketing and other environmental influences may vary from country to country, so patterns of use and the ultimate impact on public health may differ. The individual risks and benefits and the total impact of these products occur in the context of the widespread and continuing availability of conventional cigarettes and other tobacco products, with high levels of dual use of e-cigarettes and conventional cigarettes at the same time among adults4–8 and youth.9–11 It is important to assess e-cigarette toxicant exposure and …

/pdf/e-cigarettes-a-scientific-review-3d0zrn6wfp.pdf

E-Cigarettes: A Scientific Review

Importance The public health implications of e-cigarettes depend, in part, on whether e-cigarette use affects the risk of cigarette smoking. Objective To perform a systematic review and meta-analysis of longitudinal studies that assessed initial use of e-cigarettes and subsequent cigarette smoking. Data Sources PubMed, EMBASE, Cochrane Library, Web of Science, the 2016 Society for Research on Nicotine and Tobacco 22nd Annual Meeting abstracts, the 2016 Society of Behavioral Medicine 37th Annual Meeting & Scientific Sessions abstracts, and the 2016 National Institutes of Health Tobacco Regulatory Science Program Conference were searched between February 7 and February 17, 2017. The search included indexed terms and text words to capture concepts associated with e-cigarettes and traditional cigarettes in articles published from database inception to the date of the search. Study Selection Longitudinal studies reporting odds ratios for cigarette smoking initiation associated with ever use of e-cigarettes or past 30-day cigarette smoking associated with past 30-day e-cigarette use. Searches yielded 6959 unique studies, of which 9 met inclusion criteria (comprising 17 389 adolescents and young adults). Data Extraction and Synthesis Study quality and risk of bias were assessed using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale and the Risk of Bias in Non-randomized Studies of Interventions tool, respectively. Data and estimates were pooled using random-effects meta-analysis. Main Outcomes and Measures Among baseline never cigarette smokers, cigarette smoking initiation between baseline and follow-up. Among baseline non–past 30-day cigarette smokers who were past 30-day e-cigarette users, past 30-day cigarette smoking at follow-up. Results Among 17 389 adolescents and young adults, the ages ranged between 14 and 30 years at baseline, and 56.0% were female. The pooled probabilities of cigarette smoking initiation were 23.2% for baseline ever e-cigarette users and 7.2% for baseline never e-cigarette users. The pooled probabilities of past 30-day cigarette smoking at follow-up were 21.5% for baseline past 30-day e-cigarette users and 4.6% for baseline non–past 30-day e-cigarette users. Adjusting for known demographic, psychosocial, and behavioral risk factors for cigarette smoking, the pooled odds ratio for subsequent cigarette smoking initiation was 3.50 (95% CI, 2.38-5.16) for ever vs never e-cigarette users, and the pooled odds ratio for past 30-day cigarette smoking at follow-up was 4.28 (95% CI, 2.52-7.27) for past 30-day e-cigarette vs non–past 30-day e-cigarette users at baseline. A moderate level of heterogeneity was observed among studies ( I2  = 56%). Conclusions and Relevance e-Cigarette use was associated with greater risk for subsequent cigarette smoking initiation and past 30-day cigarette smoking. Strong e-cigarette regulation could potentially curb use among youth and possibly limit the future population-level burden of cigarette smoking.

/pdf/association-between-initial-use-of-e-cigarettes-and-2xxn12mm5m.pdf

Association Between Initial Use of e-Cigarettes and Subsequent Cigarette Smoking Among Adolescents and Young Adults: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.

Importance Exposure to nicotine in electronic cigarettes (e-cigarettes) is becoming increasingly common among adolescents who report never having smoked combustible tobacco. Objective To evaluate whether e-cigarette use among 14-year-old adolescents who have never tried combustible tobacco is associated with risk of initiating use of 3 combustible tobacco products (ie, cigarettes, cigars, and hookah). Design, Setting, and Participants Longitudinal repeated assessment of a school-based cohort at baseline (fall 2013, 9th grade, mean age = 14.1 years) and at a 6-month follow-up (spring 2014, 9th grade) and a 12-month follow-up (fall 2014, 10th grade). Ten public high schools in Los Angeles, California, were recruited through convenience sampling. Participants were students who reported never using combustible tobacco at baseline and completed follow-up assessments at 6 or 12 months (N = 2530). At each time point, students completed self-report surveys during in-classroom data collections. Exposure Student self-report of whether he or she ever used e-cigarettes (yes or no) at baseline. Main Outcomes and Measures Six- and 12-month follow-up reports on use of any of the following tobacco products within the prior 6 months: (1) any combustible tobacco product (yes or no); (2) combustible cigarettes (yes or no), (3) cigars (yes or no); (4) hookah (yes or no); and (5) number of combustible tobacco products (range: 0-3). Results Past 6-month use of any combustible tobacco product was more frequent in baseline e-cigarette ever users (n = 222) than never users (n = 2308) at the 6-month follow-up (30.7% vs 8.1%, respectively; difference between groups in prevalence rates, 22.7% [95% CI, 16.4%-28.9%]) and at the 12-month follow-up (25.2% vs 9.3%, respectively; difference between groups, 15.9% [95% CI, 10.0%-21.8%]). Baseline e-cigarette use was associated with greater likelihood of use of any combustible tobacco product averaged across the 2 follow-up periods in the unadjusted analyses (odds ratio [OR], 4.27 [95% CI, 3.19-5.71]) and in the analyses adjusted for sociodemographic, environmental, and intrapersonal risk factors for smoking (OR, 2.73 [95% CI, 2.00-3.73]). Product-specific analyses showed that baseline e-cigarette use was positively associated with combustible cigarette (OR, 2.65 [95% CI, 1.73-4.05]), cigar (OR, 4.85 [95% CI, 3.38-6.96]), and hookah (OR, 3.25 [95% CI, 2.29-4.62]) use and with the number of different combustible products used (OR, 4.26 [95% CI, 3.16-5.74]) averaged across the 2 follow-up periods. Conclusions and Relevance Among high school students in Los Angeles, those who had ever used e-cigarettes at baseline compared with nonusers were more likely to report initiation of combustible tobacco use over the next year. Further research is needed to understand whether this association may be causal.

/pdf/association-of-electronic-cigarette-use-with-initiation-of-3jfsg3gpmy.pdf

Association of Electronic Cigarette Use With Initiation of Combustible Tobacco Product Smoking in Early Adolescence

Background: Electronic “cigarettes” are marketed to tobacco users as potential reduced exposure products (PREP), albeit with little information regarding electronic cigarette user toxicant exposure and effects. This information may be obtained by adapting clinical laboratory methods used to evaluate other PREPs for smokers. Methods: Thirty-two smokers participated in four independent Latin-square ordered conditions that differed by product: own brand cigarette, “NPRO” electronic cigarettes (NPRO EC; 18 mg cartridge), “Hydro” electronic cigarettes (Hydro EC; 16 mg cartridge), or sham (unlit cigarette). Participants took 10 puffs at two separate times during each session. Plasma nicotine and carbon monoxide (CO) concentration, heart rate, and subjective effects were assessed. Results: Own brand significantly increased plasma nicotine and CO concentration and heart rate within the first five minutes of administration whereas NPRO EC, Hydro EC, and sham smoking did not. Own brand, NPRO EC, and Hydro EC (but not sham) significantly decreased tobacco abstinence symptom ratings and increased product acceptability ratings. The magnitude of symptom suppression and increased acceptability was greater for own brand than for NPRO EC and Hydro EC. Conclusions: Under these acute testing conditions, neither of the electronic cigarettes exposed users to measurable levels of nicotine or CO, although both suppressed nicotine/tobacco abstinence symptom ratings. Impact: This study illustrates how clinical laboratory methods can be used to understand the acute effects of these and other PREPs for tobacco users. The results and methods reported here will likely be relevant to the evaluation and empirically based regulation of electronic cigarettes and similar products. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev; 19(8); OF1–9. ©2010 AACR.

/pdf/a-clinical-laboratory-model-for-evaluating-the-acute-effects-3po10p7wfz.pdf

A Clinical Laboratory Model for Evaluating the Acute Effects of Electronic “Cigarettes”: Nicotine Delivery Profile and Cardiovascular and Subjective Effects

Introduction: Electronic cigarettes (ECs) are marketed as nicotine delivery devices. Two studies with EC-naive participants suggest that ECs deliver little or no nicotine. In those studies, standard-sized ECs were used, though experienced EC users often use larger devices that house higher voltage and/or longer lasting batteries. Whether user experience and device characteristics influence EC nicotine delivery is uncertain. The purpose of the present study was to examine the effects of ECs in experienced users who were using their preferred devices. Methods: Eight EC users (3 women) who had been using ECs for at least 3 months, completed one 5-hr session using devices they provided and the flavor/strength nicotine cartridges they selected. Sessions consisted of 4 phases: baseline, 10 puffs (30-s interpuff interval) from the device, 1-hr ad lib puffing period, and a 2-hr rest period (no puffing). Outcome measures in each phase included plasma nicotine concentration, heart rate, and subjective ratings of nicotine/product effects and abstinence symptoms. Results: Relative to baseline, plasma nicotine and heart rate increased significantly within 5 min of the first puff and remained elevated throughout the ad lib puffing period. Increases in ratings of direct effects of nicotine and product were observed as well as decreases in abstinence symptoms. Conclusions: User experience and/or device characteristics likely influence EC nicotine delivery and other effects. System atic manipulation of these and other variables could elucidate conditions that produce intended effects.

/pdf/electronic-cigarettes-effective-nicotine-delivery-after-5ctt1eha66.pdf

Electronic cigarettes: Effective nicotine delivery after acute administration.

Aims To provide an initial abuse liability assessment of an electronic cigarette (EC) in current tobacco cigarette smokers.

Design  The first of four within-subject sessions was an EC sampling session that involved six, 10-puff bouts (30 seconds inter-puff interval), each bout separated by 30 minutes. In the remaining three sessions participants made choices between 10 EC puffs and varying amounts of money, 10 EC puffs and a varying number of own brand cigarette (OB) puffs, or 10 OB puffs and varying amounts of money using the multiple-choice procedure (MCP). The MCP was completed six times at 30-minute intervals, and one choice was reinforced randomly at each trial.

Setting  Clinical laboratory.

Participants  Twenty current tobacco cigarette smokers.

Measurements  Sampling session outcome measures included plasma nicotine, cardiovascular response and subjective effects. Choice session outcome was the cross-over value on the MCP.

Findings  EC use resulted in significant nicotine delivery, tobacco abstinence symptom suppression and increased product acceptability ratings. On the MCP, participants chose to receive 10 EC puffs over an average of $1.06 or three OB puffs and chose 10 OB puffs over an average of $1.50 (P < 0.003).

Conclusions Electronic cigarettes can deliver clinically significant amounts of nicotine and reduce cigarette abstinence symptoms and appear to have lower potential for abuse relative to traditional tobacco cigarettes, at least under certain laboratory conditions.

Clinical laboratory assessment of the abuse liability of an electronic cigarette

Introduction A revised indoor air quality law has been implemented in Virginia to protect the public from the harmful effects of secondhand smoke exposure. This legislation contains exemptions that include allowances for smoking in a room that is structurally separated and separately ventilated. The objective of the current study was to examine the impact of this law on air quality in waterpipe cafes, as well as to compare the air quality in these cafes to restaurants that allow cigarette smoking and those where no smoking is permitted. Methods Indoor air quality in 28 venues (17 waterpipe cafes, five cigarette smoking-permitted restaurants and six smoke-free restaurants (five with valid data)) in Virginia was assessed during 4 March to 27 May 2011. Real-time measurements of particulate matter (PM) with 2.5 μm aerodynamic diameter or smaller (PM 2.5 ) were obtained and occupant behaviour/venue characteristics were assessed. Results The highest mean PM 2.5 concentration was observed for waterpipe cafe smoking rooms (374 μg/m 3 , n=17) followed by waterpipe cafe non-smoking rooms (123 μg/m 3 , n=11), cigarette smoking-permitted restaurant smoking rooms (119 μg/m 3 , n=5), cigarette smoking-permitted restaurant non-smoking rooms (26 μg/m 3 , n=5) and smoke-free restaurants (9 μg/m 3 , n=5). Smoking density was positively correlated with PM 2.5 across smoking rooms and the smoke-free restaurants. In addition, PM 2.5 was positively correlated between smoking and non-smoking rooms of venues. Conclusions The PM 2.5 concentrations observed among the waterpipe cafes sampled here indicated air quality in the waterpipe cafe smoking rooms was worse than restaurant rooms in which cigarette smoking was permitted, and state-required non-smoking rooms in waterpipe cafes may expose patrons and employees to PM 2.5 concentrations above national and international air quality standards. Reducing the health risks of secondhand smoke may require smoke-free establishments in which tobacco smoking sources such as water pipes are, like cigarettes, prohibited.

/pdf/indoor-air-quality-in-virginia-waterpipe-cafes-4lpvyr0eli.pdf

Indoor air quality in Virginia waterpipe cafés

Background Waterpipe tobacco package labelling typically indicates “0.0% tar” and “0.05% or 0.5% nicotine”. Objective To determine the extent to which nicotine labeling is related to nicotine delivery. Methods 110 waterpipe smokers engaged in a 45-minute waterpipe smoking session. Puff topography and plasma nicotine were measured. Three waterpipe tobacco brands were used: Nakhla (0.5% nicotine), Starbuzz (0.05% nicotine), and Al Fakher (0.05% nicotine). Data were analyzed by one-way ANOVA. Results Topography did not differ across brands. Peak plasma nicotine varied significantly across brands. Al Fakher had the highest nicotine delivery (11.4 ng/ml) followed by Nakhla (9.8 ng/ml) and Starbuzz (5.8 ng/ml). Conclusions Nicotine labelling on waterpipe tobacco products does not reflect delivery; smoking a brand with a “0.05% nicotine” label led to greater plasma nicotine levels than smoking a brand with a “0.5% nicotine” label. Waterpipe tobacco products should be labelled in a manner that does not mislead consumers.

/pdf/waterpipe-tobacco-products-nicotine-labelling-versus-1r795a3qb6.pdf

Andrea R. Vansickel

Papers

A Clinical Laboratory Model for Evaluating the Acute Effects of Electronic “Cigarettes”: Nicotine Delivery Profile and Cardiovascular and Subjective Effects

Electronic cigarettes: Effective nicotine delivery after acute administration.

Clinical laboratory assessment of the abuse liability of an electronic cigarette

Indoor air quality in Virginia waterpipe cafés

Waterpipe tobacco products: nicotine labelling versus nicotine delivery