Search

Vaping by adolescents and young adults is a legitimate concern as there is a risk that some may start smoking and that electronic cigarette (EC) use may have adverse effects in the developing lungs of adolescents. This commentary provides updated information on vaping patterns among adolescents and young adults in the United States, as well as the impact of EC usage on respiratory health. EC use has surged greatly among high school students and young adults over the last decade but fortunately has declined significantly since its peak in 2019. During the same time period, smoking rates have constantly fallen to new low record levels. These trends argue against EC use as a gateway to smoking. Most EC usage is infrequent and unlikely to increase a person's risk of negative health consequences. Furthermore, the majority of EC usage has happened among those who have previously smoked. There is a dearth of data on the long-term health implications of EC usage in adolescents and young adults. We do not know whether short-term or intermittent use of EC in youth can lead to negative health outcomes in adulthood, and long-term high-quality studies in well-defined groups are needed. Although vaping has been linked to respiratory symptoms, they tend to be transient and of uncertain significance. This commentary provides up-to-date information so health care providers can give objective and responsible medical advice on EC usage.

Cigarette smoking contributes to poor oral health and dental discoloration. Therefore, stopping smoking may translate into measurable amelioration of dental shade indices. We compared dental shade parameters by digital spectrophotometry among current, former, and never smokers and verified their repeatability at 7 and 30 days. Dental shade parameters (CIE L*a*b* and corresponding whiteness index for dentistry-WID) were measured in current, former, and never smokers with a digital spectrophotometer (Vita Easyshade V) on three separate study visits: at baseline (day 0), at day 7, and day 30. Dental shade parameters were analyzed in 18 current, 18 former, and 20 never smokers. The repeatability of shade parameters was consistent in current, former, and never smokers. L*, a*, b*, and WID show significant short and long-term repeatability (p p = 0.001). No significant differences were observed between current and former smokers and between former smokers and former smokers. Dental shade measurements by digital spectrophotometry were highly reproducible and showed that teeth whiteness of current smokers is substantially inferior compared to never smokers. Objective discrimination of dental shade can be a valuable regulatory science endpoint for investigating oral hygiene and dental aesthetics of consumer care products, smoking cessation medications, and tar-free tobacco products (e-cigarettes, heated tobacco products, oral nicotine products) for cigarette substitution.Clinical trial registration: the study was not registered in ClinicalTrials.gov considering that it is a pilot study, parts of a larger project with ID: NCT04649645

Cigarette smoking is associated with impairment of repair mechanisms necessary for vascular endothelium homeostasis. Reducing the exposure to smoke toxicants may result in the mitigation of the harmful effect on the endothelium and cardiovascular disease development. Previous investigations evaluated in vitro the effect of electronic cigarette (EC) compared with cigarette smoke demonstrating a significant reduction in human umbilical vein endothelial cells (HUVECs) migration inhibition following EC aerosol exposure. In the present study, we replicated one of these studies, evaluating the effects of cigarette smoke on endothelial cell migration compared with aerosol from EC and heated tobacco products (HTPs). We performed an in vitro scratch wound assay on endothelial cells with a multi-center approach (ring-study) to verify the robustness and reliability of the results obtained in the replicated study, also testing the effect of aerosol from two HTPs on endothelial cells. Consistently with the original study, we observed a substantial reduction of the effects of aerosol from EC and HTPs on endothelial cell migration compared with cigarette smoke. While cigarette smoke reduced endothelial wound healing ability already at low concentrations (12.5%) and in a concentration-dependent manner, EC and HTPs aerosol showed no effect on endothelial cells until 80%–100% concentrations. In conclusion, our study further confirms the importance of EC and tobacco heated products as a possible harm reduction strategy for cardiovascular diseases development in smokers.

It is well known that airborne transmission of COVID-19 in indoor spaces occurs through various respiratory activities: breathing, vocalizing, coughing, and sneezing. However, there is a complete lack of knowledge of its possible transmission through exhalations of e-cigarette aerosol (ECA), which is also a respiratory activity. E-cigarettes have become widely popular among smokers seeking a much safer way of nicotine consumption than smoking. Due to restrictive lockdown measures taken during the COVID-19 pandemic, many smokers and vapers (e-cigarette users) were confined to shared indoor spaces, making it necessary to assess the risk of SARS-CoV-2 virus aerial transmission through their exhalations. We summarize inferred knowledge of respiratory particles emission and transport through ECA, as well as a theoretical framework for explaining the visibility of exhaled ECA, which has safety implications and is absent in other respiratory activities (apart from smoking). We also summarize and briefly discuss the effects of new SARS-CoV-2 variants, vaccination rates, and environmental factors that may influence the spread of COVID-19. To estimate the risk of SARS-CoV-2 virus aerial transmission associated with vaping exhalations, we adapt a theoretical risk model that has been used to analyze the risks associated with other respiratory activities in shared indoor spaces. We consider home and restaurant scenarios, with natural and mechanical ventilation, with occupants wearing and not wearing face masks. We consider as “control case” or baseline risk scenario an indoor space (home and restaurant) where respiratory droplets and droplet nuclei are uniformly distributed and aerial contagion risk might originate exclusively from occupants exclusively rest breathing, assuming this to be the only (unavoidable) respiratory activity they all carry on. If an infected occupant uses an e-cigarette in a home or restaurant scenarios, bystanders not wearing face masks exposed to the resulting ECA expirations face a1%1%increase of risk of contagion with respect the control case. This relative added risk with respect to the control case becomes5−17%5−17%for high-intensity vaping,44−176%44−176%, and over260%260%for speaking for various periods or coughing (all without vaping). Infectious emissions are significantly modified by mechanical ventilation, face mask usage, vaccination, and environmental factors, but given the lack of empiric evidence, we assume as a working hypothesis that all basic parameters of respiratory activities are equally (or roughly equally) affected by these factors. Hence, the relative risk percentages with respect to the control state should remain roughly the same under a wide range of varying conditions. By avoiding direct exposure to the visible exhaled vaping jet, wearers of commonly used face masks are well protected from respiratory droplets and droplet nuclei directly emitted by mask-less vapers. Compared to the control case of an already existing (unavoidable) risk from continuous breathing, vaping emissions in shared indoor spaces pose just a negligible additional risk of COVID-19 contagion. We consider that it is not necessary to take additional preventive measures beyond those already prescribed (1.5 m separation and wearing face masks) in order to protect bystanders from this contagion.

The purpose of this scoping review is to create a single narrative that describes the impact of smoking cessation on metabolic parameters in people with diabetes. It is generally well accepted that smoking enhances the harmful effects of elevated blood glucose levels, accelerating the vascular damage seen in patients with diabetes. Smoking cessation has clear benefits in terms of reducing cardiovascular morbidity and mortality. However, there is less evidence for the impact of smoking cessation on other diabetes-related complications. Studies in people with diabetes have shown improvement as well as temporary deterioration in glycemic control after ceasing smoking. Only a few studies have described the effect of quitting smoking on insulin resistance and lipid parameters, however, their results have been inconclusive. In this situation, healthcare professionals should not assume that cessation of smoking will improve metabolic parameters in patients with diabetes. It seems they should, first of all, emphasize the prevention of weight gain that may be associated with quitting smoking. The lack of data regarding the metabolic effects of smoking and smoking cessation in diabetes is very disappointing and this area needs to be addressed. Walicka M, Russo C, Baxter M, John I, Caci G, Polosa R.Impact of stopping smoking on metabolic parameters in diabetes mellitus: A scoping review.World J Diabetes2022;13(6): 422-433 [DOI: 10.4239/wjd.v13.i6.422]

Vaping by adolescents and young adults is a legitimate concern as there is a risk that some may start53 smoking and that electronic cigarette (EC) use may have adverse effects in the developing lungs of54 adolescents. This commentary provides updated information on vaping patterns among adolescents and55 young adults in the United States, as well as the impact of EC usage on respiratory health.56 EC use has surged greatly among high school students and young adults over the last decade but57 fortunately has declined significantly since its peak in 2019. During the same time period, smoking rates58 have constantly fallen to new low record levels. These trends argue against EC use as a gateway to59 smoking. Most EC usage is infrequent and unlikely to increase a person's risk of negative health60 consequences. Furthermore, the majority of EC usage has happened among those who have previously61 smoked. There is a dearth of data on the long-term health implications of EC usage in adolescents and62 young adults. We do not know whether short-term or intermittent use of EC in youth can lead to negative63 health outcomes in adulthood, and long-term high-quality studies in well-defined groups are needed.64 Although vaping has been linked to respiratory symptoms, they tend to be transient and of uncertain65 significance. This commentary provides up-to-date information so health care providers can give objective66 and responsible medical advice on EC usage.

Background In preparation for the 2021 revision of the European Union Tobacco Products Directive, the Scientific Committee on Health, Environmental and Emerging Risks (SCHEER) has posted its Preliminary Opinion on Electronic Cigarettes. They concluded that e-cigarettes only achieve a sub-optimal level of protection of human health. In this paper, we provide evidence that the Opinion’s conclusions are not adequately backed up by scientific evidence and did not discuss the potential health benefits of using alternative combustion-free nicotine-containing products as substitute for tobacco cigarettes. Methods Searches for articles were conducted in PubMed and by citation chasing in Google Scholar. Articles were also retrieved with a review of references in major publications. Primary data from World Health Organization surveys, the conclusions of reviews, and peer-reviewed non-industry studies were cited to address errors and omissions identified in the Opinion. Results The Opinion omitted reporting on the individual and population health benefits of the substitution of e-cigarettes (ENDS) for cigarette smoking. Alternative hypotheses to the gateway theory were not evaluated. Its assessment of cardiovascular risk is contradicted by numerous reviews. It cites ever-use data that do not represent current patterns of use. It did not report non-nicotine use. It presented erroneous statements on trends in ENDS prevalence. It over-emphasized the role of flavours in youth ENDS initiation. It did not discuss cessation in sufficient length. Conclusions For the delivery of a robust and comprehensive final report, the members of the Working Group of the Scientific Committee on Health, Environmental and Emerging Risks will need to consider (1) the potential health benefits of ENDS substitution for cigarette smoking, (2) alternative hypotheses and contradictory studies on the gateway effect, (3) its assessment of cardiovascular risk, (4) the measurements of frequency of use, (5) non-nicotine use, (6) the role of flavours, and (7) a fulsome discussion of cessation.