| (3 intermediate revisions by the same user not shown) | |||
| Line 16: | Line 16: | ||
*[https://sci-hub.se/10.1007/s11739-019-02247-5 PDF Version] | *[https://sci-hub.se/10.1007/s11739-019-02247-5 PDF Version] | ||
===2016: [https:// | ===2016: [https://www.discoverymedicine.com/Riccardo-Polosa/2016/02/persisting-long-term-benefits-of-smoking-abstinence-and-reduction-in-asthmatic-smokers-who-have-switched-to-electronic-cigarettes/ Persisting long term benefits of smoking abstinence and reduction in asthmatic smokers who have switched to electronic cigarettes]=== | ||
*This prospective study confirms that EC use ameliorates objective and subjective asthma outcomes and shows that these beneficial effects may persist in the long term. EC use can reverse harm from tobacco smoking in asthma patients who smoke. The evidence-based notion that substitution of conventional cigarettes with EC is unlikely to raise significant respiratory concerns, can improve counseling between physicians and their asthmatic patients who are using or intend to use ECs. | *This prospective study confirms that EC use ameliorates objective and subjective asthma outcomes and shows that these beneficial effects may persist in the long term. EC use can reverse harm from tobacco smoking in asthma patients who smoke. The evidence-based notion that substitution of conventional cigarettes with EC is unlikely to raise significant respiratory concerns, can improve counseling between physicians and their asthmatic patients who are using or intend to use ECs. | ||
| Line 71: | Line 71: | ||
*Even if they should not be considered as risk-free products, however, HTPs and ECs lead to an appreciable risk reduction in comparison to cigarettes, both for cancer and non-cancer diseases. According to the current knowledge, and more specifically to the data presented here, HTPs and ECs might be considered as an acceptable reduced risk substitute for cigarettes for legal-age smokers who would otherwise continue smoking cigarettes. | *Even if they should not be considered as risk-free products, however, HTPs and ECs lead to an appreciable risk reduction in comparison to cigarettes, both for cancer and non-cancer diseases. According to the current knowledge, and more specifically to the data presented here, HTPs and ECs might be considered as an acceptable reduced risk substitute for cigarettes for legal-age smokers who would otherwise continue smoking cigarettes. | ||
*A more pronounced cancer risk reduction was observed when comparing the mean lifetime cancer risk for the considered ECs with that for cigarette smoke. This reduction was about two orders of magnitude (ratio of 0.009 and 0.014) with 2.42·10–4 and 3.95·10–4 for ECs compared to 2.73·10–2 for cigarettes. In terms of consumers, this would mean that 1 out of 36 cigarette smokers vs. 1 out of 4132 or 1 out of 2531 EC consumers may develop a cancer if the cancer root cause would be only associated with exposure to the considered HPHCs. | *A more pronounced cancer risk reduction was observed when comparing the mean lifetime cancer risk for the considered ECs with that for cigarette smoke. This reduction was about two orders of magnitude (ratio of 0.009 and 0.014) with 2.42·10–4 and 3.95·10–4 for ECs compared to 2.73·10–2 for cigarettes. In terms of consumers, this would mean that 1 out of 36 cigarette smokers vs. 1 out of 4132 or 1 out of 2531 EC consumers may develop a cancer if the cancer root cause would be only associated with exposure to the considered HPHCs. | ||
===2018 [https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0021850217301155 Measurements of electronic cigarette-generated particles for the evaluation of lung cancer risk of active and passive users]=== | |||
*In this study, we have demonstrated that no clinically relevant, product-related safety findings were observed for smokers of Combustible Cigarettes (CC) switching to an [[Special:MyLanguage/Abbreviations|Electronic Vapor Product (EVP)]] for 12 weeks under real-life settings. Adverse Effects (AEs) reported by subjects switching to the EVP occurred primarily within the first week after switching, and only 1.3% of all AEs reported were considered to be almost definitely related to the product. Up to a third of all reported AEs in the EVP group were related to nicotine withdrawal symptoms, which were observed to decrease after the first two weeks from product switch. EVP use was associated with significant decreases in exposure to nicotine and other chemicals such as benzene and acrolein, typically found in CC smoke. Changes were also observed in the level of WBC, haemoglobin, RBC and LDL cholesterol, which although minor, were consistent with those observed after smoking cessation. The data presented in this study shows the potential that EVPs may offer to smokers looking for an alternative to CCs. | |||
*[https://sci-hub.se/10.1016/j.jaerosci.2017.10.006 PDF Version] | |||
===2017: [https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5429854/ Reduced biological effect of e-cigarette aerosol compared to cigarette smoke evaluated in vitro using normalized nicotine dose and RNA-seq-based toxicogenomics]=== | ===2017: [https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5429854/ Reduced biological effect of e-cigarette aerosol compared to cigarette smoke evaluated in vitro using normalized nicotine dose and RNA-seq-based toxicogenomics]=== | ||
| Line 161: | Line 165: | ||
*Collectively, the results predict that room air levels and exposure of the selected analytes to non-users were relatively low and several-fold below regulatory PELs and AIHA limit under the modeled space and use conditions. | *Collectively, the results predict that room air levels and exposure of the selected analytes to non-users were relatively low and several-fold below regulatory PELs and AIHA limit under the modeled space and use conditions. | ||
*...room air levels of nicotine, formaldehyde, acrolein, and acetaldehyde levels were significantly below OSHA PELs or American Industrial Hygiene Association (AIHA) limit... | *...room air levels of nicotine, formaldehyde, acrolein, and acetaldehyde levels were significantly below OSHA PELs or American Industrial Hygiene Association (AIHA) limit... | ||
===2020: [https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7504617/ Comparative Indoor Pollution from Glo, Iqos, and Juul, Using Traditional Combustion Cigarettes as Benchmark: Evidence from the Randomized SUR-VAPES AIR Trial]=== | |||
*Glo, Iqos, and Juul have significantly less intense and persistent effects on indoor pollution in comparison to combustible tobacco cigarettes. | |||
===2018: [https://academic.oup.com/ntr/article/21/10/1371/5040053 Characterization of the Spatial and Temporal Dispersion Differences Between Exhaled E-Cigarette Mist and Cigarette Smoke]=== | ===2018: [https://academic.oup.com/ntr/article/21/10/1371/5040053 Characterization of the Spatial and Temporal Dispersion Differences Between Exhaled E-Cigarette Mist and Cigarette Smoke]=== | ||
| Line 172: | Line 179: | ||
*This study, although conducted under very high exposure conditions in a small, non-ventilated vape shop with many employees and customers vaping and clouds of vapor visible, did not document any dangerous levels of exposure to any hazardous chemical. Nicotine exposure was essentially non-existent. *Formaldehyde exposure was no different than in many indoor and outdoor environments at baseline. Acetone, acetoin, other aldehydes, toluene, benzene, and xylene were not detected. Chemicals that have been associated with "popcorn lung" were also not detected by the standard method. | *This study, although conducted under very high exposure conditions in a small, non-ventilated vape shop with many employees and customers vaping and clouds of vapor visible, did not document any dangerous levels of exposure to any hazardous chemical. Nicotine exposure was essentially non-existent. *Formaldehyde exposure was no different than in many indoor and outdoor environments at baseline. Acetone, acetoin, other aldehydes, toluene, benzene, and xylene were not detected. Chemicals that have been associated with "popcorn lung" were also not detected by the standard method. | ||
*This study adds to the evidence that under real-life conditions, "secondhand vaping" does not appear to pose any significant health risks. | *This study adds to the evidence that under real-life conditions, "secondhand vaping" does not appear to pose any significant health risks. | ||
===2015: [https://sci-hub.se/10.1016/j.chroma.2015.07.094 A rapid method for the chromatographic analysis of volatile organic compounds in exhaled breath of tobacco cigarette and electronic cigarette smokers]=== | |||
*Tobacco cigarette smoke provided the samples containing highest concentrations of all compounds analyzed. Besides nicotine it contained benzene, toluene, xylenes, ethylbenzene and naphthalene in high abundance as well as other compounds such as isoprene, pent-1-ene, n-pentane, n-hexane, n-heptane and others. | |||
*This composition was in strong contrast with that of vapor from the e-cigarettes in which all these compounds were virtually absent except nicotine | |||
===2014: [https://bmcpublichealth.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/1471-2458-14-18 Peering through the mist: systematic review of what the chemistry of contaminants in electronic cigarettes tells us about health risks]=== | ===2014: [https://bmcpublichealth.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/1471-2458-14-18 Peering through the mist: systematic review of what the chemistry of contaminants in electronic cigarettes tells us about health risks]=== | ||
| Line 177: | Line 188: | ||
*There was no evidence of potential for exposures of e-cigarette users to contaminants that are associated with risk to health at a level that would warrant attention if it were an involuntary workplace exposures. | *There was no evidence of potential for exposures of e-cigarette users to contaminants that are associated with risk to health at a level that would warrant attention if it were an involuntary workplace exposures. | ||
*Exposures of bystanders are likely to be orders of magnitude less, and thus pose no apparent concern. | *Exposures of bystanders are likely to be orders of magnitude less, and thus pose no apparent concern. | ||
===2012: [https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.3109/08958378.2012.724728?scroll=top&needAccess=true&journalCode=iiht20 Comparison of the effects of e-cigarette vapor and cigarette smoke on indoor air quality]=== | |||
*Comparisons of pollutant concentrations were made between e-cigarette vapor and tobacco smoke samples. Pollutants included VOCs, carbonyls, PAHs, nicotine, TSNAs, and glycols. | |||
*Non-cancer risk analysis revealed “No Significant Risk” of harm to human health for vapor samples from e-liquids. | |||
*With regard to cancer risk analysis, no vapor sample from e-liquids exceeded the risk limit for either children or adults. | |||
=Misinformation About Nicotine and Lung Health= | =Misinformation About Nicotine and Lung Health= | ||
edits