| (18 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. | ||
===2015: [https://www.annallergy.org/article/S1081-1206(15)00697-3/fulltext Counseling patients with asthma and allergy about electronic cigarettes: an evidence-based approach]=== | |||
*Smoking cessation should be strongly encouraged in patients with asthma who smoke, and they should be offered effective personalized strategies. In addition to pharmacotherapy and behavioral support, other options should be made available to manage smokers who frequently relapse and for those who are unable or unwilling to quit. A realistic alternative is to encourage these smokers to switch to ECs, a much less harmful source of nicotine. | |||
*[https://sci-hub.se/10.1016/j.anai.2015.10.012 PDF (full paper)] | |||
===2014: [https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4053879/ Effect of Smoking Abstinence and Reduction in Asthmatic Smokers Switching to Electronic Cigarettes: Evidence for Harm Reversal]=== | |||
*Here, we show for the first time improvements in asthma control, AHR and pulmonary function in asthmatic smokers who quit or dramatically reduced their tobacco consumption by switching to e-cigs. | |||
==COPD== | ==COPD== | ||
===2023: [https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/17476348.2023.2167716 Health impact of e-cigarettes and heated tobacco products in chronic obstructive pulmonary disease: Current and emerging evidence]=== | |||
*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. | |||
*As many COPD smokers prefer to smoke, conventional cigarette substitution should be considered as a valuable solution to the persistent problem of smoking, and combustion-free nicotine delivery technologies should be weight as a component of this strategy. | |||
*Our analysis of existing human studies on the respiratory health impact of ECs/HTPs substitution for COPD patients who smoke, fails to reach a clear conclusion because of the discordant findings and unreliable interpretations driven from surveys and clinical studies of modest quality. | |||
*This review article highlights the need for large, carefully designed, adequately controlled, long- term follow-up clinical trials to assess the true potential of combustion-free nicotine delivery technologies for sustained smoking cessation and reducing risk of harm from smoking, particularly among smokers with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). | |||
===2022: [https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9526897/ Association of tobacco product use with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) prevalence and incidence in Waves 1 through 5 (2013–2019) of the Population Assessment of Tobacco and Health (PATH) Study]=== | |||
*E-cigarettes and all use categories involving cigarettes were associated with higher COPD prevalence compared to never use, reflecting, in part, the high burden of cigarette exposure in these groups. Cigarette—but not exclusive e-cigarette—use was also strongly associated with higher COPD incidence. Compared to cigarette use, only quitting tobacco was protective against COPD development. | |||
===2022: [https://ascpjournal.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s13722-021-00284-0 Electronic cigarettes as a harm reduction strategy among patients with COPD: protocol for an open-label two arm randomized controlled pilot trial]=== | |||
*A harm reduction approach with the goal of achieving CC switching may be a more pragmatic approach, making EC use particularly appropriate with COPD. EC represent a potentially effective harm reduction tool that is safer than smoking CC [18, 23, 24]. Smokers with COPD, however, tend to be older and may have a higher level of addiction to nicotine than the average smoker and the feasibility and preliminary effectiveness of an EC harm-reduction strategy in a COPD population has not been explored. | |||
*Our study protocol has a few limitations. First, as a pilot study the protocol is not powered to detect small differences in CPD or CAT Scores between the NRT and EC arms. Second, CAT Score is not the gold standard for the assessment of respiratory health. | |||
===2021: [https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11739-021-02674-3 Health outcomes in COPD smokers using heated tobacco products: a 3-year follow-up]=== | |||
*This study is the first to describe the long-term health effects of HTP use in COPD patients. Consistent improvements in respiratory symptoms, exercise tolerance, quality of life, and rate of disease exacerbations were observed in patients with COPD who abstained from smoking or substantially reduced their cigarette consumption by switching to HTP use. | |||
*Nearly 60% of COPD patients using HTPs abstained completely from cigarette smoking throughout the duration of the study, whereas those continuing to smoke (dual users) showed a consistent decline in their daily cigarette consumption from the baseline of at least 70% at all study visits. | |||
===2020: [https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/2040622320961617 COPD smokers who switched to e-cigarettes: health outcomes at 5-year follow up]=== | ===2020: [https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/2040622320961617 COPD smokers who switched to e-cigarettes: health outcomes at 5-year follow up]=== | ||
| Line 33: | Line 57: | ||
*Although ECs are not risk free, they are much less harmful than conventional tobacco smoking. The emerging clinical evidence suggests that ECs are unlikely to raise significant health concerns for the respiratory tract under normal conditions of use, even in smokers with preexisting lung disease. In particular, recent studies in COPD and chronic asthma suggest that substitution of conventional tobacco cigarettes for ECs can ameliorate subjective and objective disease-related outcomes and exacerbation rates as well as improving success in abstaining from smoking long term. | *Although ECs are not risk free, they are much less harmful than conventional tobacco smoking. The emerging clinical evidence suggests that ECs are unlikely to raise significant health concerns for the respiratory tract under normal conditions of use, even in smokers with preexisting lung disease. In particular, recent studies in COPD and chronic asthma suggest that substitution of conventional tobacco cigarettes for ECs can ameliorate subjective and objective disease-related outcomes and exacerbation rates as well as improving success in abstaining from smoking long term. | ||
===2016: [https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5162097/ Evidence for harm reduction in COPD smokers who switch to electronic cigarettes] | ===2016: [https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5162097/ Evidence for harm reduction in COPD smokers who switch to electronic cigarettes]=== | ||
*Conclusion: “These findings suggest that ECs use may aid smokers with COPD reduce their cigarette consumption or remain abstinent, which results in marked improvements in annual exacerbation rate as well as subjective and objective COPD outcomes.” | *Conclusion: “These findings suggest that ECs use may aid smokers with COPD reduce their cigarette consumption or remain abstinent, which results in marked improvements in annual exacerbation rate as well as subjective and objective COPD outcomes.” | ||
| Line 47: | 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 104: | Line 132: | ||
===2017: [https://respiratory-research.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12931-017-0676-9 Electronic cigarette vapor alters the lateral structure but not tensiometric properties of calf lung surfactant]=== | ===2017: [https://respiratory-research.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12931-017-0676-9 Electronic cigarette vapor alters the lateral structure but not tensiometric properties of calf lung surfactant]=== | ||
*While both e-cigarette vapor and conventional cigarette smoke affect surfactant lateral structure, only cigarette smoke disrupts surfactant interfacial properties. The surfactant inhibitory compound in conventional cigarettes is tar, which is a product of burning and is thus absent in e-cigarette vapor. | *While both e-cigarette vapor and conventional cigarette smoke affect surfactant lateral structure, only cigarette smoke disrupts surfactant interfacial properties. The surfactant inhibitory compound in conventional cigarettes is tar, which is a product of burning and is thus absent in e-cigarette vapor. | ||
===2016: [https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/eci.12651 Changes in breathomics from a 1‐year randomized smoking cessation trial of electronic cigarettes]=== | ===2016: [https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/eci.12651 Changes in breathomics from a 1‐year randomized smoking cessation trial of electronic cigarettes]=== | ||
| Line 112: | Line 137: | ||
===2016: [https://www.omicsonline.org/open-access/changes-in-the-frequency-of-airway-infections-in-smokers-who-switched-to-vaping-results-of-an-online-survey-2155-6105-1000290.php?aid=77944 Changes in the Frequency of Airway Infections in Smokers Who Switched To Vaping: Results of an Online Survey]=== | ===2016: [https://www.omicsonline.org/open-access/changes-in-the-frequency-of-airway-infections-in-smokers-who-switched-to-vaping-results-of-an-online-survey-2155-6105-1000290.php?aid=77944 Changes in the Frequency of Airway Infections in Smokers Who Switched To Vaping: Results of an Online Survey]=== | ||
*The switch from smoking to vaping was associated with a reduced incidence of self-reported respiratory infections. | *The switch from smoking to vaping was associated with a reduced incidence of self-reported respiratory infections. | ||
*Results: “Altogether 941 responses were received. Overall, 29% of responders reported no change in respiratory symptoms, 5% reported worsening, and 66% reported an improvement (95% CI=62.9-69.0).” | |||
===2016: [https://pneumonia.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s41479-016-0001-2 Respiratory infections and pneumonia: potential benefits of switching from smoking to Vaping]=== | ===2016: [https://pneumonia.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s41479-016-0001-2 Respiratory infections and pneumonia: potential benefits of switching from smoking to Vaping]=== | ||
| Line 118: | Line 144: | ||
*In conclusion, smokers who quit by switching to regular ECs use can reduce risk and reverse harm from tobacco smoking. | *In conclusion, smokers who quit by switching to regular ECs use can reduce risk and reverse harm from tobacco smoking. | ||
*Innovation in the e-vapour category is likely not only to further minimise residual health risks, but also to maximise health benefits. | *Innovation in the e-vapour category is likely not only to further minimise residual health risks, but also to maximise health benefits. | ||
===2015: [https://www.discoverymedicine.com/Riccardo-Polosa/2015/09/what-to-advise-to-respiratory-patients-intending-to-use-electronic-cigarettes/ What to Advise to Respiratory Patients Intending to Use Electronic Cigarettes]=== | |||
*The notion that under normal vaping conditions, EC toxicology is by far less problematic than tobacco cigarette toxicology and that there are beneficial effects associated with regular EC use, particularly in respiratory patients, will improve information exchange between physicians and their respiratory patients using or intending to use ECs. | |||
*Therefore, smoking cessation should be strongly encouraged in respiratory patients who smoke, and they should be offered effective personalized strategies. Besides pharmacotherapy and behavioral support, other options should be made available to manage smokers who frequently relapse, and for those who are unable or unwilling to quit. A realistic alternative is to encourage these smokers to switch to ECs, a much less harmful source of nicotine | |||
===2014: [https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4053879/ Effect of Smoking Abstinence and Reduction in Asthmatic Smokers Switching to Electronic Cigarettes: Evidence for Harm Reversal]=== | ===2014: [https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4053879/ Effect of Smoking Abstinence and Reduction in Asthmatic Smokers Switching to Electronic Cigarettes: Evidence for Harm Reversal]=== | ||
| Line 135: | 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 146: | 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 152: | Line 189: | ||
*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= | |||
===2023: [https://www.smokefreeworld.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/07/China-Final-SERMO-Doctors-Survey-7-19-2023.pdf Doctors’ Survey: China results]=== | |||
*Physicians Have Misperceptions About Nicotine. Participants were asked: “To what extent do you agree that nicotine by itself directly causes each of the smoking-related conditions below. The results include responses from “moderately agree” to “completely agree.” 92% - Nicotine causes COPD. 91% - Nicotine causes lung cancer | |||
===2023: [https://www.smokefreeworld.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/07/Germany-Final-Doctors-Survey-7-19-2023.pdf Doctors' Survey: Germany results]=== | |||
*Physicians Have Misperceptions About Nicotine. Participants were asked: “To what extent do you agree that nicotine by itself directly causes each of the smoking-related conditions below. The results include responses from “moderately agree” to “completely agree.” 78% - Nicotine causes COPD. 77% - Nicotine causes lung cancer | |||
===2023: [https://www.smokefreeworld.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/07/Greece-Final-SERMO-Doctors-Survey-7-19-2023.pdf Doctors’ Survey: Greece results]=== | |||
*Physicians Have Misperceptions About Nicotine. Participants were asked: “To what extent do you agree that nicotine by itself directly causes each of the smoking-related conditions below. The results include responses from “moderately agree” to “completely agree.” 65% - Nicotine causes lung cancer. 64% - Nicotine causes COPD | |||
===2023: [https://www.smokefreeworld.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/07/India-Final-SERMO-Doctors-Survey-7-19-2023.pdf Doctors’ Survey: India results]=== | |||
*Physicians Have Misperceptions About Nicotine. Participants were asked: “To what extent do you agree that nicotine by itself directly causes each of the smoking-related conditions below. The results include responses from “moderately agree” to “completely agree.” 88% - Nicotine causes lung cancer. 86% - Nicotine causes COPD | |||
===2023: [https://www.smokefreeworld.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/07/Indonesia-Final-SERMO-Doctors-Survey-7-19-2023.pdf Doctors’ Survey: Indonesia results]=== | |||
*Physicians Have Misperceptions About Nicotine. Participants were asked: “To what extent do you agree that nicotine by itself directly causes each of the smoking-related conditions below. The results include responses from “moderately agree” to “completely agree.” 97% - Nicotine causes lung cancer. 92% - Nicotine causes COPD | |||
===2023: [https://www.smokefreeworld.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/07/Israel-Final-SERMO-Doctors-Survey-7-19-2023.pdf Doctors’ Survey: Israel results ]=== | |||
*Physicians Have Misperceptions About Nicotine. Participants were asked: “To what extent do you agree that nicotine by itself directly causes each of the smoking-related conditions below. The results include responses from “moderately agree” to “completely agree.” 69% - Nicotine causes lung cancer. 66% - Nicotine causes COPD | |||
===2023: [https://www.smokefreeworld.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/07/Italy-Final-Sermo-Doctors-Survey-7-19-2023.pdf Doctors’ Survey: Italy results]=== | |||
*Physicians Have Misperceptions About Nicotine. Participants were asked: “To what extent do you agree that nicotine by itself directly causes each of the smoking-related conditions below. The results include responses from “moderately agree” to “completely agree.” 69% - Nicotine causes COPD. 67% - Nicotine causes lung cancer | |||
===2023: [https://www.smokefreeworld.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/07/Japan-Final-SERMO-Doctors-Survey-7-19-2023.pdf Doctors’ Survey: Japan results]=== | |||
*Physicians Have Misperceptions About Nicotine. Participants were asked: “To what extent do you agree that nicotine by itself directly causes each of the smoking-related conditions below. The results include responses from “moderately agree” to “completely agree.” 88% - Nicotine causes lung cancer. 88% - Nicotine causes COPD | |||
===https:// | ===2023: [https://www.smokefreeworld.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/07/South-Africa-Final-SERMO-Doctors-Survey-7-19-2023.pdf Doctors' Survey: South Africa results]=== | ||
*Physicians Have Misperceptions About Nicotine. Participants were asked: “To what extent do you agree that nicotine by itself directly causes each of the smoking-related conditions below. The results include responses from “moderately agree” to “completely agree.” 82% - Nicotine causes lung cancer. 81% - Nicotine causes COPD | |||
===2022: [https://www. | ===2023: [https://www.smokefreeworld.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/07/UK-SERMO-Doctors-Survey-Final-7-19-2023.pdf Doctors' Survey: UK results]=== | ||
*Physicians Have Misperceptions About Nicotine. Participants were asked: “To what extent do you agree that nicotine by itself directly causes each of the smoking-related conditions below. The results include responses from “moderately agree” to “completely agree.” 60% - Nicotine causes lung cancer. 59% - Nicotine causes COPD | |||
===2023: [https://www.smokefreeworld.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/07/USA-Final-SERMO-Doctors-Survey-7-19-2023.pdf Doctors' Survey: USA results]=== | |||
*Physicians Have Misperceptions About Nicotine. Participants were asked: “To what extent do you agree that nicotine by itself directly causes each of the smoking-related conditions below. The results include responses from “moderately agree” to “completely agree.” 67% - Nicotine causes lung cancer. 66% - Nicotine causes COPD | |||
===2023: [https://www.e-cancer.fr/Comprendre-prevenir-depister/Reduire-les-risques-de-cancer/Barometre-cancer/Cigarette-electronique Electronic cigarette: what perceptions in France?]=== | |||
*Article: [https://fr.vapingpost.com/80-des-francais-pensent-que-la-vape-donne-le-cancer/ 80% of French people believe that vaping causes cancer] | |||
===2022: [https://consumerchoicecenter.org/tobacco-harm-reduction-and-nicotine-perceptions/ TOBACCO HARM REDUCTION AND NICOTINE PERCEPTIONS]=== | |||
*People consume nicotine, but they die from smoking. Many consumers and doctors mistakenly believe that nicotine causes various illnesses, while it is proven that the many other toxins in smoking are the reason for them. | |||
*69% of smokers in France and 74% of smokers in Germany believe nicotine causes cancer. | |||
*[https://consumerchoicecenter.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/10/Tobacco_HarmReduction_Nicotine_Perceptions_policy_paper_2022.pdf PDF of Report] | |||
===2020: [https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11606-020-06172-8 Nicotine Risk Misperception Among US Physicians]=== | |||
*Overall, the majority of physicians “strongly agreed” that nicotine directly contributes to the development of..., COPD (80.9%), and cancer (80.5%). ... and 30.2% did not answer this question—a potential indicator of “do not know.” | |||
*While it is possible that some physicians may have misunderstood the question (e.g., considered harm caused by tobacco, rather than nicotine), results are consistent with other studies finding notable nicotine misperceptions. | |||
*[https://www.newswise.com/pdf_docs/159957895319124_Steinberg2020_Article_NicotineRiskMisperceptionAmong%20(1).pdf PDF Version] | |||
*Rutgers Article: [https://www.rutgers.edu/news/rutgers-led-national-survey-uncovers-doctors-misconceptions-about-nicotine-risks Rutgers-Led National Survey Uncovers Doctors' Misconceptions About Nicotine Risks] | |||
*Rutgers Article: [https://www.rutgers.edu/news/rutgers-led-national-survey-uncovers-doctors-misconceptions-about-nicotine-risks Researchers say physicians need to understand accurate nicotine risks better to assist patients addicted to the most harmful tobacco products] | |||
*Filter Article: [https://filtermag.org/doctors-nicotine-tobacco/ Majority of Surveyed Doctors Misattribute Tobacco Harms to Nicotine] | |||
===2020: [https://www.emerald.com/insight/content/doi/10.1108/DAT-04-2020-0022/full/html Perceptions of nicotine in current and former users of tobacco and tobacco harm reduction products from seven countries]=== | |||
*PDF of [https://www.emerald.com/insight/content/doi/10.1108/DAT-04-2020-0022/full/pdf full report] | |||
*...Current consumers who agreed with the statement that nicotine is the primary cause of tobacco-related cancer ranged from 43.7% (men, UK) to 78.0% (men, SA). | |||
*In six countries nicotine was rated nearly as harmful as cigarettes and alcohol... | |||
*A reason why users of tobacco and THR products around the world find it hard to distinguish between the health risks of smoking and nicotine use may be due to conflicting messages from the media that deviate from the most recent scientific evidence base, overemphasize certain opinions or omit findings that do not align with their readers’ beliefs. | |||
*We observed that the majority of current and previous product users estimated the harmfulness of nicotine and cigarettes alike. This has led to the misled conclusion that nicotine is responsible for the detrimental effects related to combustible tobacco consumption, even though science has found only very limited and often inconclusive evidence to date that nicotine is any more harmful than other legally consumed stimulants. | |||
*Contradictory statements by leading researchers supported by renowned funding agencies and misreporting by the media may further public confusion as people have stated they use the media as a source of health information. | |||
===2013: [https://www.emerald.com/insight/content/doi/10.1108/DAT-02-2013-0010/full/html Survey of GPs' understanding of tobacco and nicotine products]=== | |||
*However, when asked to rank components of cigarettes based on their health risks, GPs ranked nicotine as the third riskiest (74 percent England, 87 percent Sweden), after tar and carbon monoxide, but before smoke or tobacco. | |||
*Article: [https://www.nursinginpractice.com/latest-news/gps-falsley-believe-nicotine-most-harmful-cigarette-ingredient/ ‘GPs falsley believe nicotine most harmful cigarette ingredient’] | |||
**...less than half believe that long-term nicotine replacement therapy (NRT) is preferable to smoking (31% UK, 48% Sweden). | |||
**Many (44% UK, 56% Sweden) also wrongly believe that nicotine in tobacco products is associated with cancer, while 15% in the UK and 22% in Sweden believe the same for pharmaceutical nicotine. | |||
=Stigma - Lung Diseases= | |||
===2022: [https://thoracicrad.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/01/4083-STR-Newsletter-r5.pdf Society of Thoracic Radiology]=== | |||
*STR’S COMMITMENT TO NON-STIGMATIZING LANGUAGE IN LUNG CANCER CARE | |||
*"Whether we as chest imagers realize it or not, our very language can have a negative impact on the care for the patients we serve. As published studies continue to demonstrate, smoking-related language bias often stigmatizes our patients with a smoking history and results in suboptimal care and less than desirable clinical outcomes... Instead of a report stigmatizing the patient as a “smoker,” consider describing the patient as a “person who smokes.” Rather than a “nicotine addict,” an expression such as a “person with a nicotine dependence” attenuates the common stigmatization of these patients. One will notice these alternative descriptors utilize a person-first approach rather than a habit-based one. This approach can and should be adopted in publications, society and conference presentations as well as in daily training with residents and fellows. Ultimately, this language shift more precisely aligns itself with a core underpinning of our approach to care – respect for our patients. | |||
===2022: [https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2772628222000103 Reducing stigma triggered by assessing smoking status among patients diagnosed with lung cancer: De-stigmatizing do and don't lessons learned from qualitative interviews]=== | |||
*Patients expressed clear preferences for CCPS to refrain from using judgmental labels when assessing smoking history, including a preference for questions such as ''' “have you smoked cigarettes in the past 30 days” rather than “are you a smoker?” '''. This perspective is consistent with the broader clinical efforts and dissemination of resources to reduce illness-related stigma through the increased use of person-first language and other bias-free language in clinical care and research. [emphasis added] | |||
===2021: [https://www.lungcancercoalition.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/03/Great-Britain-national-data-pack-FINAL.pdf Great Britain: symptom awareness and attitudes to lung cancer Findings from a global study]=== | |||
*One in four (25%) people in the UK agreed that they have less sympathy for people with lung cancer than other forms of cancer. Globally, one in five (21%) people agreed that they have less sympathy for people with lung cancer than other forms of cancer. | |||
===2021: [https://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/lung-cancer-stigma-holds-back-treatment-research MNT investigates: How lung cancer stigma holds back research and treatment]=== | |||
*Drs. Carter-Harris and Williamson both encourage people to use person-first language when talking about smoking. One example of this is describing someone as “a person who formerly smoked” rather than “a former smoker.” | |||
*“By labeling someone as a smoker, you’ve depersonalized them, and you’ve identified them by a behavior that’s stigmatized,” Dr. Carter-Harris said. | |||
*The National Cancer Institute invested nearly $575 millionTrusted Source in breast cancer research in 2018. They invested only $350 million in lung cancer research that year. Research disparities exist in other countries as well. A global analysis found that lung cancer accounted for roughly 20% of cancer deaths but only 5.6% of cancer research output in 2013. | |||
===2019: [https://www.jto.org/article/S1556-0864(19)30813-5/fulltext ES13.05 Stigma and Impact of Tobacco Control Policy]=== | |||
*The stigma reduces the funding available for lung cancer research. In the US, federal funding for lung cancer research per lung cancer death is only 15% of the funding amount for breast cancer per breast cancer death. | |||
*In a Global Lung Cancer Coalition survey, one in five people (21%) agreed with the statement that they have less sympathy for people with lung cancer than for people with other types of cancer. | |||
*Stigmatization of smokers has the greatest impact on the socioeconomically deprived, the disadvantaged populations. These populations have the highest prevalence of smokers and encounter the stigma of their race or disadvantage (poverty, disability, sexual preference, behavioral health etc.) in addition to the stigma associated with smoking. | |||
*This stigmatization leads people who smoke to be less likely to seek medical care when they have symptoms, more likely to lie about their smoking, more likely to be refused access to care including curative surgery for early stage lung cancer unless they quit smoking, less likely to be offered smoking cessation help if they are uncomfortable disclosing their smoking status due to stigma and bias from their healthcare professional. | |||
===2014: [https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4634635/ Lung Cancer Stigma, Anxiety, Depression and Quality of Life]=== | |||
*Regardless of smoking status, lung cancer patients have reported stigmatization from clinicians, family members and friends due to strong associations between smoking and lung disease. | |||
*The results of this study confirm our previous findings that LCS [lung cancer stigma] is positively correlated with anxiety and depression and negatively correlated with QOL [quality of life]. | |||
===2014: [https://newrepublic.com/article/116553/smoking-and-stigma-war-smoking-has-gone-too-far Let's Not Wage War on Smokers]=== | |||
*In 2004, a team of health scientists at Oxford interviewed 45 people with lung cancer and found that felt even more stigma than other cancer patients: Participants experienced stigma commonly felt by patients with other types of cancer, but, whether they smoked or not, they felt particularly stigmatized because the disease is so strongly associated with smoking… Some patients concealed their illness, which sometimes had adverse financial consequences or made it hard for them to gain support from other people. | |||
=Suggested studies to add to this page= | |||
===2021: [https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/27543458/ Lung function and respiratory symptoms in a randomized smoking cessation trial of electronic cigarettes]=== | |||
*[https://sci-hub.se/10.1042/CS20160268 PDF Full version] | |||
=More Information= | =More Information= | ||
*Click on the category link below for more studies by topic on ENDS and Nicotine. | *Click on the category link below for more studies by topic on ENDS and Nicotine. | ||
[[Category:Studies, Surveys, and Papers]] | [[Category:Studies, Surveys, and Papers]] | ||
edits