(Added content) |
(Added content) |
||
| Line 35: | Line 35: | ||
===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]=== | ||
The present study suggests that EC use may ameliorate objective and subjective COPD outcomes, and that the benefits gained appear to persist long term. EC use for abstinence and smoking reduction may ameliorate some of the harm resulting from tobacco smoking in COPD patients. | The present study suggests that EC use may ameliorate objective and subjective COPD outcomes, and that the benefits gained appear to persist long term. EC use for abstinence and smoking reduction may ameliorate some of the harm resulting from tobacco smoking in COPD patients. | ||
===2020: [https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s00204-020-02924-x Cancer potencies and margin of exposure used for comparative risk assessment of heated tobacco products (HTPs) and electronic cigarettes (ECs) aerosols with cigarette smoke]=== | |||
(PDF 16 pages) | |||
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. | |||
| Line 58: | Line 64: | ||
===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. | ||
===2017: [https://tobaccocontrol.bmj.com/content/27/1/10 Comparing the cancer potencies of emissions from vapourised nicotine products including e-cigarettes with those of tobacco smoke]=== | |||
(PDF 8 pages) | |||
“Most e-cigarette analyses indicate cancer potencies <1% that of tobacco smoke and <10% that of a heat-not-burn prototype, although a minority of analyses indicate higher potencies.” | |||
Optimal combinations of device settings, liquid formulation and vaping behaviour normally result in e-cigarette emissions with much less carcinogenic potency than tobacco smoke. | |||
Article in Lung Disease News: [https://lungdiseasenews.com/2017/08/25/study-finds-that-cancer-risk-of-e-cigarettes-is-much-lower-than-that-of-cigarette-smoke/?fbclid=IwAR1qEBP2dW4ccXc0fUEWpZIR6ZpsBJwMw-tDsB_PFiiHgR4XaJRaIAbutl4 E-Cigarettes Carry Much Less Risk of Lung Cancer Than Cigarette Smoke, Study Finds] | |||
===2017: [https://tobaccocontrol.bmj.com/content/26/e1/e23.long Have combustible cigarettes met their match? The nicotine delivery profiles and harmful constituent exposures of second-generation (G2) and third-generation (G3) electronic cigarette user]s=== | |||
(PDF 6 pages) | |||
While not harmless, electronic cigarettes (e-cigarettes) have demonstrated a much more favourable toxicological profile than combustible cigarettes—the worldwide leading cause of preventable death. Average eCO levels (ppm) were significantly higher in smokers than in e-cigarette users. Compared with cigarettes, G2 and G3 e-cigarettes resulted in significantly lower levels of exposure to a potent lung carcinogen and cardiovascular toxicant. | |||
| Line 70: | Line 89: | ||
===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]=== | ||
Conclusion: “Smokers invited to switch to electronic cigarettes who completely abstained from smoking showed steady progressive improvements in their exhaled breath measurements and symptom scores. FeNo and eCO normalization is highly supportive of improved respiratory health outcomes and adds to the notion that quitting from tobacco smoking can reverse harm in the lung.” | Conclusion: “Smokers invited to switch to electronic cigarettes who completely abstained from smoking showed steady progressive improvements in their exhaled breath measurements and symptom scores. FeNo and eCO normalization is highly supportive of improved respiratory health outcomes and adds to the notion that quitting from tobacco smoking can reverse harm in the lung.” | ||
===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 75: | Line 95: | ||
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. | ||
===2016: [https://www.lungcancerjournal.info/article/S0169-5002(16)30323-3/fulltext Patients with lung cancer: Are electronic cigarettes harmful or useful?]=== | |||
(must pay to view PDF) | |||
Based on current knowledge, for patients with lung or other forms of cancer who would otherwise continue to smoke, e-cigarettes offer an alternative way to quit smoking while they undergo medical treatment. The option to switch to e-cigarettes should be considered by healthcare practitioners with patients with cancer who would otherwise continue to smoke. | |||
edits