Category: Science

  • U.S. FDA to Announce Sept. 9 PMTA Deadline

    U.S. FDA to Announce Sept. 9 PMTA Deadline

    While not yet official, the deadline for submitting premarket tobacco product authorizations (PMTA) to the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is one step closer to being delayed from May 12, 2020 to Sept. 9, 2020 due to the Covid-19 pandemic.

    Judge Paul Grimm of the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland issued an “indicative ruling” granting the FDA’s request to delay the deadline by 120 days.

    The ruling is not yet final, however, due to procedural issues that are expected to be resolved expeditiously. Due to appeals filed by several organizations, including the Vapor Technology Association and the FDA itself, Grimm no longer has the authority to modify his original ruling which moved the deadline to May 2020. That power now lies with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit.

    For the ruling to become valid, the Fourth Circuit must remand the case back to Grimm’s court where Grimm says he would modify the order to allow the FDA to delay the change. The FDA will then need to update its regulations to move the PMTA date to Sept. 9, 2020.

  • U.S. House Subcommittee Asks FDA to Ban Vapor

    U.S. House Subcommittee Asks FDA to Ban Vapor

    Photo: Srdjan Randjelovic | Dreamstime.com

    In what turned out not to be an April Fool’s Day joke, Rep. Raja Krishnamoorthi, the Chairman of the Subcommittee on Economic and Consumer Policy, sent a letter urging the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to use its authority to clear the market of e-cigarettes for the duration of the coronavirus pandemic and use all available tools to encourage Americans to stop smoking and vaping.

    Earlier this week, FDA asked a federal court to delay by four months its order requiring e-cigarette manufacturers to submit applications to remain on the market by May 12, 2020, according to a statement from, according to a statement for the House Committee on Oversight and Reform. 

    The Subcommittee did not oppose this request, but instead asked FDA to take the following steps for the duration of the coronavirus crisis: 

    (1)  use all available tools to encourage Americans to stop smoking combustible cigarettes and using e-cigarettes;|
    (2)  suspend all approvals of Premarket Tobacco Product Applications; and
    (3)  commit to immediately clearing the market of all e-cigarettes by prioritizing enforcement against them.

  • BAT Working on Potential Covid-19 Vaccine

    BAT Working on Potential Covid-19 Vaccine

    British American Tobacco’s (BAT) U.S. bio-tech subsidiary, Kentucky BioProcessing (KBP), is developing a potential vaccine for Covid-19 and is now in pre-clinical testing.

    BAT hopes that if testing goes well, between 1 million and 3 million doses of the vaccine could be manufactured per week beginning in June. The work is intended to be carried out on a not-for-profit basis.

    The potential vaccine uses BAT’s proprietary, fast-growing tobacco plant technology, which is potentially safer than conventional vaccine production technology because tobacco plants can’t host pathogens that cause human disease. This technology is also faster because the elements of the vaccine accumulate in tobacco plants more quickly (six weeks in tobacco plants versus several months using conventional methods). The vaccine formulation also remains stable at room temperature unlike many conventional vaccines that require refrigeration. A single dose has the potential to deliver an effective immune response.

    In 2014, KBP was one of the few companies that created an effective treatment for Ebola, ZMapp, in conjunction with Mapp BioPharmaceuticals and the U.S. Biomedical Advanced Research and Development Authority.

    KBP was recently in headlines for cloning a portion of Covid-19’s genetic sequence, leading to the development of a potential antigen. The antigen was then inserted into tobacco plants for reproduction, purified once plants were harvested, and is now undergoing pre-clinical testing.

    BAT is exploring partnerships with government agencies to bring the vaccine to clinical studies as soon as possible. “We are engaged with the U.S. Food and Drug Administration and are seeking guidance on next steps,” said David O’Reilly, director of scientific research at BAT. “We have also engaged with the U.K.’s Department for Health and Social Care and BARDA in the U.S. to offer our support and access to our research with the aim of trying to expedite the development of a vaccine for Covid-19.

    “Vaccine development is challenging and complex work, but we believe we have made a significant breakthrough with our tobacco plant technology platform and stand ready to work with governments and all stakeholders to help win the war against Covid-19. We fully align with the United Nations’ plea for a whole-of-society approach to combat global problems,” he said.

  • Pyxus Enters into Agreement with Shenzhen Smoore for PMTA Project

    Pyxus Enters into Agreement with Shenzhen Smoore for PMTA Project

    Pyxus International, a global value-added agricultural company, and Shenzhen Smoore Technology Co, a leading manufacturer of electronic nicotine delivery systems (ENDS), have entered into an agreement to share key costs, as well as research and testing data, significantly improving efficiencies related to their respective premarket tobacco product applications (PMTA).

    Pursuant to FDA guidance, all PMTAs are due by May 12, 2020.

    “We are committed to developing and manufacturing high-quality e-liquid products that meet the regulatory requirements set forth by the FDA,” said Pieter Sikkel, president, CEO and chairman of Pyxus. “After thorough consideration, Pyxus identified Smoore as the clear ENDS supplier for PMTA submissions of Pyxus’ affiliate brands, Bantam and Humble Juice Co., given their leadership in this space, execution of forward-thinking technology and adherence to the highest technical standards. The PMTA submissions are the next step in continuing to make our adult-use e-liquid products available for purchase and enjoyed by our consumers for years to come.”

    Under the new agreement, Bantam and Humble Juice Co. have paired certain Smoore ENDS devices—both an open tank device and a refillable cartridge-based device—with the brands’ 84 e-liquid nicotine SKUs. The selected SKUs include many of Bantam and Humble’s top-selling flavor profiles in various nicotine strengths and bottle sizes. These flavor profiles are manufactured by Purilum, LLC, a manufacturer of top-quality e-liquids, flavor concentrates and finished bottle products and a Pyxus joint venture.

    “Smoore is pleased to partner with a company as well respected as Pyxus. Both of our companies have developed complementary expertise related to the PMTA process as we look to FDA for validation of our compliance, ensuring our products’ availability to our customers,” said Weidong Pan, general manager of Technology Center of Shenzhen Smoore Technology. “This agreement is the foundation for a long-term, mutually beneficial relationship that we anticipate expanding across various markets and lines of business.”

    “We are on track with the necessary research and testing that will form the basis for our respective PMTAs,” added Anthony Dillon, senior vice president of Global Specialty Products and managing director of E-liquids at Pyxus International. “We have a clear plan that we are executing against, and preliminary testing results are in line with and supportive of our strategy.”

    Both companies’ respective e-liquids businesses plan to submit their PMTAs to the FDA on or before the May 12 filing deadline.

  • Pyxus and Turning Point Brands Join Forces in PMTA Project Alliance

    Pyxus and Turning Point Brands Join Forces in PMTA Project Alliance

    Pyxus International, a global value-added agricultural company, announced today its collaboration with Turning Point Brands, a leading U.S. provider of Other Tobacco Products (OTP) and adult consumer alternatives, according to a press release.

    The companies have chosen to share certain science-based research and testing data in order to form the foundation for potions of their respective premarket tobacco product applications (PMTAs) prior to submission to the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA).

    Additionally, the companies announced that Turning Point Brands has signed a supply agreement for its house brands of e-liquids, thereby expanding its existing relationship with Pyxus’ joint venture, Purilum, LLC, a manufacturer of top-quality e-liquids, flavor concentrates and finished bottle products.

    “We understand that in order to meet the rigorous requirements of the FDA, we need reputable, like-minded partners,” said Pieter Sikkel, President, CEO and Chairman of Pyxus. “Turning Point Brands, which already has a strong relationship with our joint venture Purilum, LLC, has continually demonstrated their commitment to compliance and quality. We’re pleased to be partnering with them to benefit our respective PMTAs.”

    The companies will share various costs and key data associated with extensive studies performed to support their respective PMTA submissions. In addition, Purilum currently provides the flavor formulations for some of TPB’s next generation products.

    “Purilum has earned a well-deserved reputation for excellence in flavor formulation and e-liquid production,” said Graham Purdy, COO of Turning Point Brands. “The quality and consistency of their products are exemplary, and we are excited to continue working with them, as well as Pyxus, over the decades to come.”

    “We are proud to be partnering with Turning Point Brands, a leader in the OTP space and an emerging leader in next generation products. This enhanced relationship will be positive for all parties,” said Anthony Dillon, Senior Vice President of Global Specialty Products and Managing Director of E-liquids at Pyxus. “We are on track with the necessary research and testing needed for PMTA filings.”

    Both Pyxus and Turning Point Brands anticipate submission of their respective PMTAs on or before the May filing deadline. 

  • U.S. CDC No Longer Making Broad Warning to Stop Vaping Nicotine

    U.S. CDC No Longer Making Broad Warning to Stop Vaping Nicotine

    The U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) has removed from its website a broad guidance stating people should stop vaping in response to the outbreak of vaping-related illnesses.

    The CDC first said people should stop using all vapor products in September but later narrowed that recommendation to vapor products containing THC—the psychoactive ingredient in cannabis. The new recommendation no longer includes the broad reference to stopping vaping, though the agency still says youth, pregnant women and nontobacco users shouldn’t vape.

    “Recommendations were refined to reflect the best available scientific evidence and to best protect public health,” said Brian King, the chief science officer for the CDC’s vaping-related outbreak response.

    Evidence has linked the vaping-related illnesses and deaths to vitamin E acetate, a cutting agent used in vape oils that contain THC. There have been 2,668 hospitalizations from the vaping-related illness as of Jan. 14 and at least 60 deaths, the CDC said. Hospitalizations have slowed since peaking in September, but new cases and deaths are still being reported.

    The CDC also made a distinction between the vaping-related illnesses and the uptake in youth vaping, two different epidemics, according to a report in the New England Journal of Medicine.

  • Bates: No Evidence of Vapor ’95 Percent’ Safer Claim Being Untrue

    Bates: No Evidence of Vapor ’95 Percent’ Safer Claim Being Untrue

    Contrary to its claim, a recent critique does not debunk the statements made by Public Health England (PHE) and the Royal College of Physicians (RCP) that vaping is at least 95 percent less risky than smoking, according to Clive Bates, director of Counterfactual Consulting.

    Writing on his blog, Bates examined the authors’ propositions and found them wanting.

    “Not a single word of their paper addresses the supposed foundation of their critique—that PHE/RCP are wrong, and the risks of vaping are likely to exceed 5 percent of those of smoking,” Bates wrote.

    While the paper contains several baseless assertions that are irrelevant to the “at least 95 percent lower” relative risk claim (gateway effects, smoking cessation efficacy and secondhand aerosol exposure), it says nothing about the relative magnitude of smoking and vaping risks, according to Bates.

    “No analysis, no data, no evidence—nothing that discusses relative risk and why PHE/RCP are supposedly wrong. Niente. Nada. Rien. Nichts. Nothing,” he wrote.

  • Claim That E-cigarettes 95 Percent Safer Than Traditional Cigarettes Disputed

    Claim That E-cigarettes 95 Percent Safer Than Traditional Cigarettes Disputed

    An article published on Jan. 8 in the American Journal of Public Health (AJPH) dismisses the claim that e-cigarettes are 95 percent safer than combustible cigarettes as a “factoid”—unreliable information repeated so often that it becomes accepted as fact.

    The 95 percent claim stems from a 2013 study rating the relative harm of 12 nicotine products using 14 criteria. The authors of the 2013 study concluded that electronic cigarettes were substantially less harmful than combustible cigarettes. Their claim was characterized in the popular media as e-cigarettes being “95 percent less risky” than tobacco cigarettes.

    Although the researchers of the original study acknowledged the shortcomings of their work—i.e., a lack of hard evidence for the harms of most products on most criteria—Public Health England and the Royal College of Physicians endorsed the claim, lending it credibility.

    The authors of the AJPH article point out that today’s vapor products are very different from those available in 2013. The devices are now more powerful, create more aerosol and expose users to more toxicants.

    The proliferation of e-liquids with nicotine salts, meanwhile, allow users to inhale significantly higher levels of nicotine. In addition, more research has emerged about the toxicants in e-cigarettes and their potential respiratory and cardiovascular effects, according to the AJPH article.

    “Even if the 2013 estimate was valid then it can no longer apply today,” the authors of the AJPH article wrote.

    “Public health practitioners, scientists and physicians should expose the fragile status of the 95 percent less risky claim by highlighting its unreliable provenance and lack of validity today,” they added.

  • Bad Science | Good Science

    The science of vaping is like a big jigsaw puzzle with individual pieces of the puzzle representing specific scientific studies.

    Lady Gaga sang about being caught in a “bad romance.” Is the vapor industry caught in “bad science?” Well, that depends on your definition of bad science.

    Let’s take a step back and look at the scientific process.

    Science can be summarized, in short, as the pursuit of knowledge through observation and/or experimentation. Scientists are an inquisitive bunch and want to know how things work or what happens if they push the big red button (often labeled “don’t push”). Scientists may have a preconceived opinion about what will happen (called a hypothesis), but equally, they would like to test this using robust scientific techniques. A typical hypothesis-based experimental study would thus follow these steps:

    1. Issue identification—what is the scientific question being asked?
    2. Hypothesis generation—what do you think the answer is?
    3. Study design—how do you test the hypothesis?
    4. Data collection—conduct the study and collect raw data.
    5. Data analysis—format the raw data appropriately and conduct, for example, statistical analyses.
    6. Data interpretation—consider the study design, data analysis methods used and other available scientific data related to the topic.
    7. Conclusion—is the hypothesis proven? What follow-up studies may be needed?

    All pretty logical and linear: why (do the experiment), how (to do it) and what (are the results). However, the dark art is in step six, and getting this wrong is usually the root of most claims of bad science. But is this a fair criticism?

    It is important to realize that data is exactly what it says on the tin: data. There is no such thing as bad data. It may come from a poorly designed study, but this can be taken into consideration during the interpretation step. The important question to ask, and keep asking, is what conclusions can actually be drawn based on the study design and what conclusions are a step too far? Many of the recent vaping health-related headlines are classic instances of this.

    For example, we have seen results in mice used to confidently predict health outcomes in humans. Now, a study in mice may tell you important things about mouse biology, but to directly equate the findings to humans is fraught with danger (or at least confounding factors). The last time I checked, mice are different from humans, not only in terms of appearance but also in terms of metabolic rate, brain structure, etc. At best, experiments in mice can give some indication of what may be happening in humans (i.e., may give rise to a new hypothesis), but this also needs to be confirmed scientifically.

    The real problem occurs when data is misinterpreted, either in error or, worse, to fit a particular preconceived expectation. This can, in many cases, be unintentional—a bit like the placebo effect (a subconscious bias toward a particular interpretation). Unfortunately, and unforgivably, in some cases, however, there can be a deliberate, intentional effort to make the data fit a particular hypothesis. Ideally, the scientific peer-review process should spot such instances of biased interpretation, but it’s not foolproof (and sometimes study results are communicated in the absence of being subject to peer review).

    Personally, I like to think about the science of vaping as a big jigsaw puzzle with the individual pieces of the puzzle representing specific scientific studies. On their own, each jigsaw puzzle piece (i.e., study) does not tell you a lot about the bigger picture. Start fitting them together properly (i.e., with appropriate interpretation of the data) and you start to reveal the bigger picture. Forcing pieces together, however, that are not meant to be connected (e.g., by misinterpreting the data) risks distorting the bigger picture.

    So where are we at with vaping science? Well, we have many of the jigsaw pieces, and the bigger picture is starting to emerge (as noted by Public Health England). We’re not there yet, though, and there are still some key pieces to gather, such as those related to the long-term health effects of vaping. We just need to ensure that, as they arrive, the new pieces of the jigsaw puzzle are connected properly and not shoehorned into the puzzle to fit someone’s preconceived view of what the final picture should be.

    Coming back to my original question—“Is the vapor industry caught in bad science?”—I am not convinced—to be honest, the more science the better at this time. We still have a jigsaw puzzle to complete. I do feel that the industry, at least on occasion, is being subject to poor scientific practice, in particular with respect to the (over) interpretation of scientific study data.

    This is distorting the jigsaw puzzle image and leading to overall confusion, especially among consumers. Everyone involved in helping construct the scientific jigsaw puzzle should be pulling in the same direction, fitting the pieces together properly. This is not just a mere scientific exercise. It’s a fundamental responsibility to consumers so that they can make their own informed choices about what products to use or not use.

    Ian Jones

    Ian Jones is the vice president of reduced-risk products science at Japan Tobacco International.

  • The Gender Gap

    It’s harder for women than men to quit smoking. But a new study found that women are even more likely to experience significant improvements in their vascular health within one month of switching to e-cigarettes.

    No matter who you are, it’s notoriously tough to quit smoking. But it’s even harder if you’re a woman.

    A new study with 200 patients corroborated a plethora of earlier research that concludes it’s harder for women than men to stop smoking. Researchers at the University of Toronto found that women experience more anxiety and depression, which may interfere with their desire and ability to quit smoking.

    But another new study has encouraging news for women who switch to e-cigarettes.

    That research found that smokers—and particularly women—who switched to e-cigarettes enjoyed a significant improvement in their vascular health within one month of switching.

    WHY IT’S HARDER FOR WOMEN TO QUIT

    A 2019 study of more than 200 patients at St. Michael’s Hospital in Toronto supports earlier evidence that gender is the biggest factor in the odds of successfully quitting smoking.

    This study found that women were roughly 50 percent less likely than men to quit smoking. Researchers said the biggest reason was because women are more likely to have mood disorders; 41 percent of women in the study suffered from anxiety or depression compared to only 21 percent of men.

    Beth Abramson, an associate professor of medicine at the University of Toronto and the study’s senior author, said depression and other mood disorders need to be addressed in women who smoke and especially those with a history of heart disease and stroke.

    A propensity toward anxiety and depression is not the only factor making it more difficult for women to quit smoking.

    The female brain also reacts differently to nicotine, according to epidemiological data that shows women’s brains are more sensitive than men’s brains to nicotine’s deleterious effects.

    Although hard-pressed to determine the exact mechanisms underlying women’s greater sensitivity to developing nicotine dependence, researchers from the University of California at Irvine point to “gonadal hormone-mediated sexual differentiation of the brain,” particularly during the perinatal and adolescent periods.

    Exposure to nicotine during these developmental periods can produce long-lasting, sex-dependent changes in neuronal structure and function, they concluded.

    The study, published in 2017 by the National Center for Biotechnology Information, stresses that there are important age and sex differences in nicotine’s effects and opines that preclinical research into tobacco dependence include these factors.

    Other studies conducted at the University of Pittsburgh School of Medicine conclude that women benefit less from nicotine-replacement therapy (NRT) relative to men.

    “Smoking cessation treatment for women must address several other issues that often emerge, and these are most likely to require behavioral counseling tailored to these problems,” said Kenneth A. Perkins, who authored the study.

    “These issues include concern about bodyweight gain, restrictions on medication use in pregnant smokers, variability in mood and withdrawal as a function of menstrual cycle phase, harnessing social support to foster abstinence, and the possibility that smoking-associated environmental cues may be more influential in smoking behavior in women than men,” he said.

    WORRIED ABOUT WEIGHT GAIN

    It’s a well-documented fact that most people, and particularly women, are concerned about gaining weight after they quit smoking. There’s good reason for their concern: Researchers estimate that people gain about 10 pounds on average after they quit smoking.

    No woman is happy gaining weight, even when she knows that quitting smoking is vital for her health in the long run.

    The reason that weight gain is associated with quitting smoking is because nicotine is a stimulant as well as an appetite suppressant.

    That’s one of the key factors behind the growth in e-cigarettes; instead of quitting their daily oral habit or nicotine intake, the former smoker is simply quitting the thousands of chemicals in traditional cigarettes, including over 60 known carcinogens. While nicotine is highly addictive, it is not a carcinogen.

    Multiple studies confirm that even if you gain weight, it’s still much better to quit smoking, as it lowers the risk of cardiovascular disease. Research has found that quitters who gain a few pounds still have about a 50 percent lower risk of heart disease than smokers.

    The same reduction in risk holds true for people with diabetes. That may come as a surprise given that gaining weight can worsen or contribute to an onset of diabetes.

    That’s why researchers and physicians would agree that it’s important to counsel women that some weight gain is to be expected after quitting cigarettes. That is, unless she chooses not to quit cold turkey and switches to e-cigarettes, which makes her less likely to substitute nicotine with food at the times when she used to smoke.

    This type of gender-specific counseling and education could also make a dent in the quit rates for women who smoke.

    THE PROBLEM WITH CHANTIX

    Different women choose many different paths to quitting smoking. One of the more popular methods that’s prescribed by doctors is the drug Chantix, or varenicline.

    However, both men and women run the risk of experiencing this drug’s serious side effects.

    A 2018 study conducted by the Yale Specialized Center of Research found that Chantix was 46 percent more effective in women at the outset. Although after one year, the results were equally effective among women and men. The study’s author hypothesized that sex differences in the brain’s nicotine receptor system may be a key factor why Chantix was at least initially more effective for women.

    However, Chantix has been associated with at least 2,748 adverse events—14.8 percent of all cases—including 293 suicides, 490 attempted suicides and many other cases involving self-injurious behavior or homicidal ideation. The Institute for Safe Medicine Practices, a nonprofit medication watchdog, concluded that Chantix was responsible for more reports of serious drug adverse events than any other drug in the U.S.

    Not surprisingly, these adverse events spurred thousands of lawsuits by families of loved ones who suddenly and inexplicably committed suicide while on Chantix. In March 2013, Pfizer, the drug’s maker, settled 80 percent of these lawsuits out of court for an estimated $273 million.

    Yet the differences between how the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA), the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), and the media are handling e-cigarettes versus the drug Chantix (varenicline) are dramatic.

    While the FDA drafts increasingly strict enforcement policies for e-cigarettes, it removed the “black box” warning on Chantix that cautioned consumers of the risk of suicide and a host of psychiatric problems, including depression and mania, psychosis, hallucinations, paranoia, delusions, homicidal ideation, aggression, hostility, agitation, anxiety and panic.

    Regardless of one’s age, it’s becoming easier to buy and take Chantix. In July 2019, Indiana joined 11 other states where anyone can pick up a box of Chantix without a doctor’s prescription.

    A simple search on the CDC website for Chantix and you’ll get only 66 results versus more than 2,200 for e-cigarettes that mention “pulmonary disease,” “lung injury” and “youth tobacco use,” even though e-cigarettes contain no tobacco. Similarly, the FDA website also only lists 78 results in a search for Chantix, and the top result is an update on the September 2016 decision to remove the black box warning.

    “I think Chantix should be recommended by public health officials as a Plan E smoking cessation remedy after cold turkey, e-cigarettes, smokeless tobacco and NRT, since Chantix poses far greater risks than these four other smoking cessation methods combined,” said Bill Godshall, founder and executive director of Smokefree Pennsylvania.

    SMOKE LIKE MEN, DIE LIKE MEN

    For years, it was thought that women were less likely to suffer the same negative consequences as men who smoked. A 2013 study published in The New England Journal of Medicine debunked that notion. After examining data from more than two million women in the U.S., the author, Richard Peto of Oxford University, concluded, “If women smoke like men, they die like men.”

    “There was a big gap in our knowledge,” said Tim McAfee, director of the CDC’s Office on Smoking and Public Health. “This sort of puts the nail in the coffin around the idea that women might somehow be different or that they suffer fewer effects of smoking.”

    Lung cancer is the second most common form of cancer but by far the leading cause of cancer deaths in both men and women. In 2018, over 234,000 new cases of lung cancer—121,680 men and 112,350 women—were diagnosed. More than 154,000 people died of the dreaded disease, including 83,550 men and 70,500 women.

    Lung cancer claims the lives of more women than breast cancer, ovarian cancer and uterine cancer combined. Although lung cancer deaths dropped steadily in men since 1990, these cancers continued to rise in women.

    The fact that women tend to start smoking at a younger age, smoke more cigarettes and continued to smoke in the 1960s and 1970s when men were quitting are the primary reasons behind the dramatic increase in lung cancer deaths among women.

    While advances in treatment and management helped decrease the number of cancer deaths among women, the notable exception is lung cancer. And although it’s more difficult to identify the causal agents of breast cancer, there’s an obvious correlation between smoking and lung cancer.

    Add alcohol into the mix, and women take an even greater risk, according to a European study that followed a group of 380,000 people over age 40 for around 12 years. The mortality rate was anywhere from 1.5 times to 3 times higher for smokers than for people who never smoked.

    And although there were no differences between men and women when only the amount they smoked was taken into account, these risks changed dramatically when alcohol was thrown into the mix. In that case, the mortality rate was 3.88 times higher among women who smoked more than 26 cigarettes and drank more than 30 grams of alcohol a day.

    “Women who consume excessive amounts of alcohol have a significantly higher risk from tobacco use than those who consume little or no alcohol,” the authors concluded.

    But there’s still good news for former smokers. Former smokers who quit before they turn 35 can gain most if not all of that decade back, and even those who wait until middle age to kick the habit can add about five years back to their life expectancies.

    E-CIGARETTES AND WOMEN

    Nicotine exposure during pregnancy is never advised—whether the mother smokes regular cigarettes, e-cigarettes or even uses nicotine patches or gums. Ample research has shown that nicotine use during pregnancy doesn’t just increase morbidity and mortality in the neonatal period, it also increases risk of sudden infant death syndrome and can have lifelong consequences.

    However, research published in November 2019 in The Journal of the American College of Cardiology shows that women who switch to e-cigarettes at other times in their lives can enjoy significant health benefits, including a major improvement in vascular function.

    Smokers, particularly women, demonstrated substantial improvement in their vascular health within one month of switching from traditional cigarettes to e-cigarettes, leading researchers to conclude that switching was an important and significant harm reduction measure.

    Interestingly, the researchers found no difference in vascular effects between those who used e-cigarettes with nicotine and e-cigarettes without nicotine. The authors hypothesized that “early improvement appears to be unrelated to the abstinence from nicotine but rather from other toxic material produced by combustion” in conventional cigarettes.

    In summary, women are at greater risk than men of the deleterious effects of smoking. Yet, quitting is even harder for women for a variety of physiological and psychological reasons.

    But if “first do no harm” is truly the health community’s mantra, then we need to do a better job educating women on the best alternative to quitting tobacco altogether.

    Maria Verven

    The original “Vaping Vamp,” Maria Verven owns Verve Communications, a PR and marketing firm specializing in the vapor industry.