Tag: research

  • Study: Smokers Boost Vascular Health by Switch to Vape

    Study: Smokers Boost Vascular Health by Switch to Vape

    A new study has found that long-term smokers who switched to vaping were halfway towards achieving the vascular health of a non-smoker within a month.

    The research shows that while the use of non-tobacco nicotine products may still involve potential risks, the harm reduction they present have immense potential to prevent death and disability from tobacco use, and may indeed even boost government efforts towards a tobacco-free society, according to Journal Online.

    The study saw a “clear early benefit” in switching from smoking to vaping, in the largest clinical trial to date.

    Those who ditched cigarettes and vaped instead saw their blood vessel function increase by around 1.5 percentage points within four weeks compared with those who continued smoking.

    The study didn’t claim that this benefit would be sustained, noting that more research is needed to delve into the long-term implications of vaping. It also warned that vaping isn’t safe, merely “less harmful” than smoking.

    But it declared that if this improvement were sustained into the long-term, those who switched would have at least a 13 per cent reduced risk of cardiovascular events, such as heart attacks.

  • EVALI, Covid-19 Boosted Misinformation on Vaping

    EVALI, Covid-19 Boosted Misinformation on Vaping

    A new study led by researchers at the American Cancer Society (ACS) shows perceptions of e-cigarettes as being “more harmful” than cigarettes by adults in the United States more than doubled between 2019-2020 and perceptions of e-cigarettes as “less harmful” declined between 2018-2020.

    The study also found that an increase in cigarette smoking prevalence (2019-2020) was restricted to those who perceived e-cigarettes as “more harmful” than cigarettes, while increases in prevalence of e-cigarette use was restricted to those who perceived e-cigarettes as “less harmful” than cigarettes, according to a press release.

    Prevalence of dual use of both products increased only among those who perceived these products as equally or “as harmful”. The results coincide with the e-cigarette or vaping use-associated lung injury outbreak (EVALI) and the COVID-19 pandemic. The data was published today in the American Journal of Preventive Medicine (AJPM).

    “While all tobacco products, including e-cigarettes, pose a risk to the health of the user, major health events, such as the EVALI epidemic in late-2019 and the COVID-19 pandemic in 2020, paved the way to new smoking/e-cigarette health risks,” the release states. “During this time, the quality and type of information individuals were exposed to may have shaped how they compare the potential harms of tobacco products, which in turn, may have altered tobacco use behaviors.”

    How individuals perceive the harm of e-cigarettes vs. traditional cigarettes can predict their individual decision to use tobacco products, but according to the study authors, this is the first study to provide evidence this relationship translates to population-based prevalence changes. 

    “While this study showed sharp changes in public perceptions of e-cigarette vs. cigarette harms during EVALI and COVID-19, the more relevant finding for public health is that increases in cigarette smoking and e-cigarette use prevalence occurred primarily in individuals who perceived their preferred product as relatively less harmful,” said Priti Bandi, principal scientist, risk factors & screening surveillance research at the American Cancer Society and lead author of the study. “This suggests that public perceptions of e-cigarettes vs. cigarettes harms influences population tobacco use patterns.”

    In this study, researchers analyzed data from the National Cancer Institute sponsored Health Information National Trends Survey collected from more than ten-thousand U.S. adults from 2018 – 2020. The results showed perceptions of e-cigarettes as “more harmful” than cigarettes doubled each year, increasing most between 2019-2020 (2018: 6.8%, 2019: 12.8%, 2020: 28.3%), while uncertainty (responses of “don’t know”) in relative harm declined (2018: 38.2%, 2019: 34.2%, 2020: 24.7%). “Less harmful” relative perceptions declined (2018: 17.6%, 2019: 15.3%, 2020: 11.4%), while “as harmful” perceptions remained steady (2018: 37.4%, 2019: 37.7%, 2020: 35.6%).

    Exclusive cigarette smoking increased between 2019-2020 among those who perceived e-cigarettes as relatively “more harmful” (2018: 18.5%; 2019: 8.4%; 2020: 16.3%), exclusive e-cigarette use increased linearly among those who perceived them as relatively “less harmful” (7.9%; 15.3%, 26.7%), and dual use increased linearly in those who perceived them “as harmful” (0.1%, 1.4%; 2.9%).

    “It is challenging for individuals to make conclusions about the short- and long-term health effects of tobacco products without clear, effective, and ongoing communication from public health authorities, especially when new contextual events that change health harms happen,” said Bandi. “There is a need for behavioral interventions to encourage individuals to be informed consumers of available scientific findings and appreciate that while no tobacco products is safe, there are inherent differences between relative and absolute harms between tobacco products that can influence behavior. In turn, public health education campaigns must facilitate informed decision making by translating emerging scientific evidence accurately to appropriate audiences.”

  • Study Suggests Most E-Cigarette Research is Flawed

    Study Suggests Most E-Cigarette Research is Flawed

    Credit: Kaspars Grinvalds

    Errors are disturbingly common in e-cigarette research, resulting in misinformation and distortion of scientific truth, according to a new study.

    Under the guidance of Cother Hajat of the United Arab Emirates University and Riccardo Polosa, founder of the Center of Excellence for the Acceleration of Harm Reduction (CoEHAR) at the University of Catania, a team of international researchers examined the 24 most frequently cited vaping studies published in medical journals.

    The researchers found almost all of the examined studies to be methodologically flawed. Among other shortcomings, the studies lacked a clear hypothesis, used inadequate methodology, failed to collect data relevant to the study objectives and did not correct for obvious confounding factors.

    “Most of the included studies utilized inappropriate study design and did not address the research question that they set out to answer. In our paper we offer practical recommendations that can massively improve the quality and rigor future research in the field of tobacco harm reduction,” said Hajat.

    Riccardo Polosa

    “Systematic reiteration of the same errors that result in uninformative science is the new pandemic,” said Polosa. “I’m astounded that such low-quality studies have made it through editorial review in prestigious scientific journals. The credibility of tobacco control scientists and their research is on the line.”

    The findings are concerning, according to the academics, because without methodologically valid scientific research, it is impossible to generate balanced and accurate information for the adoption of more effective tobacco control policies and healthier lifestyles. “The dissemination of inaccurate information about combustion-free alternatives in the news media contributes to public skepticism and uncertainty, particularly among smokers,” the center wrote in a press release. “Many smokers may be discouraged from switching to less harmful nicotine delivery products as a result of this.”

    This investigator-initiated study was sponsored by ECLAT, a spin-off of the University of Catania, with the help of a grant from the Foundation for a Smoke-Free World, which in turn is backed by Philip Morris International.

  • US Science Council Cries Foul on Cessation Study

    US Science Council Cries Foul on Cessation Study

    A recent study that found that vaping doesn’t prevent smokers from relapsing to cigarettes has a major flaw, according to Cameron English, writing for the American Council on Science and Health. The results seem to undermine the efficacy of e-cigarettes as smoking-cessation tools—”until you take a closer look at the definition of relapse.”

    At first glance, the study seems to undermine the case for e-cigarette use as a smoking cessation tool. But first glances, as we all know, rarely tell the whole story, according to English. A closer look at the paper indicates that its authors improperly assessed how smokers utilize e-cigarettes, thus generating results that don’t reflect reality.

    The researchers analyzed data on 3,578 previous-year smokers who had recently attempted to quit and 1,323 recent former smokers from the Population Assessment of Tobacco and Health (PATH) Study between 2017-2019. Participants self-reported their use of e-cigarettes or other products to quit cigarettes. The researchers then investigated who among the study participants had abstained from smoking or any tobacco products in 2019.

    Credit: Aleksej

    “The significance of this study is limited by the same flaw we found in an earlier paper by two of the same authors: relapse to tobacco use was measured by the question ‘In the past 12 months, have you smoked a cigarette/(used product), even one or two puffs/times?’ Using this metric, an individual who has almost entirely quit smoking, save for “even one or two puffs” of a cigarette, and someone who has gone back to smoking a pack a day would be counted as having relapsed,” English writes.

    “This definition ignores the fact that many smokers gradually switch from combustible cigarettes to their electronic counterparts. This is known as ‘dual-use,’ and properly designed epidemiological studies (even those based on PATH data) and clinical trials try to account for this behavioral shift, correctly noting that replacing even some cigarette smoking with vaping is desirable because vaping is the far safer option.”

    Additional high-quality research would be very helpful, but “preventing relapse” is an all but useless outcome, states English. “Unless the researchers evaluate how e-cigarettes are used in the real world, the only thing their next paper will confirm is that asking the wrong question inevitably leads to the wrong answer, he writes.

     

  • Vapor Industry Overregulation Bad for Public Health

    Vapor Industry Overregulation Bad for Public Health

    A new report from the American Consumer Institute (ACI) highlights the dangers of overregulating e-cigarettes and vaping products. Co-authored by Steve Pociask and Liam Sigaud entitled “How Regulations Endanger the Public Health: A Review of the Evidence on E-Cigarette Risks and Benefits, and Policy Missteps”, the report investigates the empirical evidence surrounding the consumer risks and benefits of using e-cigarettes and vaping products compared to using combustible tobacco products.

    Credit: iQoncept

    The report finds that::

    • E-cigarettes and vaping products, while not totally safe, are significantly safer than smoking – 95% safer by some estimates;
    • Studies also show these products are twice as effective in getting smokers to quit than other nicotine-based smoking cessation treatments;
    • Excessive regulation of e-cigarettes and vapes not only ignores the prevailing scientific consensus on health risks, but they deter cigarette smokers from switching to safer alternatives and push vapers back to the pack; and
    • Therefore, overregulating these proven harm reduction products will have serious health consequences for millions of American consumers who smoke.

    “The overwhelming empirical research is clear and shows that federal, state, and local governments are in a misguided pursuit that eliminates a safer choice for smokers,” a release states. “This report provides much-needed clarity on an issue of profound importance for public health. As the authors note ‘informed by rigorous research, the U.S. can better chart a responsible course that encourages smokers to seek safer substitutes and quit, while protecting our youth from the dangers of tobacco products.’”

  • Scholar: Study Shows ‘No Link’ Between Vapor, Eye Damage

    Scholar: Study Shows ‘No Link’ Between Vapor, Eye Damage

    The new study by the University of California found that vaping could cause some eyesight impairments. The study included 1,173,646 adults in the US aged between 18 and 50, according to the The Telegraph. At least one researcher, however, says the study doesn’t correlate vaping and eyesight damage.

    Current vapers were 34 percent more likely to suffer from visual impairments compared to those who had never tried it, and former vapers 14 percent more likely to suffer impairments, according to the study.

    Credit: Stasique

    Participants were asked if they ever have smoked or vaped and asked if they had suffered visual impairment. The findings, published in the American Journal of Ophthalmology, found that vaping may also promote oxidative stress, a key factor in the development of chronic diseases as well as cataracts and glaucoma.

    Simon Capewell, a professor and clinical epidemiologist at the University of Liverpool, said the latest California study did not prove a link between vaping and eye damage. But he said there are “many nasty toxins” in e-cigarette vapor.

    “But it is important to note that at this point, it’s unclear whether those risks are connected to vaping or something else,” the story states.

    The eyesight study follows a recent study that found that vaping caused erectile disfunction. That study was also found to be flawed.

    A major issue with the ED study is that participants were classified as current someday (“i.e., not every day or occasional”) or daily vapers, or smokers if they consumed cigarettes “every day or some days.” Beyond this self-reported information, the researchers didn’t know how much or which e-liquids the vapers in their study used, nor did they know how many cigarettes each smoker consumed.

     

  • Vaping Boosts Quit Rate in Smokers Not Aiming to Quit

    Vaping Boosts Quit Rate in Smokers Not Aiming to Quit

    Photo: pioneer111

    Adult smokers with no plans to quit are more likely to stop smoking if they switch to daily vaping, according to new research led by Roswell Park Comprehensive Cancer Center.

    Published in JAMA Network Open, the Roswell Park study used data collected from 2014 to 2019 as part of the Population Assessment of Tobacco and Health Study (PATH). When the researchers focused their analysis on a select group of 1,600 smokers who initially had no plans to quit and were not using e-cigarettes when the study began, they found that those who subsequently vaped daily experienced eightfold higher odds of quitting traditional cigarettes compared to those who didn’t use e-cigarettes at all.

    “These findings are paradigm-shifting, because the data suggest that vaping may actually help people who are not actively trying to quit smoking,” says Andrew Hyland, chair of health behavior at Roswell Park and scientific lead on the PATH study, in a statement. “Most other studies focus exclusively on people who are actively trying to quit smoking, but this study suggests that we may be missing effects of e-cigarettes by not considering this group of smokers with limited intention to stop smoking—a group that is often at the highest risk for poor health outcomes from cigarette smoking.”

    Overall, only about 6 percent of all smokers included in the Roswell Park study quit smoking combustible cigarettes completely, but the rates of quitting were significantly higher among those who took up daily e-cigarette use—28 percent of smokers quit when they started vaping daily. The association between vaping and cigarette quitting held up even after adjusting for underlying characteristics such as educational background, income, gender, ethnicity and the number of cigarettes smoked per day at the beginning of the study.

  • Report: Nicotine Tax Will Boost Smoking, Hurt Economy

    Report: Nicotine Tax Will Boost Smoking, Hurt Economy

    A new report finds that combustible cigarettes will become less expensive than vaping products and nearly 43,000 jobs would be lost if the proposed nicotine tax contained in the Build Back Better bill (HR 5376) were to become law. The Vapor Technology Association (VTA) funded study, The Negative Economic Impacts of the New Nicotine Tax Imposed Only on Vapor Products In the Reconciliation Bill, conducted by economist John Dunham & Associates, is being billed as a comprehensive analysis of the negative effects that the proposed tax will have on smokers, the industry and the economy.

    “Our analysis finds that the bill would not create anything close to parity with cigarette taxes but, rather, would tax vapor products at a much higher rate – up to nine times higher – than the tax on a pack of cigarettes,” the report states. “The proposed nicotine tax in the Reconciliation Bill would lead to a net price increase on vapor products at retail of about 53 percent (21.2 percent for a standard two-pack of closed-system pod products and 73.5 percent for a standard 60 milliliter bottle of open system e-liquid), while the price of cigarettes and other tobacco products would remain unchanged as they would not be subject to any additional federal tax.”

    The study also concludes that the proposed nicotine tax would lead to a reduction of nearly 42,800 full-time equivalent jobs and the loss of $2.2 billion in wages and benefits, negatively impact the size of the overall economy which would fall by about $7 billion and would result in states and their localities losing $620 million in taxes while the federal government attempts to generate revenues.

    “A pack of cigarettes contains approximately 204 milligrams of nicotine (10.2 mg/cigarette x 20 cigarettes per pack).  Applying the proposed nicotine tax of 2.78-cents per milligram to cigarettes, means that the tax on a pack of cigarettes should be $5.41, not $1.01,” the study states. “Viewed another way, the federal tax on cigarettes, if applied to their nicotine content, would only amount to less than half a penny per milligram, not the 2.78-cents Congress seeks to impose on e-cigarettes ($1.01 per pack / 204 mg of nicotine per pack).”

    As defined in the bill, the proposed tax would be equal to about $2.22 on the standard closed system nicotine vapor product (such as a two pack of JUUL pods), and a $10.01 on the standard average 60 milliliter bottle of nicotine containing e-liquid used in an open system vapor device,” according to the study.

    If passed, the proposed tax would also lead to a loss of about 31.9 percent of vapor product sales or 3.7 million milliliters of e-liquid consumed. Of this loss, 61.2 percent would be the result of consumers switching to other tobacco products, including combustible cigarettes. An additional 18.5 percent of these lost sales would move to the black market, according to the study.

    “Modeling suggests that a large portion of consumers would react by purchasing unregulated products over the black market or make their own e-liquids,” according to the study. “These figures (which reflect a price increase resulting from the tax of 53 percent) are conservative and are not out of line with other studies examining the substitution of vapor products and combustible cigarettes when taxes are imposed.”

  • Nicotine May Cause Erectile Dysfunction in Men

    Nicotine May Cause Erectile Dysfunction in Men

    A new study suggests that men who vape nicotine are more than twice as likely to experience erectile dysfunction compared to those who don’t vape. In the first effort to study the relationship between vaping and sexual health, researchers analyzed self-reported data from more than 13,000 men aged 20 and older surveyed in the national Population Assessment of Tobacco and Health Study.

    Credit: Paolese

    Nicotine has long been called a factor in erectile disfunction. Men who smoked more than 20 cigarettes daily had a 60 percent higher risk of erectile dysfunction, compared to men who never smoked, according to the American Heart Association (AHA). Smoking, according to the AHA, and erectile dysfunction have often been associated — individually — with plaque build-up in the arteries, called atherosclerosis.

    According to the latest study published Wednesday in the American Journal of Preventive Medicine, those who reported daily e-cig use were 2.2 times more likely to report having erectile dysfunction compared to men who had never vaped, regardless of their other risk factors. In a smaller sample of men younger than 65 with normal BMIs and no history of cardiovascular disease, the trend persisted: vapers were 2.4 times more likely to experience ED compared to non-vapers.

    While some may view vaping as a healthier alternative to cigarettes, consuming nicotine in excess will always come with risks, lead author Omar El Shahawy, MD, told Insider. “Overall, e-cigarettes are likely less harmful than smoking cigarettes to the degree that they substitute cigarette smoking,” El Shahawy, assistant professor in the Department of Population Health at NYU Langone, wrote in an email to Insider. “For men who smoke and want to switch because vaping is less harmful, they should try to limit their vaping because it is simply not risk free.”

  • Study Debunks Link Between Heart Attacks and Vaping

    Study Debunks Link Between Heart Attacks and Vaping

    Vaping products are not associated with increased heart attack incidence among people without a history of smoking combustible cigarettes, according to a new study. Published in the American Journal of Preventive Medicine, researchers also concluded that three previous studies claiming a link between e-cigarettes and heart disease wrongly included those who previously smoked cigarettes or were using both vaping and combustible products. One paper even included participants who had heart attacks before they had ever vaped.

    “Previous researchers confused their own models’ assumptions that these risks were independent with the idea that their analyses validated the presence of independent risks,” the researchers wrote. “There is no reliable evidence that e-cigarette use is associated with ever having had a myocardial infarction among never smokers.”

    Authored by Michael Siegel, a community health sciences professor at Boston University, and University of California, Berkeley, business professor Clayton Critcher, analyzed data from 175,546 respondents to the annual National Health Interview Survey from 2014 to 2019. They found that daily e-cigarette use was only associated with higher heart attack incidence among people who were also currently smoking combustible cigarettes (duel users)—and that there was no evidence at all for increased risk among vapers who had never smoked combustible cigarettes.

    Credit: NDABCREATIVITY

    The researchers state that the initial study had drawn its conclusions about a perceived cause (vaping) and effect (heart attack) without factoring in a key variable (smoking). Critcher and Siegel acknowledge that a more thorough analysis of previous research would have noted that e-cigarettes are relatively new, limiting the ability to assess long-term health effects and make comparisons with combustible tobacco smoking, in an article with Filter. However, the findings of previous research that e-cigarette use in of itself causes heart attacks is fundamentally flawed.

    A 2018 study, also published in the American Journal of Preventive Medicine, claimed that daily vapers increased their odds of heart attack. However, the study only included participants who used both e-cigarettes and combustible cigarettes—none who used e-cigarettes alone. Suspicious of that methodology, a different group of researchers published a reply, arguing the importance of examining the purported link among people who had never smoked combustible cigarettes. Authors of the original study then published a reply to that reply, arguing that such a distinction wasn’t necessary.

    In the meantime, two (one, two) other papers were published based on the original paper’s claims, lending further harmful legitimacy to the idea of a link between e-cigs and heart attacks, according to Kevin Garcia writing for Filter.

    The second of those two papers was coauthored by the former prominent tobacco harm reduction opponent Stanton Glantz. It was retracted in 2020 for basing its claim that vaping caused heart attacks on evidence that included heart attacks from before the participants had even started vaping. Three weeks after the American Heart Association’s journal retracted the vaping study, academics and health experts began pushing for another influential peer-reviewed medical journal to retract another Glantz study.