Evidence about electronic cigarettes: a foundation built on rock or sand?
BMJ 2015; 351 doi: https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.h4863 (Published 15 September 2015) Cite this as: BMJ 2015;351:h4863
All rapid responses
Rapid responses are electronic comments to the editor. They enable our users to debate issues raised in articles published on bmj.com. A rapid response is first posted online. If you need the URL (web address) of an individual response, simply click on the response headline and copy the URL from the browser window. A proportion of responses will, after editing, be published online and in the print journal as letters, which are indexed in PubMed. Rapid responses are not indexed in PubMed and they are not journal articles. The BMJ reserves the right to remove responses which are being wilfully misrepresented as published articles or when it is brought to our attention that a response spreads misinformation.
From March 2022, the word limit for rapid responses will be 600 words not including references and author details. We will no longer post responses that exceed this limit.
The word limit for letters selected from posted responses remains 300 words.
We agree with the published opinion by McKee and Capewell on the Public Health England’s (PHE) report [1]. The ongoing debate, however, seems to overlook e-cigarettes possible hazards by diverting the attention to potential benefit in terms of harm reduction among dual users, albeit arguable [2]. Therefore, it is essential to focus on its impact on naïve users; especially adolescents, which we intend to address here.
In the United States, e-cigarettes emergence permitted television and radio marketing of nicotine products once again, after the complete ban on tobacco products advertisement since the 1970s [3]. In 2014, around 18.3 million adolescents in the United States were exposed to at least one method of e-cigarette marketing method [4], which represents 68.9% of middle and high school students who participated in the 2014 National Youth Tobacco Survey (NYTS). More than one third of them (36.5%) were exposed to marketing messages via television. In the same survey, it was reported that e-cigarette is the leading tobacco product in use by American adolescents (lifetime and current use) [5]. In an online survey among 519 adult smokers and recent quitters, it was suggested that e-cigarette users were significantly more likely to have the urge to smoke conventional cigarettes compared to non-users after viewing e-cigarettes TV advertisement (83% and 72%, respectively) [6].
Moreover, a study among school children in Los Angeles revealed that non-smokers who used e-cigarettes were more likely to use combustible tobacco products in subsequent longitudinal follow up compared to non-users [7]. E-cigarettes supply the same addictive substance, i.e. nicotine, as in other tobacco products. Nicotine has been described as a gateway medication, not just for smoking other tobacco products, but also for alcohol and substance use [8 &9], which underscores a new paradigm of possible adverse outcomes that might be witnessed with the increasing e-cigarette use.
Furthermore, findings from a study in Utah suggest that state laws restricting sale to minors was inadequate to prevent the increasing prevalence of e-cigarette use among minors [10]. Noteworthy, the expanding use of e-cigarettes among adolescents is not confined to the USA as similar trends were observed in other countries (e.g. [11]), but data related to adolescents’ use, in general, are limited.
It can be concluded from the previous studies that e-cigarettes might lead to a rebound increase in other tobacco products use via two possible mechanisms. The first is a direct effect via the nicotine gateway mechanism [7-9]. The second, however, is an indirect one through its marketing messages [4-6], renormalization of smoking within public spaces, and societies [12]; while sale restriction alone might be ineffective in controlling adolescents’ e-cigarette increasing use [10& 13-14]. Therefore, we join the view to require regulating e-cigarette as a medication, if it has a role in smoking cessation [1&15]. This might be a reliable way to control naïve users’ (especially adolescents) access to e-cigarettes, until such reliable evidence on its safety is available.
References:
[1] McKee M, Capewell S. (2015) Evidence about electronic cigarettes: a foundation built on rock or sand? BMJ 2015;351:h4863
[2] Auf R. (2014) Electronic cigarettes and smoking cessation: a quandary? Lancet. Feb 1;383(9915):408. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(14)60144-6.
[3] History of Tobacco Regulation*. Druglibrary.org
[4] Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. (2015) Tobacco Use Among Middle and High School Students — United States, 2011–2014. MMWR, April 17, 2015 / 64(14);381-385
[5] Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. (2016) Vital Signs: Exposure to Electronic Cigarette Advertising Among Middle School and High School Students — United States, 2014. MMWR, January 8, 2016 / 64(52);1403-8.
[6] Kim AE, Lee YO, Shafer P, Nonnemaker J, Makarenko O. (2015). Adult smokers' receptivity to a television advert for electronic nicotine delivery systems. Tob Control. 2015 Mar; 24(2):132-5.
[7] Leventhal AM, Strong DR, Kirkpatrick MG, Unger JB3, Sussman S, Riggs NR, Stone MD, Khoddam R, Samet JM, Audrain-McGovern J. (2015) Association of Electronic Cigarette UseWith Initiation of Combustible Tobacco Product Smoking in Early Adolescence. JAMA. Aug 18;314(7):700-7. doi: 10.1001/jama.2015.8950.
[8] Kandel DB. (1975) Stages in adolescent involvement in drug use. Science ;190:912-914
[9] Kandel ER, Kandel DB. (2014). Shattuck Lecture. molecular basis for nicotine as a gateway drug. N Engl J Med. 2014 Sep 4;371(10):932-43. doi: 10.1056/NEJMsa1405092.
[10] Utah Department of Health. Utah health status update: electronic cigarette use among Utah students (grades 8, 10, and 12) and adults. Updated December 2013. http://tobacco.ucsf.edu/e-cigarette-use-among-kids-skyrocketing-utah-lev...
[11] Lee S, Grana RA, Glantz SA. (2013) Electronic-cigarette use among Korean adolescents: a cross-sectional study of market penetration, dual use, and relationship to quit attempts and former smoking. J Adolesc Health. doi: 10.1016/j. jadohealth.2013.11.003.
[12] Fairchild AL, Bayer R & Colgrove J. (2014). The renormalization of smoking? E-cigarettes and the tobacco "endgame". N Engl J Med. 2014 Jan 23;370(4):293-5. doi: 10.1056/NEJMp1313940. Epub 2013 Dec 18.
[13] Simons-Morton BG, Farhat T. (2010) Recent findings on peer group influences on adolescent smoking. The journal of primary prevention. Aug 1;31(4):191-208.
[14] Ahmad S, Billimek J. (2007) Limiting youth access to tobacco: Comparing the long-term health impacts of increasing cigarette excise taxes and raising the legal smoking age to 21 in the United States. Health Policy. 2007 Mar 31;80(3):378-91.
[15] Meikle J.( 2015) Vaping: e-cigarettes safer than smoking, says Public Health England. Guardian 2015 Aug 19. www.theguardian.com/society/2015/aug/19/public-health-england-e-cigarett....
Competing interests: No competing interests
Krupp [1] suggests that my arguments about the non-carcinogenic effects of nicotine in my previous comment [2] are rhetoric rather than scientific. However, he still uses the same laboratory (cell or animal) studies to support his opinion that nicotine has carcinogenic effects. The only exception was a case control study of exposure to nicotine insecticide. Everyone knows, however, that nicotine used in e-cigarettes and in NRTs is pharmaceutical grade (according to USP or Eur. Ph.). Additionally, he probably did not notice the 2 characteristic examples I mentioned in my previous comment about the use of extremely high levels of nicotine in laboratory experiments which are irrelevant to realistic exposure of smokers [3,4].
There is no need to performed randomized trials asking participants to use a potentially harmful substance, as Krupp suggests. There is extensive epidemiological evidence derived from the long-term use of snus. Snus provides similar, if not higher amounts, of nicotine to users on a daily basis. Sweden has a high rate of tobacco use among men, but snus use by far exceeds smoking in this population [5]. As a result, Sweden has by far the lowest rates of lung cancer and cardiovascular disease than any other European country [5]. There is extensive epidemiological evidence that snus use poses (and in many cases no) risk in developing cancer and cardiovascular disease compared to NON-SMOKERS [6-8]. Considering that snus is a tobacco product which contains some toxins, it is more than evident that nicotine is highly unlikely to significantly contribute to the minimal adverse effects caused by snus. Thus, use of cleaner nicotine-containing products (such as snus or e-cigarettes) to substitute smoking will have tremendous health benefits for smokers. This should be clearly communicated to smokers. Although the ideal scenario would be to quit smoking without using any aid or to use approved smoking-cessation medications, the vast majority of smokers fail. Thus, we are ethically obliged to provide them with less harmful alternatives. It would be unethical to mislead smokers by distorting evidence and consider cleaner nicotine-containing products as equally or more harmful than smoking.
It is concerning that scientists completely ignore human epidemiological evidence but continue to support laboratory evidence. However, even laboratory studies have never shown than nicotine is equally or more harmful than smoking. Public health, as any other scientific field, should be based on unbiased presentation of evidence.
References
[1] Krupp K. Re: Evidence about electronic cigarettes: a foundation built on rock or sand? BMJ 2014. 351: h4863 (http://www.bmj.com/content/351/bmj.h4863/rr-23).
[2] Farsalinos K. Evidence about nicotine toxicity and the dry puff phenomenon. BMJ 2014. 351: h4863 (http://www.bmj.com/content/351/bmj.h4863/rr-13).
[3] Galitovskiy V, Chernyavsky AI, Edwards RA, Grando SA. Muscle sarcomas and alopecia in A/J mice chronically treated with nicotine. Life Sci. 2012;91:1109–1112.
[4] Bavarva JH, Tae H, Settlage RE, Garner HR. Characterizing the Genetic Basis for Nicotine Induced Cancer Development: A Transcriptome Sequencing Study. PLoS One. 2013 Jun 18;8(6):e67252.
[5] Ramstrom L, Wilkams T. Mortality attributable to tobacco among men in Sweden and other European countries: an analysis of data in a WHO report.
[6] Lee PN, Hamling J. Systematic review of the relation between smokeless tobacco and cancer in Europe and North America. BMC Med. 2009 Jul 29;7:36.
[7] Huhtasaari F, Lundberg V, Eliasson M, Janlert U, Asplund K. Smokeless tobacco as a possible risk factor for myocardial infarction: a population-based study in middle-aged men. J Am Coll Cardiol. 1999;34(6):1784-90.
[8] Hansson J, Galanti MR, Hergens MP, Fredlund P, Ahlbom A, Alfredsson L, Bellocco R, Engström G, Eriksson M, Hallqvist J, Hedblad B, Jansson JH, Pedersen NL, Trolle Lagerros Y, Ostergren PO, Magnusson C. Snus (Swedish smokeless tobacco) use and risk of stroke: pooled analyses of incidence and survival. J Intern Med. 2014;276(1):87-95.
Competing interests: Two of my studies on e-cigarettes (unpublished yet) were performed using unrestricted funds provided to the institution Onassis Cardiac Surgery Center) by e-cigarette companies in 2013.
I read Konstantinos Farsalinos BMJ rapid response entitled ‘Evidence about nicotine toxicity and the dry puff phenomenon’ with interest[1]. He suggests that Grimsrud and others are being alarmist in contending that nicotine has an effect on cancer[2]. His only evidence appears to be recent reviews by Sanner et al and Grando that fail to present anything other than ‘laboratory studies’[2, 3]. He further argues that “in many (if not most) cases the amount of nicotine used in the experiments is by far larger than applicable to human smokers” without providing any substantiating evidence. This selective presentation of the available research misrepresents both the importance and trajectory of findings on nicotine toxicity and carcinogenicity.
Farsalinos does not mention that there are human in vivo and in vitro studies showing an association between nicotine and cancer[4, 5]. Brown et al conducted a case-control study that showed a 2.0 increased odds of reporting nicotine spray insecticide use among leukemia cases as compared to controls (95% CI: 1.2-3.4)[4]. Basu et al’s study (which appears in Grando’s review) also demonstrated that nicotine was associated with human gallbladder cancer [5]. Farsalinos also does not explain that many of the studies reviewed by Sanner et al and Grando were conducted using human tissues and provided convincing evidence that nicotine causes human DNA damage[6, 7], promoted the growth of carcinoma cells[8], and enhanced proliferation and migration of human malignant cells[9].
Studies assessing chemical toxicity or carcinogenicity are usually conducted in three ways: (a) research on accidental exposures to a substance; (b) in vitro studies using human and animal cells/cell lines; and (c) in vivo exposure involving experimental animals[10]. It would be unethical to expose people to potentially toxic or carcinogenic chemicals in order to assess safety; the lack of such studies in humans is therefore unsurprising. This pattern of omissions and misrepresentations can also be seen in Farsalinos’s contention that ‘The Lung Study’ provides evidence of the safety of nicotine replacement therapy since he does not mention the study’s limitations. The authors explain that they include confounding between historical smoking and current smoking; confounding between current smoking and current nicotine replacement; and limited exposure time (five years) that would not usually be assumed to result in cancer [11].
In conclusion, Farsalinos arguments appear more rhetorical than scientific. A thoughtful analysis of the literature describing a role for nicotine in cancer is extensive and concerning. The jury is still out on whether the nicotine concentrations and exposures found in e-cigarettes pose health risks. Evidence to date however, suggests a need for caution and further research.
1. Farsalinos K, Evidence about nicotine toxicity and the dry puff phenomenon. BMJ 2014. 351: h4863.
2. Sanner, T. and T.K. Grimsrud, Nicotine: Carcinogenicity and Effects on Response to Cancer Treatment - A Review. Front Oncol, 2015. 5: p. 196.
3. Grando, S.A., Connections of nicotine to cancer. Nat Rev Cancer, 2014. 14(6): p. 419-29.
4. Brown LM, B.A., Gibson R, et al. . 1990; 50: . Pesticide exposures and other agricultural risk factors for leukemia among men in Iowa and Minnesota. Cancer Res 1990. 50: p. 6585-91.
5. Basu, S., et al., Role of nicotine in gallbladder carcinoma: a preliminary report. J Dig Dis, 2012. 13(10): p. 536-40.
6. Ginzkey, C., et al., Nicotine induces DNA damage in human salivary glands. Toxicol Lett, 2009. 184(1): p. 1-4.
7. Ginzkey, C., et al., Analysis of nicotine-induced DNA damage in cells of the human respiratory tract. Toxicol Lett, 2012. 208(1): p. 23-9.
8. Shi, D., et al., Nicotine promotes proliferation of human nasopharyngeal carcinoma cells by regulating alpha7AChR, ERK, HIF-1alpha and VEGF/PEDF signaling. PLoS One, 2012. 7(8): p. e43898.
9. Khalil, A.A., et al., Nicotine enhances proliferation, migration, and radioresistance of human malignant glioma cells through EGFR activation. Brain Tumor Pathol, 2013. 30(2): p. 73-83.
10. Parasuraman, S., Toxicological screening. J Pharmacol Pharmacother, 2011. 2(2): p. 74-9.
11. Murray, R.P., J.E. Connett, and L.M. Zapawa, Does nicotine replacement therapy cause cancer? Evidence from the Lung Health Study. Nicotine Tob Res, 2009. 11(9): p. 1076-82.
Competing interests: No competing interests
The rapid response from Strongin, Peyton and Pankow of Portland State University [1] adds a note of irony and pathos to this discussion. Public Health England and many others have been increasingly concerned that public perceptions of the relative risk of smoking and vaping are wildly out of line with the best available evidence. There is now a great deal showing vaping to be much less risky than smoking [2][3]. If smokers believe that switching to vaping offers little or no risk reduction, then they may prefer to stay with the devil they know, or even to relapse back to it. But how do smokers acquire the perception that there is little or no reduction in risk? One likely explanation is the work of scientists like Strongin and colleagues, who published a research letter summarising measurements of formaldehyde hemiacetal emissions from e-cigarettes [4] claiming that:
"...long-term vaping is associated with an incremental lifetime cancer risk of 4.2×10−3. This risk is 5 times as high (...), or even 15 times as high (...) as the risk associated with long-term smoking".
Unsurprisingly this claim of elevated cancer-risk created a world-wide media storm and will have implanted the idea that e-cigarette use can have serious cancer risks - possibly more so than smoking. The only trouble is that the measurements were made in completely unrealistic conditions that no human subject would experience for more than an unpleasant instant, let alone the whole lifetime on which these cancer risk calculations were based. I and others have detailed the failings in this methodology and called for the paper to be retracted [5], making criticisms to which the authors have been unable to respond. Strongin et al’s swipe at Farsalinos et al (their reference 3) suggests they still have not assimilated the lessons of this episode. However, the damage is done, the media storm has blown through and public perceptions have been adversely altered to be further from the underlying reality. The Portland study is merely the worst of many examples of studies with flawed methodologies or misleading presentation of risk that have entered the public consciousness, originating in universities hungry for publicity and grants and then popularised and embellished in the news media hungry for sensation and internet clicks.
A responsible public health agency like Public Health England is professionally obliged to provide a counterweight to this malign dynamic. Its aim should be to ensure that public perceptions of risk and uncertainty are as closely aligned as possible to the what the science is really showing and what genuine experts assess the risks to be. In this way, it respectfully assists the public in making informed choices about their risky behaviours. This is exactly what they have done in commissioning two leading scientists in the field to provide an evidence assessment and by communicating that vaping is likely to be about 95% lower risk than smoking. If there is a legitimate criticism of the PHE’s risk communication, it is that it probably overstates the residual risks and includes a large margin for unknown future effects. Based on what is known of vapour constituents compared to cigarette smoke, it is likely that vaping is at least 95% safer than smoking and it is possible that it will have no mortal risks at all. So PHE is taking both a cautious and responsible approach, and not leaving it to the public to form their perceptions from media spin and hype.
Strongin et al incorrectly suggest that I might be in “fear of regulation" (their reference 4). I am opposed to excessive regulation or regulating these products as medicines. The simple reason for this is that piling pointless costs, burdens and restrictions onto the vaping industry simply creates regulatory barriers that protect the cigarette trade and keep smokers smoking, while shaping the regulatory regime for nicotine products to suit the business model of Big Tobacco to the exclusion of everyone else. I favour moderate regulation that improves health and safety, builds consumer confidence and removes any rogue traders or products from the market. I fear that many well-meaning public health activists do not really understand how regulation and markets interact, and that getting tough on harm reduction is little different to promoting harm.
[1] Strongin R, Peyton D, Pankow J. Harm Reduction is Not Well-Served by Bias, Rapid Response BMJ 2015;351:h4863 http://www.bmj.com/content/351/bmj.h4863/rr-18
[2] Burstyn I. Peering through the mist: systematic review of what the chemistry of contaminants in electronic cigarettes tells us about health risks. BMC Public Health 2014;14:18. doi:10.1186/1471-2458-14-18 http://www.biomedcentral.com/1471-2458/14/18
[3] Farsalinos KE, Polosa R. Safety evaluation and risk assessment of electronic cigarettes as tobacco cigarette substitutes: a systematic review. Ther Adv Drug Saf 2014;5:67–86. doi:10.1177/2042098614524430 http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4110871/
[4] Jensen RP, Luo W, Pankow JF, et al. Hidden formaldehyde in e-cigarette aerosols. N Engl J Med 2015;372:392–4. doi:10.1056/NEJMc1413069 http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMc1413069
[5] Bates CD, Farsalinos KE. Research letter on e-cigarette cancer risk was so misleading it should be retracted. Addiction 2015;110:1686–7. doi:10.1111/add.13018 http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/add.13018/full
Competing interests: Non-financial: Clive Bates is a long-standing advocate of ‘tobacco harm reduction’ as a public health strategy and has written extensively on e-cigarettes at www.clivebates.com. He was Director of the UK campaigning charity Action on Smoking and Health from 1997-2003. He receives no funding from tobacco, e-cigarette or pharmaceutical industries.
Harm Reduction is Not Well-Served by Bias
McKee and Capewell are measured voices of reason in the current climate of negativity that is promulgated by some in the e-cigarette industry, its lobbyists, users, and by some who sincerely hope that e-cigarettes will greatly reduce global tobacco addiction. The reality is that e-cigarettes will never be risk free, and so it serves no positive purpose to attack studies and discussions on e-cigarette risks and safety. The tactic of constantly shifting the entire debate to “e-cigarettes are safer than tobacco,” is a diversion from the needed discussion of the actual benefits and dangers of e-cigarette use, and it polarizes the conversation, demonizing anyone who questions the safety of e-cigarettes as undermining smokers attempting to quit tobacco.
From our experience, as well as that of others, independent researchers and public health professionals should expect to have their work taken out of context, and be subjected to aggressive trolling. [1,2] Even “harm reductionist” journal editors fuel the conspiracy theories with generalizations, accusing unnamed colleagues of ulterior motives: “bad studies on e-cigarettes are easy to do and easy to get into top journals, which are hungry for publicity. Good studies are hard to do and are difficult to get into top journals if they do not lead to scare stories.” [2]
Researchers funded by the e-cigarette industry also contribute to these issues. For example, as a result of limited trials, it has been suggested that e-cigarettes can be self-regulated by users. [3] However, it is worth remembering that the harm even from traditional cigarettes does not appear until after decades of use, as revealed by studies over large populations.
Why the over-the-top, aggressive attacks on McKee and Capewell’s questioning of e-cigarette safety? Fear of regulation? [4]
McKee and Capewell advocate evidence-based health policy via critical evaluation of all of the relevant scientific data without bias. Such an approach is not only more helpful to health practitioners than industry lobbying, but also best enables long term harm reduction.
References
1. Gornall, J. BMJ 2015;350:h3317 doi: 10.1136/bmj.h3317.
2. http://vaperanks.com/e-cigarette-industry-plans-to-make-critics-pay-for-...
3. For example, Farsalinos, K. E.; Voudris, V.; Poulas, K. Addiction, 2015, 110, 1352-1356.
4. http://www.pharmaceutical-journal.com/opinion/comment/stop-demonising-a-...
Competing interests: No competing interests
Fifteen questions to clear the fog around e-cigarettes.
Recently there has been much debate of various kinds about e-cigarettes and we have contributed in a small way to it (1-7). However, there is still a need for greater clarity. Succinct research based answers to the following fifteen questions may help to provide a clearer way forward.
Enjoyment
1. If a product is enjoyable and harmless why shouldn’t individuals be freely allowed to use it?
Health
2. Are e-cigarettes safer than traditional cigarettes?
3. Do e-cigarettes encourage traditional smokers to cut down or quit?
4. Is the long-term use of nicotine however used harmful?
5. Are the other ingredients used in e-cigarettes harmful?
6. Do we know the long term health consequences of e-cigarettes?
7. Are manufacturers free to add what they want to e-cigarettes?
Marketing
8. Would manufacturers promote a product that is harmful?
9. Are e-cigarettes encouraging non-smokers to smoke traditional cigarettes?
10. Are non-smokers being encouraged to smoke e-cigarettes?
11. Are sufficient steps being taken to ensure that young people are not encouraged to use e-cigarettes as a lifestyle choice?
12. Will the promotion of e-cigarettes be driven by a business or public health model or both?
13. Will the marketing of e-cigarettes in high income countries encourage people to smoke in low and middle income countries?
Research
14. Do we need more research into the efficacy and marketing of e-cigarettes?
History
15. Are there lessons to be learned from the promotion of traditional cigarettes?
References
1) Institute of Health Promotion and Education. IHPE Position Statement: Electronic Cigarettes. Sept. 2014. [viewed 22 September 2015]. Available from: http://ihpe.org.uk/2014/09/ihpe-position-statement-electronic-cigarettes/
2) LLOYD J. President’s Letter. International Journal of Health Promotion and Education. Vol 52, No 2, 116-117. 2014
3) WATSON M C and FORSHAW M, 2014. Re: Regulation of electronic cigarettes British Medical Journal Rapid Response 10th September 2014.
4) WATSON M C and FORSHAW M, 2014. Re: E-cigarettes latest: users on the up but rules tighten British Medical Journal Rapid Response 28th October 2014.
5) WATSON M C and FORSHAW M, 2015. Re: Why e-cigarettes are dividing the public health community British Medical Journal Rapid Response 28th June 2015.
6) WATSON M C and FORSHAW M, 2015. Why we shouldn’t normalise the use of e-cigarettes BMJ 2015;351:h3770.
7) WATSON M C and LLOYD J, 2015. Re: Fuming about e-cigarettes and harm British Medical Journal Rapid Response 28th August 2015.
Competing interests: No competing interests
Sir,
It seems that since the publication of the Public Health England report (https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/fil...) there is more confusion on the topic of electronic cigarettes then ever before.
The commentary published in this journal, and the Lancet (http://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736%2815%2900...) along with the mainstream media (Guardian - http://www.theguardian.com/society/2015/sep/15/experts-criticise-public-... ; ITV News - http://www.itv.com/news/2015-09-16/experts-criticise-flimsy-public-healt... ; Daily Telegraph - http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/science/science-news/11866220/Scientists...) to highlight a few only serves to confuse the general public even further.
It does concern me that, as a user of electronic cigarettes, I often get told by existing smokers and non-smokers that the device I am using is "as harmful as cigarettes" (Action on Smoking & Health: http://www.ash.org.uk/files/documents/ASH_891.pdf pg. 7) when in fact, as the user of said device after being a 60 a day smoker for 20 years, I can state that from my own perspective the effects of being a long-term smoker (shortness of breath, horrible coughs, lack of energy, lack of taste) have all but disappeared.
The ongoing head to head ideological "war" being conducted by Professors McKee and Capewell doesn't serve the good of the public and could in fact be considered harmful to the health and well being of the public.
I chose to smoke, and I chose to use an electronic cigarette. Those choices were mine, and mine alone. This debate, whilst far from over needs to take into account the people who are using these devices, and by extension why they are using them.
Competing interests: No competing interests
I started to smoke when I was 14, I stopped overnight when I was 40 when I bought my first e-cig.
Through my twenties & thirties I had tried to quit on numerous occasions using nearly all the cessation products and support available, but failed many times and had reached the point when I had given up giving up.
Since I switched to vaping I have persuaded smoking friends and family to switch, most have switched from smoking completely.
However in the last 12 months, something has changed, smokers are increasingly convinced that vaping is either just as bad or in some cases even worse than smoking.
I deal with serious risks on a daily basis, I know it is very difficult to precisely quantify a risk numerically but basic toxicology and nearly 10 years use in the population confirms that vaping is orders of magnitude less harmful than smoking.
To cast doubt or play down this central fact with concerns about relatively very minor and and as yet theoretical risks only leads to confusion amongst smokers. Ultimately less smokers will switch and more will die.
Competing interests: No competing interests
I'm not a scientist. I smoked for 43 yrs. and stopped after I tried my first vaporizer. It's been 15 months and I feel better. I don't know what else to say. I couldn't quit and now I have. Why can't that be enough? I'm an adult, using an adult product. I am informed.
Competing interests: No competing interests
Response to McKee and Capewell
Below is a response to the central assertions of McKee and Capewell's analysis [1] of Public Health England's (PHE) report [2] on e-cigarettes (EC).
1. McKee and Capewell: “ …reduced smoking (as opposed to quitting) may not reduce overall risk of death [3].”
RESPONSE: Meta-analyses and a systematic review show that reduced smoking improves outcomes [4,5].
Moreover, McKee and Capewell’s citation [3] derives from cohorts showing similar toxicant exposure among reducers and non-reducers, indicating compensatory inhalation [6]. This would be expected without an alternate nicotine source. Conversely, dual users supplement their nicotine intake and should reduce their toxicant exposure per cigarette [7-9].
Indeed, EC interventions precede decreased CO and acrolein exposure among continuing smokers [10-13]. Additionally, dual use has already been shown to improve lung function [14,15] and pulmonary health [15,16].
While one cross-sectional study showed no reduced exposure among dual users [17], it measured only for weekly EC use (L Shahab, Personal communication). Furthermore, it cannot exclude longitudinal reductions.
2. McKee and Capewell: “The expression 'dual use'… rarely occurs in the PHE report”.
RESPONSE: Searching the report for the precise term “dual use” fails to uncover an entire section titled “Use of e-cigarettes while smoking” (cf. [18]).
3. McKee and Capewell: "Two thirds of EC users also smoke."
RESPONSE: Definitions are crucial: Smokers who occasionally vape and vapers who occasionally smoke are all ‘dual users’, yet their health risks are disparate. Most daily EC users don’t smoke regularly [19,20].
4. McKee and Capewell: “Dual use among daily 'vapers' apparently remained above 80% after 12 months follow-up.“
RESPONSE: PHE's report addresses this study, explaining that since only EC users who have failed to quit cigarettes were recruited, efficacy is invariably underestimated. Nevertheless, dedicated EC use while smoking strongly predicts future cessation [21,22].
Multi-year cohorts and randomized trials show that using nicotine replacements, smokeless tobacco or cessation drugs together with smoking increases future smoking cessation [23-29]. It is inconceivable that ECs promote the opposite.
5. McKee and Capewell: “The recent Cochrane review… concluded that the evidence was of 'low or very low quality by GRADE standards'.”
RESPONSE: The 'low' rating (downgraded from ‘moderate’) stems from the finding that the device in one trial delivers nicotine poorly, meaning effectiveness is underestimated. The 'very low' grade relates to the randomization against NRT, not absolute efficacy.
Furthermore, the GRADE ratings are relevant only to clinical trial results, but the Cochrane Review presents many other cogent lines of evidence [30].
Additionally, PHE’s conclusion that “recent studies support the Cochrane Review findings“ is entirely ignored.
6. McKee and Capewell: “The PHE report authors concede the weakness of the evidence, noting how a single observational study with substantial limitations offers 'some of the best evidence to date on the effectiveness of EC for use in quit attempts.'”
RESPONSE: These “substantial limitations” – namely, being “unable to explore prospective predictors of quitting, including pre-quit nicotine dependence” [2] – would, if anything, bias against a positive outcome (smokers switching to EC evidently being more dependent than those confident abstaining entirely). Though, the study went beyond adjustments typically undertaken, including controlling for pre-quit dependence indirectly [31].
7. McKee and Capewell: “… a recent systematic review, which the PHE report surprisingly fails to cite, came to a different conclusion.”
RESPONSE: The mentioned review largely neglects comparing toxicant levels to tobacco smoke, or even to consider the clinical significance of findings [32], while ignoring important systematic reviews which have successfully done so [33-35].
Moreover, its misrepresentation of almost every major issue in EC toxicology include the statements:
I. “Some studies found high maximum concentrations of total TSNA”, citing studies showing TSNAs 200-1,800 times below cigarette smoke levels [36-38].
II. “Exposure to formaldehyde was comparable with smoking", referring to a study calculating formaldehyde levels nine times below that from tobacco smoke [36].
III. “Propylene glycol has been found to exacerbate and/or induce multiple allergic symptoms in children”, citing a study stating that "apparently… outcomes were not driven by propylene glycol” [39].
IV. “Values below the threshold limit don't necessarily protect against the health effect of 200–300 daily inhalations over decades”, referring to safety limits calculated for 8 hours exposures “day after day, over a working lifetime” [40].
V. “These metals appear on the U.S. Food and Drug Administration's 'Harmful and Potentially Harmful Chemicals' list”, referring to metals detected below levels acceptable to the FDA for chronic inhalation [7,41-43].
8. McKee and Capewell attack the 95% estimate for "coming from" an analysis they dismiss on basis of limitations and conflicts of interests.
RESPONSE: This is surprising considering that PHE’s report independently assesses the toxicology, concluding that the figure "appears to remain a reasonable estimate" [2].
9. McKee and Capewell: “The authors categorically dismiss the possibility that e-cigarettes may be a gateway to smoking.”
RESPONSE: They do not [2]. They explain that gateway terminology is “poorly defined”, suggesting its use be contingent upon a framework of how the theory can be tested. Tentative evidence that ECs divert youth away from smoking was also noted.
McKee and Capewell’s alleged “emerging evidence” for the gateway hypothesis uses methodology invalidated in PHE’s report.
10. McKee and Capewell: “The PHE report seems to equate lack of evidence with evidence of lack of effect. It claims that there is 'no identified risk to bystanders,' a view that may be premature.”
RESPONSE: Reporting "no identified risk" never precludes hypothetical discoveries. However, the report shows that continuous passive exposure levels are 1,000 times below active levels, the latter being below levels known to cause harm [44].
Exaggerating the harms of passive vaping likely damages public health, as outlined elsewhere [45].
11. McKee and Capewell: “… a consensus may be emerging: the English chief medical officer recently said that if EC have a role in smoking cessation that should be as 'licensed medicines.'”
RESPONSE: In reality, a wide range of experts contend that such policies may protect cigarette sales, as outlined in PHE's report [7,46-51].
References
[1] McKee M, Capewell S. Evidence about electronic cigarettes: a foundation built on rock or sand?. BMJ 2015;:h4863. doi:10.1136/bmj.h4863
[2] McNeill A, Brose LS, Calder R, et al. E-cigarettes: an evidence update: a report commissioned by Public Health England. Public Health England, 2015
[3] Godtfredsen NS, Holst C, Prescott E, et al. Smoking reduction, smoking cessation, and mortality: a 16-year follow-up of 19,732 men and women from the Copenhagen Centre for Prospective Population Studies. Am J Epidemiol 2002;156:994-1001.
[4] Pisinger C, Godtfredsen N. Is there a health benefit of reduced tobacco consumption? A systematic review. Nicotine & Tobacco Res 2007;9:631-646. doi:10.1080/14622200701365327
[5] Lee PN. The effect of reducing the number of cigarettes smoked on risk of lung cancer, COPD, cardiovascular disease and FEV(1)--a review. Regul Toxicol Pharmacol 2013;67:372-81. doi:10.1016/j.yrtph.2013.08.016
[6] Godtfredsen N, Prescott E, Vestbo J et al. Smoking reduction and biomarkers in two longitudinal studies. Addiction 2006;101:1516-1522. doi:10.1111/j.1360-0443.2006.01542.x
[7] Abrams D, Axéll T, Bartsch P, et al. Comment on a letter urging WHO to treat electronic cigarettes as tobacco products or medicines: the importance of dispassionate presentation and interpretation of evidence. Nicotine Science and Policy, 26 Jun, 2014. http://nicotinepolicy.com/n-s-p/2003-glantz-letter-to-who-the-importance...
[8] Farsalinos K, LeHouezec J. Regulation in the face of uncertainty: the evidence on electronic nicotine delivery systems (e-cigarettes). RMHP 2015;:157. doi:10.2147/rmhp.s62116
[9] Brose L, Hitchman S, Brown J et al. Is the use of electronic cigarettes while smoking associated with smoking cessation attempts, cessation and reduced cigarette consumption? A survey with a 1-year follow-up. Addiction 2015;110:1160-1168. doi:10.1111/add.12917
[10] Polosa R, Morjaria J, Caponnetto P et al. Effectiveness and tolerability of electronic cigarette in real-life: a 24-month prospective observational study. Intern Emerg Med 2013;9:537-546. doi:10.1007/s11739-013-0977-z
[11] Polosa R, Caponnetto P, Maglia M et al. Success rates with nicotine personal vaporizers: a prospective 6-month pilot study of smokers not intending to quit. BMC Public Health 2014;14:1159. doi:10.1186/1471-2458-14-1159
[12] Caponnetto P, Auditore R, Russo C et al. Impact of an Electronic Cigarette on Smoking Reduction and Cessation in Schizophrenic Smokers: A Prospective 12-Month Pilot Study. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health 2013;10:446-461. doi:10.3390/ijerph10020446
[13] McRobbie H, Phillips A, Goniewicz M et al. Effects of Switching to Electronic Cigarettes with and without Concurrent Smoking on Exposure to Nicotine, Carbon Monoxide, and Acrolein. Cancer Prevention Research 2015;8:873-878. doi:10.1158/1940-6207.capr-15-0058
[14] Polosa R, Morjaria J, Caponnetto P et al. Effect of Smoking Abstinence and Reduction in Asthmatic Smokers Switching to Electronic Cigarettes: Evidence for Harm Reversal. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health 2014;11:4965-4977. doi:10.3390/ijerph110504965
[15] Washington-Krauth S, Burns T, Walters R. Changes in lung function over time after initiation of E-cigarette use. Abstract presented at the 21st annual meeting of the Society for Research on Nicotine and Tobacco, Philadelphia, PA. 2015. https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Binnian_Wei/publication/272788460_S...
[16] Farsalinos K, Romagna G, Tsiapras D et al. Characteristics, Perceived Side Effects and Benefits of Electronic Cigarette Use: A Worldwide Survey of More than 19,000 Consumers. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health 2014;11:4356-4373. doi:10.3390/ijerph110404356
[17] Shahab L, Goniewicz M, Alwis U et al. Exposure to selected toxicants and carcinogens as a function of smoking status and long-term use of nicotine replacement therapy or electronic cigarettes. Abstract presented at the 21st annual meeting of the Society for Research on Nicotine and Tobacco, Philadelphia, PA. 2015. https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Binnian_Wei/publication/272788460_S...
[18] McKee M, Capewell S. Re: Evidence about electronic cigarettes: a foundation built on rock or sand?. Bmj.com. 2015.http://www.bmj.com/content/351/bmj.h4863/rr-2 (accessed 1 Dec 2015).
[19] Amato M, Boyle R, Levy D. How to define e-cigarette prevalence? Finding clues in the use frequency distribution. Tobacco Control Published Online First: 2015. doi:10.1136/tobaccocontrol-2015-052236
[20] Action on Smoking and Health. Use of electronic cigarettes (vapourisers) among adults in Great Britain. 2015 .http://www.ash.org.uk/files/documents/ASH_891.pdf (accessed 1 Dec 2015).
[21] Etter J, Bullen C. A longitudinal study of electronic cigarette users. Addictive Behaviors 2014;39:491-494. doi:10.1016/j.addbeh.2013.10.028
[22] Biener L, Hargraves J. A Longitudinal Study of Electronic Cigarette Use Among a Population-Based Sample of Adult Smokers: Association With Smoking Cessation and Motivation to Quit. Nicotine & Tobacco Research 2014;17:127-133. doi:10.1093/ntr/ntu200
[23] National Institute for Health and Care Excellence. Tobacco-Harm Reduction Approaches to Smoking: Guidance. London, UK: National Institute for Health and Care Excellence; 2013. Available from: http://www.nice.org.uk/guidance/PH45.
[24] Klemperer E, Hughes J. Does the Magnitude of Reduction in Cigarettes Per Day Predict Smoking Cessation? A Qualitative Review. Nicotine & Tobacco Research Published Online First: 2015. doi:10.1093/ntr/ntv058
[25] Wu L, Sun S, He Y et al. Effect of Smoking Reduction Therapy on Smoking Cessation for Smokers without an Intention to Quit: An Updated Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health 2015;12:10235-10253. doi:10.3390/ijerph120910235
[26] Asfar T, Ebbert J, Klesges R et al. Do smoking reduction interventions promote cessation in smokers not ready to quit?. Addictive Behaviors 2011;36:764-768. doi:10.1016/j.addbeh.2011.02.003
[27] Frost-Pineda K, Appleton S, Fisher M et al. Does Dual Use Jeopardize the Potential Role of Smokeless Tobacco in Harm Reduction?. Nicotine & Tobacco Research 2010;12:1055-1067. doi:10.1093/ntr/ntq147
[28] Rodu B. Dual Use. Nicotine & Tobacco Research 2011;13:221-221. doi:10.1093/ntr/ntq234
[29] Lee P. Health risks related to dual use of cigarettes and snus – A systematic review. Regulatory Toxicology and Pharmacology 2014;69:125-134. doi:10.1016/j.yrtph.2013.10.007
[30] McRobbie H, Bullen C, Hartmann-Boyce J et al. Electronic cigarettes for smoking cessation and reduction. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews Published Online First: 1996. doi:10.1002/14651858.cd010216.pub2
[31] Brown J, Beard E, Kotz D et al. Real-world effectiveness of e-cigarettes when used to aid smoking cessation: a cross-sectional population study. Addiction 2014;109:1531-1540. doi:10.1111/add.12623
[32] Pisinger C, Døssing M. A systematic review of health effects of electronic cigarettes. Prev Med 2014;69:248-260. doi:10.1016/j.ypmed.2014.10.009
[33] Burstyn I. Peering through the mist: systematic review of what the chemistry of contaminants in electronic cigarettes tells us about health risks. BMC Public Health 2014;14:18. doi:10.1186/1471-2458-14-18
[34] Farsalinos KE, Polosa R. Safety evaluation and risk assessment of electronic cigarettes as tobacco cigarette substitutes: a systematic review. Ther Adv Drug Saf. 2014;5:67-86. doi:10.1177/2042098614524430
[35] Hajek P, Etter JF, Benowitz N et al. Electronic cigarettes: review of use, content, safety, effects on smokers and potential for harm and benefit. Addiction 2014;109:1801-1810. doi:10.1111/add.12659
[36] Goniewicz ML, Knysak J, Gawron M et al. Levels of selected carcinogens and toxicants in vapour from electronic cigarettes. Tob Control 2014;23:133-139. doi:10.1136/tobaccocontrol-2012-050859
[37] Kim HJ, Shin HS. Determination of tobacco-specific nitrosamines in replacement liquids of electronic cigarettes by liquid chromatography-tandem mass spectrometry. J Chromatogr A 2013;1291:48-55. doi:10.1016/j.chroma.2013.03.035
[38] Farsalinos KE, Romagna G, Voudris V. Authors miss the opportunity to discuss important public health implications. J Chromatogr A 2013;1312:155-156. doi:10.1016/j.chroma.2013.07.115
[39] Choi H, Schmidbauer N, Sundell J et al. Common Household Chemicals and the Allergy Risks in Pre-School Age Children. PLoS ONE 2010;5:e13423. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0013423
[40] ACGIH. Chemical Substances Introduction. acgih.org 2015. http://www.acgih.org/tlv-bei-guidelines/tlv-chemical-substances-introduc... (accessed 3 Dec 2015).
[41] Siegel M. Metals in Electronic Cigarette Vapor are Below USP Standards for Metals in Inhalation Medications. The Rest of the Story: Tobacco News Analysis and Commentary. 2013.http://tobaccoanalysis.blogspot.com/2013/04/metals-in-electronic-cigaret... (accessed 5 Dec 2015).
[42] Farsalinos K. Metals and nanoparticles in e-cigarettes. 2013.http://www.ecigarette-research.com/web/index.php/2013-04-07-09-50-07/201... (accessed 5 Dec 2015).
[43] Farsalinos K, Voudris V, Poulas K. Are Metals Emitted from Electronic Cigarettes a Reason for Health Concern? A Risk-Assessment Analysis of Currently Available Literature. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health 2015;12:5215-5232. doi:10.3390/ijerph120505215
[44] McNeill A, Hajek P. Underpinning evidence for the estimate that e-cigarette use is around 95% safer than smoking: authors’ note. Public Health England 2015. https://www. gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/ attachment_data/file/456704/McNeill-Hajek_ report_authors_note_on_evidence_for_95_ estimate.pdf (accessed 15 Dec 2015).
[45] Bates C. Wales vaping ban: silver lining may be larger than cloud. The counterfactual 2015.
http://www.clivebates.com/?p=3096 (accessed 20 Dec 2015).
[46] Bates C. 10 reasons not to regulate e-cigarettes as medicines. The counterfactual 2013. http://www.clivebates.com/?p=1252 (accessed 15 Dec 2015).
[47] Hajek P, Foulds J, Houezec J et al. Should e-cigarettes be regulated as a medicinal device?. The Lancet Respiratory Medicine 2013;1:429-431. doi:10.1016/s2213-2600(13)70124-3
[48] Hajek P, Etter J, Benowitz N et al. Electronic cigarettes: review of use, content, safety, effects on smokers and potential for harm and benefit. Addiction 2014;109:1801-1810. doi:10.1111/add.12659
[49] Caponnetto P, Saitta D, Sweanor D et al. What to consider when regulating electronic cigarettes: Pros, cons and unintended consequences. International Journal of Drug Policy 2015;26:554-559. doi:10.1016/j.drugpo.2015.03.001
[50] Farsalinos K, LeHouezec J. Regulation in the face of uncertainty: the evidence on electronic nicotine delivery systems (e-cigarettes). RMHP 2015;:157. doi:10.2147/rmhp.s62116
[51] Saitta D, Ferro G, Polosa R. Achieving appropriate regulations for electronic cigarettes. Therapeutic Advances in Chronic Disease 2014;5:50-61. doi:10.1177/2040622314521271
Competing interests: No competing interests