Association between electronic cigarette use and respiratory outcomes among people with no established smoking history: a comprehensive review and critical appraisal.

IF 3.2 3区 医学 Q1 MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL
Arielle Selya, Giusy Rita Maria La Rosa, Lucia Spicuzza, Jaymin B Morjaria, Grazia Caci, Riccardo Polosa
{"title":"Association between electronic cigarette use and respiratory outcomes among people with no established smoking history: a comprehensive review and critical appraisal.","authors":"Arielle Selya, Giusy Rita Maria La Rosa, Lucia Spicuzza, Jaymin B Morjaria, Grazia Caci, Riccardo Polosa","doi":"10.1007/s11739-025-03894-7","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Nicotine consumption in many countries is shifting away from combustible cigarettes and toward electronic cigarettes (ECs). Understanding the overall population-level impact requires weighing their possible benefits (e.g., for smoking cessation/switching) vs harms (e.g., long-term health risks). However, current evidence on health risks is limited by the absence of long-term data and confounding by prior cigarette smoking history. Focusing on short- to medium-term respiratory outcomes associated with EC use among people who never smoked (PWNS) is informative. We perform a narrative review and critical appraisal of studies examining the prospective association between exclusive EC use and respiratory outcomes among PWNS (either true never-smoking or never-established smoking). We included 12 studies with prospective designs that examine a range of respiratory outcomes subsequent to EC use among PWNS. Eight studies did not find statistically significant differences in respiratory risk associated with baseline EC use. The remaining five studies reported a significant association in at least one analysis, but in four of these studies, associations were not robust across models. Limitations included overreliance on data from the U.S. Population Assessment of Tobacco and Health, uncertain directionality (i.e., pre-existing respiratory conditions were not always ruled out), confounding by other combustible tobacco use, and small sample sizes. All but one study lacked clear and statistically significant evidence of self-reported respiratory diagnoses associated with EC use among PWNS, or showed a tenuous association with mild respiratory symptoms. This has favorable implications for ECs' population health impact; however, small sample sizes and statistical biases limit this evidence. A formal systematic review on this topic is forthcoming.</p>","PeriodicalId":13662,"journal":{"name":"Internal and Emergency Medicine","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":3.2000,"publicationDate":"2025-02-24","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Internal and Emergency Medicine","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s11739-025-03894-7","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Nicotine consumption in many countries is shifting away from combustible cigarettes and toward electronic cigarettes (ECs). Understanding the overall population-level impact requires weighing their possible benefits (e.g., for smoking cessation/switching) vs harms (e.g., long-term health risks). However, current evidence on health risks is limited by the absence of long-term data and confounding by prior cigarette smoking history. Focusing on short- to medium-term respiratory outcomes associated with EC use among people who never smoked (PWNS) is informative. We perform a narrative review and critical appraisal of studies examining the prospective association between exclusive EC use and respiratory outcomes among PWNS (either true never-smoking or never-established smoking). We included 12 studies with prospective designs that examine a range of respiratory outcomes subsequent to EC use among PWNS. Eight studies did not find statistically significant differences in respiratory risk associated with baseline EC use. The remaining five studies reported a significant association in at least one analysis, but in four of these studies, associations were not robust across models. Limitations included overreliance on data from the U.S. Population Assessment of Tobacco and Health, uncertain directionality (i.e., pre-existing respiratory conditions were not always ruled out), confounding by other combustible tobacco use, and small sample sizes. All but one study lacked clear and statistically significant evidence of self-reported respiratory diagnoses associated with EC use among PWNS, or showed a tenuous association with mild respiratory symptoms. This has favorable implications for ECs' population health impact; however, small sample sizes and statistical biases limit this evidence. A formal systematic review on this topic is forthcoming.

在没有吸烟史的人群中,电子烟使用与呼吸结果之间的关系:一项全面审查和批判性评价。
许多国家的尼古丁消费正从可燃香烟转向电子香烟。了解总体人口水平的影响需要权衡其可能的益处(例如,戒烟/转换吸烟)与危害(例如,长期健康风险)。然而,目前关于健康风险的证据受到长期数据缺乏和既往吸烟史混杂的限制。关注与从未吸烟(PWNS)的人使用电子烟相关的中短期呼吸结果是有益的。我们对专门使用EC与PWNS(真正不吸烟或从未吸烟)呼吸结局之间的前瞻性关联的研究进行了叙述性回顾和批判性评估。我们纳入了12项前瞻性设计的研究,检查了PWNS患者使用EC后的一系列呼吸结果。8项研究未发现与基线使用EC相关的呼吸风险有统计学上的显著差异。其余五项研究报告了至少在一项分析中存在显著关联,但在其中四项研究中,跨模型的关联并不强。局限性包括过度依赖美国烟草与健康人口评估的数据、不确定的方向性(即先前存在的呼吸系统疾病并不总是被排除在外)、其他可燃烟草使用的混淆以及样本量小。除一项研究外,所有研究均缺乏明确且具有统计学意义的证据,证明自我报告的呼吸诊断与PWNS患者使用EC相关,或显示与轻度呼吸症状的微弱关联。这有利于欧共体对人口健康的影响;然而,小样本量和统计偏差限制了这一证据。即将对这一主题进行正式的系统审查。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Internal and Emergency Medicine
Internal and Emergency Medicine 医学-医学:内科
CiteScore
7.20
自引率
4.30%
发文量
258
审稿时长
6-12 weeks
期刊介绍: Internal and Emergency Medicine (IEM) is an independent, international, English-language, peer-reviewed journal designed for internists and emergency physicians. IEM publishes a variety of manuscript types including Original investigations, Review articles, Letters to the Editor, Editorials and Commentaries. Occasionally IEM accepts unsolicited Reviews, Commentaries or Editorials. The journal is divided into three sections, i.e., Internal Medicine, Emergency Medicine and Clinical Evidence and Health Technology Assessment, with three separate editorial boards. In the Internal Medicine section, invited Case records and Physical examinations, devoted to underlining the role of a clinical approach in selected clinical cases, are also published. The Emergency Medicine section will include a Morbidity and Mortality Report and an Airway Forum concerning the management of difficult airway problems. As far as Critical Care is becoming an integral part of Emergency Medicine, a new sub-section will report the literature that concerns the interface not only for the care of the critical patient in the Emergency Department, but also in the Intensive Care Unit. Finally, in the Clinical Evidence and Health Technology Assessment section brief discussions of topics of evidence-based medicine (Cochrane’s corner) and Research updates are published. IEM encourages letters of rebuttal and criticism of published articles. Topics of interest include all subjects that relate to the science and practice of Internal and Emergency Medicine.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信