The potential of smoke-free products to reduce harm for smokers: what does the toxicological evidence say?

IF 3.8 3区 医学 Q1 MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL
Reinhard Niessner
{"title":"The potential of smoke-free products to reduce harm for smokers: what does the toxicological evidence say?","authors":"Reinhard Niessner","doi":"10.1007/s11739-025-04093-0","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>There continues to be a high prevalence of smoking in many European countries. In Germany, for example, there are over 20 million smokers, most of whom exhibit little desire to quit. In other countries, the adoption of smoke-free products (SFPs), including e-cigarettes (ECs), heated tobacco products (HTPs), and oral nicotine pouches (NPs), is helping smokers to transition away from cigarettes. In Germany, debate about SFPs primarily focuses on their potential harms to non-smokers, particularly the underage population. This debate seems one-sided: raising concerns alone does not sufficiently inform the 20 million smokers about the comparative health risks of cigarettes and SFPs, an issue increasingly echoed by practitioners and researchers. Instead, the current discourse is dominated by misconceptions, as evidenced by surveys on smokers' perceptions of the relative health risks of cigarettes and SFPs. Considering the gravity of the topic, it is essential to revisit the scientific facts. The growing evidence shows that SFPs, including ECs, HTPs, and NPs, expose users to significantly fewer numbers and lower concentrations of toxicants relative to combustible cigarettes. In vitro studies and biomarkers of harm in SFP users suggest that these lower emissions translate to reduced risks of harm. It is the nature of science that the evidence will never be complete, but the totality of data should be considered when discussing the correct handling of SFPs. At present, these data suggest that SFPs can play a useful role in curbing the individual and societal risks associated with smoking.</p>","PeriodicalId":13662,"journal":{"name":"Internal and Emergency Medicine","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":3.8000,"publicationDate":"2025-08-19","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/s11739-025-04093-0","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

There continues to be a high prevalence of smoking in many European countries. In Germany, for example, there are over 20 million smokers, most of whom exhibit little desire to quit. In other countries, the adoption of smoke-free products (SFPs), including e-cigarettes (ECs), heated tobacco products (HTPs), and oral nicotine pouches (NPs), is helping smokers to transition away from cigarettes. In Germany, debate about SFPs primarily focuses on their potential harms to non-smokers, particularly the underage population. This debate seems one-sided: raising concerns alone does not sufficiently inform the 20 million smokers about the comparative health risks of cigarettes and SFPs, an issue increasingly echoed by practitioners and researchers. Instead, the current discourse is dominated by misconceptions, as evidenced by surveys on smokers' perceptions of the relative health risks of cigarettes and SFPs. Considering the gravity of the topic, it is essential to revisit the scientific facts. The growing evidence shows that SFPs, including ECs, HTPs, and NPs, expose users to significantly fewer numbers and lower concentrations of toxicants relative to combustible cigarettes. In vitro studies and biomarkers of harm in SFP users suggest that these lower emissions translate to reduced risks of harm. It is the nature of science that the evidence will never be complete, but the totality of data should be considered when discussing the correct handling of SFPs. At present, these data suggest that SFPs can play a useful role in curbing the individual and societal risks associated with smoking.

无烟产品减少对吸烟者危害的潜力:毒理学证据怎么说?
在许多欧洲国家,吸烟率仍然很高。例如,在德国,有2000多万烟民,其中大多数人几乎没有戒烟的愿望。在其他国家,采用无烟产品(SFPs),包括电子烟(ECs)、加热烟草产品(HTPs)和口服尼古丁袋(NPs),正在帮助吸烟者从卷烟过渡。在德国,关于SFPs的争论主要集中在它们对非吸烟者,特别是未成年人的潜在危害上。这场争论似乎是一边倒的:仅仅提出关注并不能充分地让2000万吸烟者了解香烟和SFPs的相对健康风险,这一问题越来越得到从业者和研究人员的回应。相反,目前的论述被误解所主导,正如对吸烟者对香烟和SFPs相对健康风险的看法的调查所证明的那样。考虑到这个问题的严重性,有必要重新审视科学事实。越来越多的证据表明,与可燃香烟相比,包括ec、HTPs和NPs在内的SFPs使使用者接触到的有毒物质数量和浓度明显更低。体外研究和对SFP使用者有害的生物标志物表明,这些较低的排放物转化为降低的危害风险。科学的本质是证据永远不会是完整的,但在讨论如何正确处理SFPs时,应该考虑数据的全面性。目前,这些数据表明,SFPs可以在遏制与吸烟相关的个人和社会风险方面发挥有益的作用。
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:604180095
Book学术官方微信