Arielle Selya, Giusy Rita Maria La Rosa, Lucia Spicuzza, Jaymin B Morjaria, Grazia Caci, Riccardo Polosa
{"title":"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。","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":"{\"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}","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}
Association between electronic cigarette use and respiratory outcomes among people with no established smoking history: a comprehensive review and critical appraisal.
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.
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.