Open Access
Open Peer Review

This article has Open Peer Review reports available.

How does Open Peer Review work?

Why public health people are more worried than excited over e-cigarettes

BMC Medicine201412:226

https://doi.org/10.1186/s12916-014-0226-y

Received: 4 November 2014

Accepted: 5 November 2014

Published: 9 December 2014

Abstract

The research field on e-cigarettes is characterized by severe methodological problems, severe conflicts of interest, relatively few and often small studies, inconsistencies and contradictions in results, and a lack of long-term follow-up. Therefore, no firm conclusions can be drawn on the harm of e-cigarettes, but they can hardly be called safe. Experimental studies indicate negative health effects and, amongst others, the major ingredient propylene glycol warrants concern. Growing evidence raises doubt about the efficacy of e-cigarettes as a smoking cessation aid. Unfortunately, it seems that many smokers use e-cigarettes with the intention to quit but switch to long-term use of e-cigarettes or dual use. Use is spreading rapidly to minors, ex-smokers, and never-smokers. It is questionable whether the potential health benefits obtained by some smokers outweigh the potential harm by use of non-smokers, of undermining of complete cessation, smokers’ dual use, and of eventual re-normalization of smoking. Even if e-cigarettes are significantly less harmful than conventional cigarettes, the product may have a very negative impact on public health if its use is spread to a large part of the population.

Keywords

Electronic cigarettes ENDS Harm reduction Public health Smoking Vaping

Background

When I first heard about the e-cigarette (EC), I was excited. Was this the miraculous alternative to conventional cigarettes (CC) that could prevent millions of peoples’ suffering? Today, big tobacco companies have bought up the market, sales are exploding, and I and many other health professionals are worried [1].

Some harm reduction advocates claim that public health professionals are just moralists with an aversion of nicotine, an addictive drug, leading to an illogical and unfair hatred of ECs. I believe this subject is of too large public health importance to resort to mudslinging.

The harm reduction strategy (replacing a very harmful product with a less harmful product) is common sense; however, history has unfortunately shown that common sense can do harm [2]. As a doctor, I have sworn “First Do No Harm”, as a researcher, I call for substantial evidence with very consistent findings, and as a public health professional, I am obliged to take long-term consequences for the whole population – both smokers and non-smokers – into account before recommending a new product.

The safety of e-cigarettes

ECs are marketed as safe products delivering pure nicotine and releasing harmless water vapor that vanishes in seconds [3],[4], but is this true? The research field is characterized by severe methodological problems, severe conflicts of interest, relatively few and often small studies, inconsistencies and contradictions in results, and a lack of long-term follow-up. Therefore, no firm conclusions can be drawn on the safety of ECs [5],[6], and much is left to subjective interpretations. Most probably ECs are less harmful than conventional cigarettes, but they can hardly be called safe. An experimental study found that cells exposed to high-nicotine vapor showed a similar pattern of gene expression to those exposed to tobacco smoke [7]. Very short-term experimental exposure to EC vapor showed effects that are reminiscent of the obstructive effects seen with smoking [8]-[10], even though the impact on lung function was smaller than with smoking. An experimental animal study found that EC fluid can exacerbate allergy-induced asthma symptoms [11]. Furthermore, a study found that the vapor induced release of cytokines and pro-inflammatory mediators [12] and many studies have found cytotoxicity [13],[14] and harmful substances in fluid and vapor (e.g., fine or ultrafine particles [15]-[17], harmful metals [13],[18], carcinogenic tobacco-specific nitrosamines [19]-[23], carbonyls [19],[21],[24],[25], volatile organic compounds [19],[26], polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons [18],[22]) or in urine [18]. It is true that most studies found low or very low concentrations, but values below the threshold-limit do not necessarily protect against a negative health effect of 200 to 300 daily inhalations [27] over decades.

The EC is a radically different product than the CC and, therefore, it seems wrong to base an assessment of the safety of EC on comparisons with CCs only. Of special concern are compounds not found in CCs: the glycols (propylene glycol and sometimes glycerin) are major ingredients of ECs [28]-[32] used to create the visible fume. A report commissioned by vapers and vendors of ECs concluded that “estimated levels of exposure to propylene glycol and glycerin are close enough to threshold-limit values to warrant concern” and that “the threshold-limit value is based on uncertainty rather than knowledge” [33]. Several studies on glycols have raised health concerns [34]-[37]. Other concerns are the flavors, metals, and silicone [13],[14],[38]. Finally, nicotine itself is probably not harmless [39], and it is highly addictive. Studies show that non-smokers passively exposed to ECs absorb nicotine [18],[40],[41].

Use of e-cigarettes is no longer restricted to smokers

In the first years, the ECs were bought by smokers only; however, recently, their use has also spread to ex-smokers [42]-[45] and never smokers [45]-[49]. The intensive marketing, the novelty, the use of celebrities as role models, and the candy-like flavors appeal to young people. Experimental use in minors has doubled within one year [45],[48],[50]. A high proportion of adolescents have tried ECs [46],[47],[49], even at age 12 to 14 years [47]. Of special concern is that young never-smokers are experimenting with ECs [45]-[49] and the use of ECs might undermine decades of efforts to de-normalize smoking [51]. A brand new study from Poland finds that almost every third adolescent is current user of ECs and more than every fifth has a dual use of CCs and ECs. However, the most alarming finding is that the prevalence of smoking increased with increasing rates of EC use, from 24% to 38% during a period of only three years, indicating a renormalization of smoking [52].

It would be naïve not to expect that the manufacturers will try hard to spread the use of their product to as many consumers as possible, and history has shown that the tobacco industry has no ethical constraints [53].

The effectiveness of the e-cigarette as an aid for smoking cessation

Making strong conclusions based on smoking rates and rates of EC-use in different countries is difficult, as smoking rates are influenced by political decisions as price and availability, changes in the social norm, etc. Some prospective studies were very promising [54],[55], and a recent large ‘real-world’ study taking smoker’s addiction into account showed that use of ECs increased cessation rates more than no aid/nicotine replacement products bought over the counter [56]. However, a meta-analysis based on five population-based studies found that EC users were significantly less likely than non-users to have stopped smoking [6], a longitudinal study in cancer patients showed that EC users were twice as likely to be smoking at the time of follow-up as non-users [57], and the only existing randomized smoking cessation study showed that ECs were not significantly more effective than nicotine patch therapy [58]. A survey sponsored by EC manufacturers found that only 1% of EC users achieved permanent abstinence [59], but I have not seen this study cited by harm reduction advocates. Unfortunately, it seems that many smokers use ECs with the intention to quit but switch to long-term use of ECs [58] or end with dual use, supplementing their smoking with the EC [42]-[44],[60] – dream-scenarios for the industry.

Impact on public health

When we compare with a CC, the most harmful legal product on the market, everything seems harmless. For a smoker reluctant to stop smoking, the EC will most probably be a less harmful alternative – but we cannot focus on these smokers only! The impact of a product on public health is determined by two factors: i) the degree of toxicity or harm of the substance; and ii) how widespread the exposure is. Even if ECs are significantly less harmful than CCs, the product may have a negative impact on public health if the use is spread to a large part of the population (Figure 1). ECs might achieve popularity as high as that of CCs in the 1960s, before an awareness of harm became widespread in the population. The potential health benefits obtained by some smokers (Figure 2) must outweigh the potential harm by use of ex- and never-smokers, of smokers who intended to quit but switched to ECs, of smokers’ dual use, and of eventual re-normalization of smoking.
Figure 1

The long-term impact of smoking and e-cigarette use on public health – year 2050. The risk models are based on assumptions of prevalence of smoking and prevalence of use and harm of electronic cigarettes (EC). Harm of smoking is known to be extremely high; this is our reference. Maximal harm = 100. In a harm reduction perspective the harm of EC-use is estimated as extremely low/very low = 1 or 5. In a public health perspective the harm of EC-use is estimated low/moderate = 10, 15 or 25. Harm reduction perspective: Smoking scenario 1: the theory assumes that smokers are reluctant to quit and smoking rates will remain high (15% smokers, harm =100). E-cigarette scenarios: the theory assumes that harm of EC-use is extremely low/very low and use will be restricted to smokers only. EC-scenario 1: 10% of the population use ECs, harm = 1. EC-scenario 2 (worst case): 20% of the population (primarily smokers) use ECs, harm = 5. Public health perspective: Smoking scenario 2: the theory is that smokers wish to quit and tobacco control efforts are effective. Smoking rates will reduce steadily over the next decades (5% smokers, harm =100). Smoking scenario 3 (worst case): EC-use might undermine smoking cessation and renormalize conventional smoking, and the smoking rates might increase. The harm indicated as squared is the extra harm indirectly caused by ECs (30% smokers, harm = 100). E-cigarette scenarios: according to the theory we might underestimate long-term harm of ECs, and use of ECs might spread to a large part of the population EC-scenario 3: 20% of the population use ECs, harm = 10. EC-scenario 4: 30% of the population use ECs, harm = 15. EC-scenario 5 (worst case): 40% of the population use ECs, harm = 25.

Figure 2

The difficult balance between the potential pros and cons of e-cigarettes. The public health perspective.

Conclusions

Most probably, ECs are less harmful than CCs, but they can hardly be called safe. Consequences of EC use must be viewed in a long-term public health perspective, including both smokers and non-smokers. Based on the limited and often conflicting evidence on safety, the doubtful efficacy as a smoking cessation aid, and the alarming rise in use in young people and non-smokers, most public health professionals urge great caution with ECs and call for regulation, monitoring, and research not biased by conflicts of interest.

As the WHO states, this is an “evolving frontier filled with promise and threat for tobacco control” [1]. I shall be the first to celebrate if the ECs turn out to be a safe and effective weapon in tobacco control. Till then, let us focus on intensifying our fight for a smoke-free world by restricting the influence of the tobacco industry, by regulating smoking and other tobacco-/nicotine containing products, and by offering evidence-based help for smoking cessation – we know this works.

Authors’ information

The author is a medical doctor. She has worked 10 years in hospitals – four of these in a department of pulmonary medicine and she is a trained smoking cessation counsellor. For the last 15 years she has worked at the Research Center for Prevention and Health as a tobacco researcher, public health professional, and epidemiologist. She is a member of the steering committee of a large population-based intervention study on lifestyle, the Inter99 study and an Associate Professor at the University of Copenhagen (Master of Public Health Studies). She is frequently used by the Danish Health and Medicines Authority on smoking-related topics.

Abbreviations

CC: 

Conventional cigarette

EC: 

Electronic cigarette

Declarations

Acknowledgments

I thank D.M.Sci. M. Døssing, co-author of the systematic review on health effects of electronic cigarettes [5], and D.M.Sci. T. Jørgensen, professor in public health, for being a supportive and critical academic sparring partner.

Authors’ Affiliations

(1)
Research Centre for Prevention and Health, Glostrup Hospital

References

  1. Electronic Nicotine Delivery Systems. Report by WHO. Moscow, Russian Federation; 2014 July. Report No.: FCTC/COP/6/10 21 July 2014. Provisional agenda item 4.4.2. 2014Google Scholar
  2. Changing concepts of sudden infant death syndrome: implications for infant sleeping environment and sleep position. American Academy of Pediatrics. Task Force on Infant Sleep Position and Sudden Infant Death Syndrome. Pediatrics 2000, 105:650–656..Google Scholar
  3. The Electric Cigarette . []; 2014., [http://www.usacig.com/faq.aspx]
  4. Smoke NV. []; 2014., [http://www.smokenv.com/faq.html]
  5. Pisinger C, Døssing M: A systematic review of health effects of electronic cigarettes. Prev Med. 2014, 69: 248-260. 10.1016/j.ypmed.2014.10.009.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. Grana R, Benowitz N, Glantz SA: E-cigarettes: a scientific review. Circulation. 2014, 129: 1972-1986. 10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.114.007667.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  7. Park SJ, Walser TC, Perdomo C, Wang T, Pagano PC, Liclican EL, Krysan K, Larsen JE, Minna JD, Lenburg ME, Spira A, Dubinett SM: The effect of e-cigarette exposure on airway epithelial cell gene expression and transformation. Clinical Cancer Research Conference: 3rd AACR-IASLC Joint Conference on the Molecular Origins of Lung Cancer San Diego, CA, USA. 6 th to 9 th January, 2014. .Google Scholar
  8. Vardavas CI, Anagnostopoulos N, Kougias M, Evangelopoulou V, Connolly GN, Behrakis PK: Short-term pulmonary effects of using an electronic cigarette: impact on respiratory flow resistance, impedance, and exhaled nitric oxide. Chest. 2012, 141: 1400-1406. 10.1378/chest.11-2443.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. Marini S, Buonanno G, Stabile L, Ficco G: Short-term effects of electronic and tobacco cigarettes on exhaled nitric oxide. Toxicol Appl Pharmacol. 2014, 278: 9-15. 10.1016/j.taap.2014.04.004.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. Palamidas A, Gennimata SA, Kaltsakas G, Tsikrika S, Vakali S, Gratziou C, Koulouris N: Acute effect of an e-cigarette with and without nicotine on lung function. Tobacco Induced Dis. 2014, 12: A34.Google Scholar
  11. Gennimata SA, Palamidas A, Kaltsakas G, Tsikrika S, Vakali S, Gratziou C, Koulouris N: Acute effect of e-cigarette on pulmonary function in healthy subjects and smokers. In Thematic Poster Session: Tobacco Dependence and Respiratory Disease. European Respiratory Society, Annual Congress, Munich, Germany, 6th – 10th September; 2014.Google Scholar
  12. Cervellati F, Muresan XM, Sticozzi C, Gambari R, Montagner G, Forman HJ, Torricelli C, Maioli E, Valacchi G: Comparative effects between electronic and cigarette smoke in human keratinocytes and epithelial lung cells. Toxicol In Vitro. 2014, 28: 999-1005. 10.1016/j.tiv.2014.04.012.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  13. Williams M, Villarreal A, Bozhilov K, Lin S, Talbot P: Metal and silicate particles including nanoparticles are present in electronic cigarette cartomizer fluid and aerosol. PLoS One. 2013, 8: e57987-10.1371/journal.pone.0057987.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  14. Bahl V, Lin S, Xu N, Davis B, Wang YH, Talbot P: Comparison of electronic cigarette refill fluid cytotoxicity using embryonic and adult models. Reprod Toxicol. 2012, 34: 529-537. 10.1016/j.reprotox.2012.08.001.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. Zhang Y, Sumner W, Chen DR: In vitro particle size distributions in electronic and conventional cigarette aerosols suggest comparable deposition patterns. Nicotine Tob Res. 2013, 15: 501-508. 10.1093/ntr/nts165.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. Ingebrethsen BJ, Cole SK, Alderman SL: Electronic cigarette aerosol particle size distribution measurements. Inhal Toxicol. 2012, 24: 976-984. 10.3109/08958378.2012.744781.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. Fuoco FC, Buonanno G, Stabile L, Vigo P: Influential parameters on particle concentration and size distribution in the mainstream of e-cigarettes. Environ Pollut. 2014, 184: 523-529. 10.1016/j.envpol.2013.10.010.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. Schober W, Szendrei K, Matzen W, Osiander-Fuchs H, Heitmann D, Schettgen T, Jörres RA, Fromme H: Use of electronic cigarettes (e-cigarettes) impairs indoor air quality and increases FeNO levels of e-cigarette consumers. Int J Hyg Environ Health. 2014, 217: 628-637. 10.1016/j.ijheh.2013.11.003.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. Goniewicz ML, Knysak J, Gawron M, Kosmider L, Sobczak A, Kurek J, Prokopowicz A, Jablonska-Czapla M, Rosik-Dulewska C, Havel C, Jacob P, Benowitz N: Levels of selected carcinogens and toxicants in vapour from electronic cigarettes. Tob Control. 2014, 23: 133-139. 10.1136/tobaccocontrol-2012-050859.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. 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. 10.1016/j.chroma.2013.03.035.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. McAuley TR, Hopke PK, Zhao J, Babaian S: Comparison of the effects of e-cigarette vapor and cigarette smoke on indoor air quality. Inhal Toxicol. 2012, 24: 850-857. 10.3109/08958378.2012.724728.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. Lauterbach JH, Laugesen M, Ross JD: Suggested Protocol for Estimation of Harmful and Potentially Harmful Constituents in Mainstream Aerosols Generated by Electronic Nicotine Delivery Systems (ENDS). Poster # 1860, Society of Toxicology, San Francisco. The Toxicologist CD, J of the Soc of Toxicology 2012 Mar;126. [], [http://www.ecita.org.uk/safety.htm]
  23. Lauterbach JH, Laugesen M: Comparison of Toxicant Levels in Mainstream Aerosols Generated by Ruyan® Electronic Nicotine Delivery Systems (ENDS) and Conventional Cigarette Products. [], [http://www.healthnz.co.nz/News2012SOTposter1861.pdf]
  24. Kosmider L, Sobczak A, Fik M, Knysak J, Zaciera M, Kurek J, Goniewicz ML: Carbonyl compounds in electronic cigarette vapors-effects of nicotine solvent and battery output voltage. Nicotine Tob Res. 2014, 16: 1319-1326. 10.1093/ntr/ntu078.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  25. Hutzler C, Paschke M, Kruschinski S, Henkler F, Hahn J, Luch A: Chemical hazards present in liquids and vapors of electronic cigarettes. Arch Toxicol. 2014, 88: 1295-1308. 10.1007/s00204-014-1294-7.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. Czogala J, Goniewicz ML, Fidelus B, Zielinska-Danch W, Travers MJ, Sobczak A: Secondhand exposure to vapors from electronic cigarettes. Nicotine Tob Res. 2014, 16: 655-662. 10.1093/ntr/ntt203.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. Goniewicz ML, Kuma T, Gawron M, Knysak J, Kosmider L: Nicotine levels in electronic cigarettes. Nicotine Tob Res. 2013, 15: 158-166. 10.1093/ntr/nts103.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  28. Cheah NP, Chong NW, Tan J, Morsed FA, Yee SK: Electronic nicotine delivery systems: regulatory and safety challenges: Singapore perspective. Tob Control. 2014, 23: 119-125. 10.1136/tobaccocontrol-2012-050483.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  29. Pellegrino RM, Tinghino B, Mangiaracina G, Marani A, Vitali M, Protano C, Osborn JF, Cattaruzza MS: Electronic cigarettes: an evaluation of exposure to chemicals and fine particulate matter (PM). Ann Ig. 2012, 24: 279-288.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  30. Etter JF, Zather E, Svensson S: Analysis of refill liquids for electronic cigarettes. Addiction. 2013, 108: 1671-1679. 10.1111/add.12235.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  31. Schripp T, Markewitz D, Uhde E, Salthammer T: Does e-cigarette consumption cause passive vaping?. Indoor Air. 2013, 23: 25-31. 10.1111/j.1600-0668.2012.00792.x.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  32. Uryupin AB, Peregudov AS, Kochetkov KA, Bulatnikova LN, Kiselev SS, Nekrasov YS: Qualitative and quantitative compositions of fluids for electronic cigarettes. Pharma Chem J. 2013, 46: 687-692. 10.1007/s11094-013-0871-z.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  33. Burstyn I: Peering Through the Mist: What Does the Chemistry of Contaminants in the Electronic Cigarettes Tell us about Health Risks? Technical report. School of Public Health, Drexel University, Philadelphia, USA: Department of Environmental and Occupational Health; 2013.Google Scholar
  34. Wieslander G, Norback D, Lindgren T: Experimental exposure to propylene glycol mist in aviation emergency training: acute ocular and respiratory effects. Occup Environ Med. 2001, 58: 649-655. 10.1136/oem.58.10.649.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  35. Choi H, Schmidbauer N, Sundell J, Hasselgren M, Spengler J, Bornehag CG: Common household chemicals and the allergy risks in pre-school age children. PLoS One. 2010, 5: e13423-10.1371/journal.pone.0013423.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  36. Ponec M, Haverkort M, Soei YL, Kempenaar J, Bodde H: Use of human keratinocyte and fibroblast cultures for toxicity studies of topically applied compounds. J Pharm Sci. 1990, 79: 312-316. 10.1002/jps.2600790408.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  37. Renne RA, Wehner AP, Greenspan HS, Deford HS, Ragan HA, Westerberg RB, Buschbom RL, Burger GT, Hayes AW, Suber RL, Mosberg AT: 2-Week and 13-week inhalation studies of aerosolized glycerol in rats. Inhal Toxicol. 1992, 4: 95-111. 10.3109/08958379209145307.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  38. Elmore AR: Final report on the safety assessment of aluminum silicate, calcium silicate, magnesium aluminum silicate, magnesium silicate, magnesium trisilicate, sodium magnesium silicate, zirconium silicate, attapulgite, bentonite, Fuller’s earth, hectorite, kaolin, lithium magnesium silicate, lithium magnesium sodium silicate, montmorillonite, pyrophyllite, and zeolite. Int J Toxicol. 2003, 22: 37-102. 10.1177/1091581803022S115.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  39. National Center for Chronic Disease Prevention and Health Promotion (US) Office on Smoking and Health: The Health Consequences of Smoking-50 Years of Progress: A Report of the Surgeon General. Atlanta, GA: Centers for Disease Control and Prevention; 2014.Google Scholar
  40. Ballbe M, Martinez-Sanchez JM, Sureda X, Fu M, Perez-Ortuno R, Pascual JA, Saltó E, Fernández E: Cigarettes vs. e-cigarettes: Passive exposure at home measured by means of airborne marker and biomarkers. Environ Res. 2014, 135C: 76-80. 10.1016/j.envres.2014.09.005.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  41. Flouris AD, Chorti MS, Poulianiti KP, Jamurtas AZ, Kostikas K, Tzatzarakis MN, Wallace Hayes A, Tsatsakis AM, Koutedakis Y: Acute impact of active and passive electronic cigarette smoking on serum cotinine and lung function. Inhal Toxicol. 2013, 25: 91-101. 10.3109/08958378.2012.758197.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  42. Etter JF: Electronic cigarettes: a survey of users. BMC Public Health. 2010, 10: 231-10.1186/1471-2458-10-231.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  43. Etter JF, Bullen C: Electronic cigarette: users profile, utilization, satisfaction and perceived efficacy. Addiction. 2011, 106: 2017-2028. 10.1111/j.1360-0443.2011.03505.x.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  44. Adkison SE, O’Connor RJ, Bansal-Travers M, Hyland A, Borland R, Yong HH, Cummings KM, McNeill A, Thrasher JF, Hammond D, Fong GT: Electronic nicotine delivery systems: international tobacco control four-country survey. Am J Prev Med. 2013, 44: 207-215. 10.1016/j.amepre.2012.10.018.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  45. Rapport et avis d’experts sur l’ e-cigarette. Avec le soutien de la Direction générale de la santé. Jeunes Paris 2012 & 2013. Paris: Office Francais de Prévention du Tabagisme; 2013.Google Scholar
  46. Goniewicz ML, Zielinska-Danch W: Electronic cigarette use among teenagers and young adults in Poland. Pediatrics. 2012, 130: e879-e885. 10.1542/peds.2011-3448.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  47. Dautzenberg B, Birkui P, Noël M, Dorset J, Osman M, Dautzenberg M-D: E-Cigarette: a new tobacco product for schoolchildren in Paris. Open J Respir Dis. 2013, 3: 21-24. 10.4236/ojrd.2013.31004.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  48. CDC: Notes from the field: electronic cigarette use among middle and high school students - United States, 2011–2012. MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep 2013, 62:729–730..Google Scholar
  49. Czoli CD, Hammond D, White CM: Electronic cigarettes in Canada: prevalence of use and perceptions among youth and young adults. Can J Public Health. 2014, 105: e97-e102.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  50. Camenga DR, Delmerico J, Kong G, Cavallo D, Hyland A, Cummings KM, Krishnan-Sarin S: Trends in use of electronic nicotine delivery systems by adolescents. Addict Behav. 2014, 39: 338-340. 10.1016/j.addbeh.2013.09.014.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  51. Choi K, Fabian L, Mottey N, Corbett A, Forster J: Young adults’ favorable perceptions of snus, dissolvable tobacco products, and electronic cigarettes: findings from a focus group study. Am J Public Health. 2012, 102: 2088-2093. 10.2105/AJPH.2011.300525.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  52. Goniewicz ML, Gawron M, Nadolska J, Balwicki L, Sobczak A: Rise in electronic cigarette use among adolescents in Poland. J Adolesc Health. 2014, 5: 713-715. 10.1016/j.jadohealth.2014.07.015.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  53. Proctor RN: Golden Holocaust. Origins of the Cigarette Catastrophe and the Case for Abolition. 2011, University of California Press, Berkeley and Los Angeles, CAGoogle Scholar
  54. Caponnetto P, Auditore R, Russo C, Cappello GC, Polosa R: Impact of an electronic cigarette on smoking reduction and cessation in schizophrenic smokers: a prospective 12-month pilot study. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2013, 10: 446-461. 10.3390/ijerph10020446.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  55. Caponnetto P, Campagna D, Cibella F, Morjaria JB, Caruso M, Russo C, Polosa R: EffiCiency and Safety of an eLectronic cigAreTte (ECLAT) as tobacco cigarettes substitute: a prospective 12-month randomized control design study. PLoS One. 2013, 8: e66317-10.1371/journal.pone.0066317.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  56. Kotz D, Brown J, West R: ‘Real-world’ effectiveness of smoking cessation treatments: a population study. Addiction. 2014, 109: 491-499. 10.1111/add.12429.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  57. Borderud SP, Li Y, Burkhalter JE, Sheffer CE, Ostroff JS: Electronic cigarette use among patients with cancer: characteristics of electronic cigarette users and their smoking cessation outcomes. Cancer. 2014, 120: 3527-3535. 10.1002/cncr.28811.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  58. Bullen C, Howe C, Laugesen M, McRobbie H, Parag V, Williman J, Walker N: Electronic cigarettes for smoking cessation: a randomised controlled trial. Lancet. 2013, 382: 1629-1637. 10.1016/S0140-6736(13)61842-5.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  59. Heavner K, Dunworth J, Bergen P, Nissen C, Philips CV: Electronic Cigarettes (e-cigarettes) as Potential Tobacco Harm Reduction Products: Results of an Online Survey of e-cigarette Users. [], [http://www.tobaccoharmreduction.org/thr2010ahi.pdf]
  60. Lee S, Grana RA, Glantz SA: 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. 2014, 54: 684-690. 10.1016/j.jadohealth.2013.11.003.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright

© Pisinger; licensee BioMed Central Ltd. 2014

This article is published under license to BioMed Central Ltd. This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly credited. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated.

Advertisement