Search

IntroductionIn 2018, the United States Food and Drug Administration (FDA) required that electronic cigarette (e-cigarette) manufacturers, packagers, importers, distributors, and retailers display an addictive or alternate warning statement on e-cigarette visual advertisements. Few studies have investigated the FDA-mandated and other warnings on social media. This study examined the prevalence and content of warning statements in e-cigarette-related YouTube videos.MethodsIn 2019, The Virginia Commonwealth University Center for the Study of Tobacco Products conducted bi-monthly (February-June) YouTube searches by relevance and view count to identify e-cigarette-related videos. Overall, 178 videos met the inclusion criteria. Staff coded each video for the presence of a visual/verbal warning statement, warning statement type (eg, FDA-mandated, addiction/tobacco, safety/toxic exposure, health effects), sponsorship, and tobacco product characteristics. A data extraction tool collected the video URL, title, upload date, and number of views, likes/dislikes, and comments.ResultsOnly 5.1% of videos contained FDA-mandated and 21.9% contained non-mandated warnings. All videos with FDA-mandated and 46.2% of non-mandated warnings were represented visually. Only 13.1% of industry-sponsored videos uploaded after the mandate effective date had an FDA-mandated warning statement and videos with FDA-mandated and non-mandated (v. no) warnings had significantly fewer views, likes, dislikes, and comments. Among all non-mandated warnings, 31.3% featured an addiction/tobacco, 18.8% a safety/toxic exposure, and 37.5% a health effects warning.ConclusionsThe prevalence of FDA-mandated warning statements in e-cigarette related YouTube videos was low. FDA enforcement of the warning statement mandate on YouTube could increase the public's understanding of the addictive nature of nicotine in e-cigarettes.ImplicationsThe FDA has the authority to regulate the advertisement and promotion of e-cigarettes on the Internet. These data can inform future FDA requirements related to the language content and visual representation of addiction/tobacco, safety/exposure, and health effects warning statements that appear in YouTube videos and other visual social media popular among young people. Such data would help consumers make informed decisions about purchasing e-cigarette products, using e-cigarettes, and avoiding unintentional harm related to e-cigarettes. In addition, these data may help social media platforms make decisions on whether they will prohibit advertisements that promote or facilitate the sale of tobacco products.

The NHLBI convened a working group on October 23, 2019, to identify the most relevant and urgent research priorities and prevailing challenges in e-cigarette or vaping product use-associated lung injury (EVALI). Experts across multiple disciplines discussed the complexities of the EVALI outbreak, identified research priorities, and recommended strategies to address most effectively its causal factors and improve diagnosis, treatment, and prevention of this disease. Many research priorities were identified, including the need to create national and international registries of patients with EVALI, to track accurately those affected and assess outcomes. The group concluded that biospecimens from subjects with EVALI are urgently needed to help define EVALI pathogenesis and that vaping has disease risks that are disparate from smoking, with the occurrence of EVALI highlighting the importance of broadening e-cigarette research beyond comparators to smoking-related diseases.

Background: Waterpipe tobacco smoking is associated with many negative health outcomes due to toxicants produced by heating the tobacco using charcoal or electrical heaters. Little is known about how young adult waterpipe tobacco smokers perceive harms of these heating sources. Aims: To examine young adult waterpipe tobacco smokers' perceived harms of electrical heaters and charcoal to heat waterpipe tobacco. Method: This online cross-sectional study enrolled 18- to 32-year-olds who smoked waterpipe tobacco within the past 30 days. Participants completed measures assessing, for each heating source, amount and knowledge of toxicants released (e.g., carbon monoxide, cancer-causing chemicals), perceived safety, worry about inhaling toxicants, perceived health risk, desire to quit, and intention to smoke in the next month. Question order for knowledge of and perceived harms was counterbalanced for each heating source. Results: Analyses were based on responses from 199 participants. Perceived harms for both heating sources were average to low. Despite some question order effects, participants viewed charcoal as more harmful than electrical heaters. Participants knew more about chemicals released from charcoal than electrical heaters. Greater knowledge of chemicals released by both heating sources correlated positively with perceived harms. Perceived harms were associated with a stronger desire to quit, yet unrelated with likelihood of smoking waterpipe during the next month. Discussion. Many young adult waterpipe tobacco smokers view charcoal as more harmful than electrical heaters, although knowledge about harms for each heating source is poor. Conclusion: Interventions are needed to inform the public about harms of waterpipe heating sources in order to curb use.

Introduction:Sugars are major constituents and additives in traditional tobacco products, but little is known about their content or related toxins (formaldehyde, acetaldehyde, and acrolein) in electronic cigarette (e-cigarette) liquids. This study quantified levels of sugars and aldehydes in e-cigarette liquids across brands, flavors, and nicotine concentrations (n = 66). Methods:Unheated e-cigarette liquids were analyzed using liquid chromatography mass spectrometry and enzymatic test kits. Generalized linear models, Fisher's exact test, and Pearson's correlation coefficient assessed sugar, aldehyde, and nicotine concentration associations. Results:Glucose, fructose and sucrose levels exceeded the limits of quantification in 22%, 53% and 53% of the samples. Sucrose levels were significantly higher than glucose [χ2(1) = 85.9, p < .0001] and fructose [χ2(1) = 10.6, p = .001] levels. Formaldehyde, acetaldehyde, and acrolein levels exceeded the limits of quantification in 72%, 84%, and 75% of the samples. Acetaldehyde levels were significantly higher than formaldehyde [χ2(1) = 11.7, p = .0006] and acrolein [χ2(1) = 119.5, p < .0001] levels. Differences between nicotine-based and zero-nicotine labeled e-cigarette liquids were not statistically significant for sugars or aldehydes. We found significant correlations between formaldehyde and fructose (-0.22, p = .004) and sucrose (-0.25, p = .002) and acrolein and fructose (-0.26, p = .0006) and sucrose (-0.21, p = .0006). There were no significant correlations between acetaldehyde and any of the sugars or any of the aldehydes and glucose. Conclusions:Sugars and related aldehydes were identified in unheated e-cigarette liquids and their composition may influence experimentation in naïve users and their potential toxicity. Implications:The data can inform the regulation of specific flavor constituents in tobacco products as a strategy to protect young people from using e-cigarettes, while balancing FDA's interest in how these emerging products could potentially benefit adult smokers who are seeking to safely quit cigarette smoking. The data can also be used to educate consumers about ingredients in products that may contain nicotine and inform future FDA regulatory policies related to product standards and accurate and comprehensible labeling of e-cigarette liquids.

IntroductionPrior to the US Food and Drug Administration's (FDA) regulation of electronic cigarettes and warning statements related to nicotine addiction, there was no critical examination of manufacturer/distributor voluntary practices that could potentially inform FDA actions aimed to protect consumers. This study examined the content of warning statements and safety characteristics of electronic cigarette liquid bottles using a national sample.MethodsResearch staff randomly selected four electronic cigarette liquid manufacturers/distributors from four US geographic regions. Staff documented the characteristics of product packaging and content of warning statements on 147 electronic cigarette liquids (0-30 mg/ml of nicotine) purchased online from 16 manufacturers/distributors in April of 2016.ResultsData showed that 97.9% of the electronic cigarette liquid bottles included a warning statement, most of which focused on nicotine exposure rather than health. Only 22.4% of bottles used a warning statement that indicated the product "contained nicotine." Of bottles that advertised a nicotine-based concentration of 12 mg/ml, 26% had a warning statements stated that the product "contains nicotine." None of the statements that indicated that the product "contained nicotine" stated that nicotine was "addictive." All bottles had a safety cap and 12% were in plastic shrink-wrap. Fifty-six percent of the websites had a minimum age requirement barrier that prevented under-aged persons from entering.ConclusionsMost manufacturers/distributors printed a warning statement on electronic cigarette liquid bottles, but avoided warning consumers about the presence and the addictiveness of nicotine. Studies are needed to examine manufacturer/distributor modifications to product packaging and how packaging affects consumer behaviors.ImplicationsThese data can inform future FDA requirements related to the packaging and advertising of e-cigarette liquids; regulation related to the content of warning statements, including exposure warning statements, which are not currently mandated; and requirements on websites or language on packaging to help manufacturers adhere to the minimum age of purchase regulation. The data can also be used to help FDA develop additional guidance on the framing of statements on packaging that helps consumers make informed decisions about purchasing the product or protecting young people from use or unintentional exposure to the product.

AimsWe reviewed available research on the use, content and safety of electronic cigarettes (EC), and on their effects on users, to assess their potential for harm or benefit and to extract evidence that can guide future policy.MethodsStudies were identified by systematic database searches and screening references to February 2014.ResultsEC aerosol can contain some of the toxicants present in tobacco smoke, but at levels which are much lower. Long-term health effects of EC use are unknown but compared with cigarettes, EC are likely to be much less, if at all, harmful to users or bystanders. EC are increasingly popular among smokers, but to date there is no evidence of regular use by never-smokers or by non-smoking children. EC enable some users to reduce or quit smoking.ConclusionsAllowing EC to compete with cigarettes in the market-place might decrease smoking-related morbidity and mortality. Regulating EC as strictly as cigarettes, or even more strictly as some regulators propose, is not warranted on current evidence. Health professionals may consider advising smokers unable or unwilling to quit through other routes to switch to EC as a safer alternative to smoking and a possible pathway to complete cessation of nicotine use.

Introduction: Electronic cigarette (EC) use has increased rapidly in the last decade, especially among youth. Regulating nicotine delivery from ECs could help curb youth uptake and leverage EC use in harm reduction yet is complicated by varying device and liquid variables that affect nicotine delivery. Nicotine flux, the nicotine emission rate, is a parameter that incorporates these variables and focuses on the performance rather than the design of an EC. Nicotine flux therefore could be a powerful regulatory tool if it is shown empirically to predict nicotine delivery and subjective effects related to dependence. Methods and analysis: This project consists of two complementary clinical trials. In Trial I, we will examine the relationship between nicotine flux and the rate and dose of nicotine delivery from ECs, hence, impacting abuse liability. It will also examine the extent to which this relationship is mediated by nicotine form (i.e., freebase versus protonated). At Yale School of Medicine (YSM), study participants will puff EC devices under conditions that differ by flux and form, while arterial blood is sampled in high time resolution. In Trial II, we will assess the relationship between nicotine flux, form, and subjective effects. At the American University of Beirut (AUB), participants will use EC devices with varying nicotine fluxes and forms, while dependency measures, such as the urge to use ECs, nicotine craving, and withdrawal symptoms, will be assessed. We will also monitor puffing intensity and real-time exposure to toxicants. Ethics and dissemination: The protocol of Trial I and Trial II was approved by YSM and AUB IRBs, respectively. We will disseminate study results through peer-reviewed publications and conference presentations. Trial registration: NCT05706701 for Trial I and NCT05430334 for Trial II. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]