Search

E-cigarette or vaping product use-associated lung injury (EVALI) is a severe pulmonary illness associated with the use of e-cigarettes or vaping products that was officially identified and named in 2019. This American Thoracic Society workshop was convened in 2021 to identify and prioritize research and regulatory needs to adequately respond to the EVALI outbreak and to prevent similar instances of disease associated with e-cigarette or vaping product use. An interdisciplinary group of 26 experts in adult and pediatric clinical care, public health, regulatory oversight, and toxicology were convened for the workshop. Four major topics were examined: 1 ) the public health and regulatory response to EVALI; 2 ) EVALI clinical care; 3 ) mechanisms contributing to EVALI; and 4 ) needed actions to address the health effects of EVALI. Oral presentations and group discussion were the primary modes used to identify top priorities for addressing EVALI. Initiatives including a national EVALI case registry and biorepository, integrated electronic medical record coding system, U.S. Food and Drug Administration regulation and enforcement of nicotine e-cigarette standards, regulatory authority over nontobacco-derived e-cigarettes, training in evaluating exogenous exposures, prospective clinical studies, standardized clinical follow-up assessments, ability to more readily study effects of cannabinoid e-cigarettes, and research to identify biomarkers of exposure and disease were identified as critical needs. These initiatives will require substantial federal investment as well as changes to regulatory policy. Overall, the workshop identified the need to address the root causes of EVALI to prevent future outbreaks. An integrated approach from multiple perspectives is required, including public health; clinical, basic, and translational research; regulators; and users of e-cigarettes. Improving the public health response to reduce the risk of another substantial disease-inducing event depends on coordinated actions to better understand the inhalational toxicity of these products, informing the public of the risks, and developing and enforcing regulatory standards for all e-cigarettes.

Background: Evidence-based guidelines are needed for effective delivery of home oxygen therapy to appropriate patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) and interstitial lung disease (ILD). Methods: The multidisciplinary panel created six research questions using a modified Delphi approach. A systematic review of the literature was completed, and the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation approach was used to formulate clinical recommendations. Recommendations: The panel found varying quality and availability of evidence and made the following judgments: 1 ) strong recommendations for long-term oxygen use in patients with COPD (moderate-quality evidence) or ILD (low-quality evidence) with severe chronic resting hypoxemia, 2 ) a conditional recommendation against long-term oxygen use in patients with COPD with moderate chronic resting hypoxemia, 3 ) conditional recommendations for ambulatory oxygen use in patients with COPD (moderate-quality evidence) or ILD (low-quality evidence) with severe exertional hypoxemia, 4 ) a conditional recommendation for ambulatory liquid-oxygen use in patients who are mobile outside the home and require >3 L/min of continuous-flow oxygen during exertion (very-low-quality evidence), and 5 ) a recommendation that patients and their caregivers receive education on oxygen equipment and safety (best-practice statement). Conclusions: These guidelines provide the basis for evidence-based use of home oxygen therapy in adults with COPD or ILD but also highlight the need for additional research to guide clinical practice.

Background: Current tobacco treatment guidelines have established the efficacy of available interventions, but they do not provide detailed guidance for common implementation questions frequently faced in the clinic. An evidence-based guideline was created that addresses several pharmacotherapy-initiation questions that routinely confront treatment teams. Methods: Individuals with diverse expertise related to smoking cessation were empaneled to prioritize questions and outcomes important to clinicians. An evidence-synthesis team conducted systematic reviews, which informed recommendations to answer the questions. The GRADE (Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation) approach was used to rate the certainty in the estimated effects and the strength of recommendations. Results: The guideline panel formulated five strong recommendations and two conditional recommendations regarding pharmacotherapy choices. Strong recommendations include using varenicline rather than a nicotine patch, using varenicline rather than bupropion, using varenicline rather than a nicotine patch in adults with a comorbid psychiatric condition, initiating varenicline in adults even if they are unready to quit, and using controller therapy for an extended treatment duration greater than 12 weeks. Conditional recommendations include combining a nicotine patch with varenicline rather than using varenicline alone and using varenicline rather than electronic cigarettes. Conclusions: Seven recommendations are provided, which represent simple practice changes that are likely to increase the effectiveness of tobacco-dependence pharmacotherapy.

Rationale: The tobacco harm reduction literature is replete with vague language, far-reaching claims, and unwarranted certainty. The American Thoracic Society has increasingly recognized the need for a framework for reliably making such claims. Evidence-based standards improving the scientific value and transparency of harm reduction claims are expected to improve their trustworthiness, clarity, and consistency., Methods: Experts from relevant American Thoracic Society committees identified key topic areas for discussion. Literature search strategy included English language articles across Medline, Google Scholar, and the Cochrane Collaborative databases, with expanded search terms including tobacco, addiction, smoking, cigarettes, nicotine, and harm reduction. Workgroup members synthesized their evidentiary summaries into a list of candidate topics suitable for inclusion in the final report. Breakout groups developed detailed content maps of each topic area, including points to be considered for suggested recommendations. Successive draft recommendations were modified using an iterative consensus process until unanimous approval was achieved. Patient representatives ensured the document's relevance to the lay public., Results: Fifteen recommendations were identified, organized into four framework elements dealing with: estimating harm reduction among individuals, making claims on the basis of population impact, appropriately careful use of language, and ethical considerations in harm reduction., Discussion: This statement clarifies important principles guiding valid direct and inferential harm reduction claims. Ideals for effective communication with the lay public and attention to unique ethical concerns are also delineated. The authors call for formal systems of grading harm reduction evidence and regulatory assurances of longitudinal surveillance systems to document the impact of harm reduction policies.

Introduction: Since the mid-20th century, the scientific community has substantially improved its understanding of the worldwide tobacco epidemic. Although significant progress has been made, the sheer enormity and scope of the global problem put it on track to take a billion lives this century. Curbing the epidemic will require maximizing the impact of proven tools as well as the development of new, breakthrough methods to help interrupt the spread of nicotine addiction and reduce the downstream morbidity., Methods: Members of the Tobacco Action Committee of the American Thoracic Society queried bibliographic databases, including Medline, Embase, and the Cochrane Collaborative, to identify primary sources and reviews relevant to the epidemic. Exploded search terms were used to identify evidence, including tobacco, addiction, smoking, cigarettes, nicotine, and smoking cessation. Evidence was consolidated into three thematic areas: (1) determinants of risk, (2) maternal-fetal exposure, and (3) current tobacco users. Expert panel consensus regarding current gaps in understanding and recommendations for future research priorities was generated through iterative discussion., Results: Although much has been accomplished, significant gaps in understanding remain. Implementation often lags well behind insight. This report identifies a number of investigative opportunities for significantly reducing the toll of tobacco use, including: (1) the need for novel, nonlinear models of population-based disease control; (2) refinement of "real-world" models of clinical intervention in trial design; and (3) understanding of mechanisms by which intrauterine smoke exposure may lead to persistent, tobacco-related chronic disease., Discussion: In the coming era of tobacco research, pooled talent from multiple disciplines will be required to further illuminate the complex social, environmental and biological codeterminants of tobacco dependence.

An increasing barrier to the development and implementation of effective youth smoking prevention and cessation programs involves recruiting adolescents into research studies. Even for non-intervention studies, issues of consent, confidentiality, and motivation to participate are important considerations. In 1996, 11 Prevention Research Center sites across the country conducted qualitative research using focus groups to explore ethnic differences in smoking among adolescents. The diversity in strategies used to interest, motivate, and retain potential focus group subjects provided a rich data set for information about effective strategies and challenges to recruitment. This article presents an overview of recruitment methods used in a multi-site qualitative study on adolescent tobacco use, reports on successful and less successful strategies, and provides recommendations for future recruitment.

Relative to a compounded product, the following are responsibilities of the veterinarian. I. They must be able to prepare the product and have knowledge of all ingredients. II. They must be responsible for the safety of the product to the target animal, and that there are no violative residues. III. The product must have efficacy for the intended indications. IV. The veterinarian must establish need for the product to improve the health and/or welfare of the animals. This, therefore, involves: jurisprudence; responsibility to the animals and their owners; and responsibility to society. A common sense approach to this discussion would simply be that if one is not totally comfortable and satisfied medically and pharmacologically with any treatment, including compounded medications, do not use it. This also follows and is based on proper diagnosis, need for treatment, objectives of the treatment, and setting up the regimen. This is as Hippocrates admonished us, "above all, do no harm."