The use of electronic cigarettes (e-cigs) is increasing rapidly, but their effects on lung toxicity are largely unknown. Smoking is a well-established cause of lung cancer and respiratory disease, in part through inflammation. It is plausible that e-cig use might affect similar inflammatory pathways. E-cigs are used by some smokers as an aid for quitting or smoking reduction, and by never smokers (e.g., adolescents and young adults). The relative effects for impacting disease risk may differ for these groups. Cell culture and experimental animal data indicate that e-cigs have the potential for inducing inflammation, albeit much less than smoking. Human studies show that e-cig use in smokers is associated with substantial reductions in blood or urinary biomarkers of tobacco toxicants when completely switching and somewhat for dual use. However, the extent to which these biomarkers are surrogates for potential lung toxicity remains unclear. The FDA now has regulatory authority over e-cigs and can regulate product and e-liquid design features, such as nicotine content and delivery, voltage, e-liquid formulations, and flavors. All of these factors may impact pulmonary toxicity. This review summarizes current data on pulmonary inflammation related to both smoking and e-cig use, with a focus on human lung biomarkers. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev; 26(8); 1175–91. ©2017 AACR.

The 2014 Surgeon General’s Report on smoking and health concluded that changing cigarette designs have caused an increase in lung adenocarcinomas, implicating cigarette filter ventilation that lowers smoking machine tar yields. The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) now has the authority to regulate cigarette design if doing so would improve public health. To support a potential regulatory action, two weight-of-evidence reviews were applied for causally relating filter ventilation to lung adenocarcinoma. Published scientific literature (3284 citations) and internal tobacco company documents contributed to causation analysis evidence blocks and the identification of research gaps. Filter ventilation was adopted in the mid-1960s and was initially equated with making a cigarette safer. Since then, lung adenocarcinoma rates paradoxically increased relative to other lung cancer subtypes. Filter ventilation 1) alters tobacco combustion, increasing smoke toxicants; 2) allows for elasticity of use so that smokers inhale more smoke to maintain their nicotine intake; and 3) causes a false perception of lower health risk from “lighter” smoke. Seemingly not supportive of a causal relationship is that human exposure biomarker studies indicate no reduction in exposure, but these do not measure exposure in the lung or utilize known biomarkers of harm. Altered puffing and inhalation may make smoke available to lung cells prone to adenocarcinomas. The analysis strongly suggests that filter ventilation has contributed to the rise in lung adenocarcinomas among smokers. Thus, the FDA should consider regulating its use, up to and including a ban. Herein, we propose a research agenda to support such an effort.

Objective We attempted to estimate the excess annual costs that a US private employer may attribute to employing an individual who smokes tobacco as compared to a non-smoking employee. Design Reviewing and synthesising previous literature estimating certain discrete costs associated with smoking employees, we developed a cost estimation approach that approximates the total of such costs for US employers. We examined absenteeism, presenteesim, smoking breaks, healthcare costs and pension benefits for smokers. Results Our best estimate of the annual excess cost to employ a smoker is $5816. This estimate should be taken as a general indicator of the extent of excess costs, not as a predictive point value. Conclusions Employees who smoke impose significant excess costs on private employers. The results of this study may help inform employer decisions about tobacco-related policies.

E-cigarettes increase risk for oral diseases by shifting health-compatible ecosystems to virulence-rich communities.

Objectives: Electronic nicotine delivery systems (ENDS), or e-cigarettes, are heavily marketed online. The purpose of our study was to perform a systematic identification and evaluation of claims made within ENDS retailer and manufacturer websites, and the legal status of such claims. Methods: We employed a systematic search protocol with popular search engines using 6 terms: (1) e-cigarettes; (2) e-cigs; (3) e-juice; (4) e-liquid; (5) e-hookah; and (6) vape pen. We analyzed English-language websites where ENDS are sold for implicit and explicit health-related claims. A legal analysis determined whether such claims are permissible under the US Food and Drug Administration's regulations. Results: The vast majority of ENDS manufacturer (N = 78) and retailer (N = 32) websites made at least one health-related claim (77% and 65%, respectively). Modified risk claims and secondhand smoke-related claims were most prevalent, with an average of 2 claims per site. Conclusions: Health-related claims are plentiful within ENDS manufacturer and retailer websites. Results demonstrate that these sites focus on potential benefits while minimizing or eliminating information about possible harmful effects of ENDS. These claims are subject to the current regulatory authority by the FDA, and pose a risk of misinforming consumers.