METHODS: Subjects were recruited among those responding to a social media announcement or patients attending the SEGi Oral Health Care Centre between May and December 2019, and among some staff at the centre. Five ml of unstimulated whole saliva was collected and salivary LDH enzyme activity levels were measured with a LDH colorimetric assay kit. Salivary LDH activity level was determined for each group and compared statistically.
RESULTS: Eighty-eight subjects were categorized into three groups (control n=30, smokers n=29, and vapers n=29). The mean ± standard deviation (SD) values for salivary LDH activity levels for vapers, smokers, and control groups were 35.15 ± 24.34 mU/ml, 30.82 ± 20.73 mU/ml, and 21.45 ± 15.30 mU/ml, respectively. The salivary LDH activity levels of smoker and vaper groups were significantly higher than in the control group (p = 0.031; 0.017). There was no significant difference of salivary LDH activity level in vapers when compared with smokers (p= 0.234).
CONCLUSION: Our findings showed higher LDH levels in the saliva of vapers when compared with controls, confirming cytotoxic and harmful effects of e-cigarettes on the oral mucosa.
METHODS: We observed 70 SUs and 148 DUs for 52 weeks and tested their exhaled carbon monoxide and saliva cotinine to confirm their complete nicotine cessation status through cotinine in saliva. Safety issues were to be identified through self-report. Smoking cessation, CCs reduction of ≥ 50%, and relapsed to CCs smoking and safety issues were also documented.
RESULTS: The nicotine cessation rate was higher in SUs then DUs (15.9% vs. 6.8%; P = 0.048; 95% CI (2.328-0.902). A similar result for smoking cessation (34.8% SUs vs. 17.1% DUs; P = 0.005; 95% CI: 2.031-0.787), whereas CCs ≥ 50% reduction was 23.3% DUs vs 21.7% SUs (P = 0.863; 95% CI :1.020-0.964). Relapse to CC smoking was 47.3% in DUs versus 30.4% in SUs (P = 0.026; 95% CI: 1.555-0.757). The adverse effects reported were coughing and breathing problems, whereas craving smoking was documented as a major withdrawal symptom. Smoking-related diseases were also identified, five in DUs and two in SUs, during the one-year study period.
CONCLUSIONS: Study showed SUs achieved higher complete nicotine and smoking cessation rates as compared to DUs. However, the rates of reduced CC use were not different between both the groups. No serious adverse effects related to the sole use of ECs were detected. However, the safety of the sole use of ECs in absolute terms needs to be further validated in different populations.
DESIGN, SETTING, PARTICIPANTS AND MEASUREMENTS: A cross-sectional analysis of adult (≥ 18 years) current smokers and ex-smokers from 14 countries participating in the ITC Project. Data from the most recent survey questionnaire for each country were included, which spanned the period 2013-17. Countries were categorized into four groups based on regulations governing NVP sales and marketing (allowable or not), and level of enforcement (strict or weak where NVPs are not permitted to be sold): (1) most restrictive policies (MRPs), not legal to be sold or marketed with strict enforcement: Australia, Brazil, Uruguay; (2) restrictive policies (RPs), not approved for sale or marketing with weak enforcement: Canada, Malaysia, Mexico, New Zealand; (3) less restrictive policies (LRPs), legal to be sold and marketed with regulations: England, the Netherlands, Republic of Korea, United States; and (4) no regulatory policies (NRPs), Bangladesh, China, Zambia. Countries were also grouped by World Bank Income Classifications. Country-specific weighted logistic regression models estimated adjusted NVP prevalence estimates for: awareness, ever/current use, and frequency of use (daily versus non-daily).
FINDINGS: NVP awareness and use were lowest in NRP countries. Generally, ever- and current use of NVPs were lower in MRP countries (ever-use = 7.1-48.9%; current use = 0.3-3.5%) relative to LRP countries (ever-use = 38.9-66.6%; current use = 5.5-17.2%) and RP countries (ever-use = 10.0-62.4%; current use = 1.4-15.5%). NVP use was highest among high-income countries, followed by upper-middle-income countries, and then by lower-middle-income countries.
CONCLUSIONS: With a few exceptions, awareness and use of nicotine vaping products varied by the strength of national regulations governing nicotine vaping product sales/marketing, and by country income. In countries with no regulatory policies, use rates were very low, suggesting that there was little availability, marketing and/or interest in nicotine vaping products in these countries where smoking populations are predominantly poorer. The higher awareness and use of nicotine vaping products in high income countries with moderately (e.g. Canada, New Zealand) and less (e.g. England, United States) restrictive policies, is likely due to the greater availability and affordability of nicotine vaping products.