METHODS: We analyzed 30 Malaysia-based retailer websites using a mixed methods approach. Data were extracted as the frequency of occurrences of marketing claims, presence of regulatory information, product types, and flavors of e-juice as per a predefined codebook based on published literature. We also extracted textual details published on the websites about marketing claims, and slogans.
RESULTS: Most retailer websites provided contact information and physical store addresses (83%) but only half had 'click through' age verification (57%) that seldom needed any identification proof for age (3%). Marketing claims were related to health (47%), smoking cessation (37%), and modernity/trend (37%) and none had health warnings. Promotional strategies were discounts (80%). starter kits (57%) and email subscriptions (53%). Product types displayed were rechargeable (97%) and disposable (87%) devices and e-liquids (90%) of an array of flavors (> 100). Nicotine presence, its concentration, and "nicotine is an addictive chemical" were displayed in 93%, 53%, and 23% of websites respectively.
CONCLUSION: Surveillance of content displayed online on e-cigarette retailer websites and regulation of online marketing and sales should be implemented by the Ministry of Health, Malaysia. Such measures are needed to prevent access to, and initiation of e-cigarette use among the youth and adults who do not smoke.
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: Sixty-one participants were recruited into a vapers group and a control group. The vapers group was instructed to smoke for 5 minutes, and their nasal resistance was measured pre-procedure and at 1 and 5 minutes post-procedure. The results were compared between both groups.
RESULTS: Repeated measures analysis of variance demonstrated that vaping has no statistically significant effect on total nasal airway resistance.
CONCLUSION: Although the differences between both groups were not statistically significant overall, the vapers group showed a reduction in nasal airway resistance in the short term.