Twitter Discourse on Nicotine as Potential Prophylactic or Therapeutic for COVID-19

INTRODUCTION

The link between nicotine and COVID-19 has garnered significant attention in both scientific and news media communities. The low prevalence of current smokers among COVID-19 patients and immunomodulatory effects of nicotine are cited as evidence for therapeutic potential of nicotine for affected patients¹. Although current smokers were found to be at a reduced risk of SARS-CoV-2 infection, meta-analyses reveal that former smokers were at an increased risk of hospitalization, severity, and mortality due to COVID-19² while no such associations were found with current smoking status. However, there are several significant limitations of using electronic health record derived determination of smoking status (including missing data on smoking status and lack of adjustment for the demographic profile of those tested/admitted to the hospital), and no studies included in the meta-analysis verified smoking status with biochemical measures. There is at least one clinical trial planned by French researchers to assess nicotine’s therapeutic and prophylactic potential³. Overall, in current literature on these themes, authors clearly indicate that smoking’s severe addiction and conclusively harmful health effects dictate that it shouldn’t be used as a means to prevent/treat COVID-19. Scientific explorations are ongoing about nicotine and its role as a potential COVID-19 therapeutic in controlled settings⁴. In the meantime, it is important to understand how this so called “nicotine hypothesis” plays out in consumer discourse on social media regarding beliefs and attitudes towards tobacco products (in the context of the ongoing pandemic).

In this paper, we examine publicly available tweets that discuss nicotine or vaping as preventative or treatment options for COVID-19 with associated extrapolations to smoking/vaping’s therapeutic potential in retrieved messages. To our knowledge, there are only two recent efforts that seemed to have touched upon the themes of our study: the first offers an anecdotal indication of unsubstantiated health claims⁵ and does not focus on the nicotine hypothesis and the latest effort examines sentiment surrounding vaping and smoking in the context of the pandemic⁶; this latter effort’s focus on sentiment has a different purpose of general perceptions of people and not about quantifying misinformation involving vaping/smoking. Our effort has a deliberate focus on unproven extrapolations of the nicotine hypothesis for COVID-19 spanning tweets from a seven-month duration.

METHODS

We downloaded ALL publicly available tweets authored between Jan 1, 2020 and July 31, 2020 containing at least one term (or associated hashtag) from each of the three following groups:

1. nicotine, e-cigarette(s), ecig(s), vaping;^*

2. prevent(s), prevented, preventing, prevention, preventative, preventive, prophylactic, prophylaxis, precaution(ary), treat(s), treated, treating, treatment, cure(s), cured, curing;

3. covid, coronavirus, covid19, corona, covid_19, covid-19, SARS-Cov-2.

We focused on having at least one term from each group because we wanted to explore discussions that are portraying nicotine and associated products as helpful in dealing with COVID-19. Before we proceed, we note that the IRB at the University of Kentucky deemed that this type of research does not meet the definition of human subjects and thus does not require additional IRB review based on these two criteria: 1. The data is publicly available; and 2. There is no interaction or intervention with subjects. Nevertheless, we only report aggregate metrics (e.g., counts, proportions) and show very few example tweets without author attributions that convey some viewpoints.

Our conjunctive Twitter query outlined earlier in this section led to a total of 17,533 tweets of which 16,064 were in English. We observed several of these tweets were discussing vaping bleach (misinformation propagated by a radio talk show host) for treating COVID-19 and hence we removed all tweets containing “bleach”. This further pruned the dataset to 13,718 tweets. Among these, we imposed a strict constraint that all three terms (one each from three groups above) must occur within a window of six consecutive words (three additional words on top of the three required terms) after commonly used stops words^† are removed from the tweet. This was needed to weed out tweets that contain the three terms but are separated by many other terms and whose overall meaning is something quite different from our search intent. For example, consider the tweet by a public health organization in Oregon (USA): “Smoking and vaping involve hand-to-mouth contact that may make it easier to spread COVID-19 to the user and other surfaces. Prevent the spread of COVID-19, quit today.” Although a term from each group in our query appears here, they are farther apart and do not convey the intent of our search. The six consecutive word window constraint removes this tweet from our data as it does not satisfy it. This window constraint resulted in a smaller subset of 5192 tweets, which is henceforth called the filtered dataset. From this subset, we (first and second author together) annotated a set of 400 tweets randomly selected to identify if the tweets are actually discussing potential prevention or treatment aspects of nicotine for COVID-19. Among such tweets, we additionally identified those tweets that were extrapolating the nicotine connection to vaping or smoking with direct or implicit claims about vaping or smoking being beneficial in the context of COVID-19. A supervised machine learned model⁷ was built and evaluated using cross-validation to identify these tweets that resort to this type of extrapolation based on tweet text and associated user name. The specific model⁷ is based on association rules that link presence of certain key words to classes (extrapolating tweet or the negative class). Subsequently, this model was applied to the remaining unannotated filtered dataset of tweets to identify tweets that extrapolated nicotine-related news to smoking and vaping. We ranked top 20 frequent words in the personal bios of Twitter users who tweet such extrapolating messages as opposed to users in the rest of the tweets. This is to see if users who tweet such messages had pre-existing viewpoints that may have led them to extrapolate nicotine research to smoking or vaping. We also looked at top (most frequent) Web links and hashtags used in extrapolating tweets and the remaining tweets. This was done by just counting the tweets containing each of the unique URLs and hashtags in the dataset.

RESULTS

Out of the 400 annotated from the 5192 filtered tweets, 337 turned out to be conveying a treatment/preventative aspect leading to a positive predictive value (PPV) of 84.25% with 95% confidence interval [80.22%, 87.60%]. Of the 337 tweets, we also found 84 to be linking nicotine with smoking/vaping as an extrapolation of research surrounding nicotine or (more rarely) discussing smoking/vaping directly as being therapeutic. This translates to 84/400 = 21% (95% confidence interval: [17.18%, 24.39%]) tweets making such claims. Some pertinent examples from our dataset are shown in Table 1 demonstrating the variety of takes on the controversial topic. We only displayed examples here where the tweet contents cannot be linked back to a real person by searching on Twitter. That is, the user names (and display names) corresponding to messages in Table 1 and other illustrations in this paper can only be traced back to personalities not using their real name (e.g., @JohnnyVapes). However, we want to paraphrase examples of this nature that come from accounts with proper names (and websites of the authors) without displaying the tweet verbatim. In one instance, a tweeter with over 10,000 followers wondered if vaping was the only thing that can cure COVID-19. In another case, a physician tweeter (with over 2000 followers) from a prestigious U.S. Carnegie R1 university states the facts appearing in a linked news article about the French nicotine clinical trial but also includes a “smoking protects” phrasing in the message that is unwarranted and prone to misinterpretation. Another doctoral level researcher (with over 5000 followers) holding a scientific role in a non-profit for smoking cessation takes a nuanced approach that does not outright claim vaping-driven prevention conclusively but still indicates that there exists evidence supporting it.

The classifier that was built to identify the tweets that involve vaping or smoking (shown in Table 1) as potential aids to handle COVID-19 had a PPV of 85% with 65% sensitivity. When it was applied to the filtered dataset, 576 were identified as such, translating to over 11% (576/5192) of the dataset. This proportion is smaller than 21% observed in the human annotated sample because the classifier’s sensitivity is only 65%. We preferred the classifier to be more focused on high precision (PPV) because we wanted to look at the bio text of the Twitter profiles that tweet favorably, involving smoking or vaping. Outside that purpose of separating bios of extrapolating users, the classifier was not thus applied for deriving general proportions.

Bios are brief descriptions that Twitter users post on their profiles typically talking about themselves. Table 2 shows a distribution of top bio words that occur in profiles of users of the 576 tweets that were classified as expressing a favorable view of vaping or smoking for COVID-19 in juxtaposition with those from authors of remaining tweets. The words in the table are sorted in descending order in terms of numbers of bios in that group containing them. The percentages in the parentheses in the table correspond to the proportion of unique users whose bio contains the term. A sample bio of one of the favorable view authors reads: “#Vaping ends #smoking harms. Advocate #HarmReduction. Stop the #VapeBan. Deflate nannycrat pseudoscience masquerading as ‘‘#publichealth’’ #AbolishFDA”. It is quite evident from Table 2 that “advocate” and “vaping” feature at the very top in the bios of such authors. Words “advocate” and “vaping” show up in 1.7% and 1.6% of authors in the other group, while featuring in 6.3% and 5.7% of authors in favorable view group, respectively, clearly indicating over 3X increase in the latter group.

We also considered a different way of analyzing users generating the vaping/smoking tweets. We begin with a simple definition that any user bio or username containing the following terms as substrings is “pro-vaping”: smokefree, “smoke free”, “harm reduction”, harmreduction, e-cigarette, ecigarette, vape, vapor, vapour, vaping, ecig, eliquid, ejuice, e-liquid, tobaccofree, tobacco-free, “tobacco free”, thr (acronym for tobacco harm reduction). Note that because we use substrings, bios containing terms such as vaper, #WeVapeWeVote, #VapingSavesLives, #VapingAdvocate will all match our condition. With this definition, 6.8% of tweeters in the filtered dataset are pro-vaping but they generated a total of 12.6% of its tweets. They also author 21.2% of the 576 smoking/vaping tweets.

DISCUSSION

21% of tweets matching our windowing constraint also express a leap from a nicotine-COVID-19 link to potential benefits of smoking/vaping, even if it is implied. This is clearly an alarmingly non-trivial proportion. Examples from Table 1 and other paraphrased instances show the variety of such tweets ranging from indirect/subtle hints to more explicit declarations. When our classifier was run on unlabeled filtered dataset to identify all such tweets (along with those in the annotated dataset), the corresponding bios reveal vaping related terms featuring at the top (from Table 2). Additionally, results based on the pro-vaping user definition showed that despite constituting less than 7% of users, they authored over 20% of smoking/vaping tweets. This leads us to believe that the tweets that are extrapolating a potential nicotine-COVID-19 link to smoking/vaping as being therapeutic are authored by those having pre-existing positive views on vaping or smoking. But, there is potential for casual Twitter users to be exposed to these types of messages providing potentially biased interpretations of scientific findings. This might encourage them to continue their tobacco product consumption habits or initiate new habits, both possibilities that may lead to negative consequences for public health overall. The first column of Table 2 also shows an identification with the current president of the U.S. (Trump) and his campaign slogan (MAGA) potentially indicating associations with political affiliations.

The most frequently used Web link in the favorable group is a news media piece titled: “This new evidence shows nicotine might prevent smokers from contracting the coronavirus” making an indirect link to smoking. The top link in the other group is a news piece titled: “France testing whether nicotine could prevent coronavirus”. It is straightforward to see this link is positing more of a hypothesis while the former one claims evidence why smokers may be protected from the virus. Among the top ten links in both groups, there are only two links that directly refer to published peer-reviewed research articles^1,8 both in the favorable view group.

Upon examining the top ten frequently used hashtags in both groups, we did not find much difference except for one interesting tag #QuitLying that only shows up in the favorable view tweets. This hashtag is often used in replying to tweets by other users who may be tweeting about the potential risks of COVID-19 for smokers and vapers. For instance, consider this tweet: “There’s compelling evidence that #nicotine inhalation prevents #COVID19 infection and reduces the severity of symptoms. Whatever you’re #smoking, it’s clearly addled your brain. #QuitLying”. This was used as a reply to another tweet by a verified medical doctor who tweeted: “Thanks to everyone who joined the @voxmedia, @TobaccoFreeKids + @Bloombergdotorg panel on tobacco use and #COVID19. With over 5M high school students using e-cigarettes, there’s never been a more urgent moment to talk about the connection between tobacco use and the virus”. This hashtag appears to be a mechanism to engage with others who might be having a non-favorable perspective of tobacco products or nicotine for COVID-19.

Before we conclude, we outline some limitations: only public English language tweets were analyzed; so the findings cannot be generalized to the entire conversation about COVID-19 and tobacco use on all social networks especially on platforms like Facebook and WhatsApp where most of the messaging is not public. The discussion is likely evolving as the pandemic changes and this only captures discussion during the specific duration of January to July in 2020.

Overall, our results demonstrate that there is a nontrivial amount of chatter on Twitter that promotes the not-yet-validated nicotine hypothesis for COVID-19 which at times is also extrapolated to vaping and smoking, spreading false hope to tobacco product consumers without conclusive evidence. Also given evidence of increased risk of adverse outcomes from COVID-19 among smokers compared with non-smokers, social media messages conflating the ‘nicotine hypothesis’ with potential benefits of smoking for COVID-19 may be detrimental to smokers⁹. On Twitter, studies have shown that false news stories reach significantly faster and farther than true ones¹⁰. Recent findings also show that exposure to misinformation that smoking helps with COVID-19 actually leads to an increase in tobacco consumption¹¹. Hence, federal health agencies, healthcare organizations, physicians should all be extremely vigilant in communicating verified information to the general public and patients in the wake of nicotine related misinformation about COVID-19. Additionally, engaging credible voices and approaches to provide balanced information and combat misinformation about vaping and smoking and COVID 19 to the public is needed as trust of typical sources of information (e.g., FDA) may also be weakened through this discourse¹².