PT  - JOURNAL ARTICLE
AU  - C Hajat
AU  - E Stein
AU  - S Shantikumar
AU  - R Niaura
AU  - P Ferrara
AU  - R Polosa
TI  - The Health Impact of Electronic Nicotine Delivery Systems: A Systematic Review
AID  - 10.1101/2020.10.07.20208355
DP  - 2020 Jan 01
TA  - medRxiv
PG  - 2020.10.07.20208355
4099  - http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2020/10/13/2020.10.07.20208355.short
4100  - http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2020/10/13/2020.10.07.20208355.full
AB  - Introduction The objective of this systematic review was to identify, report and critically appraise studies that have reported health outcomes from use of electronic nicotine delivery systems (ENDS).Methods We conducted a systematic review of all published literature on the health impact of ENDS products from 1st January 2015 until February 1, 2020, following the PRISMA protocol, including across the databases, PubMed, Embase, Scopus and Google Scholar using medical subject headings.A category for the level of evidence was assigned blindly using the Centres for Evidence Based Medicine framework. A similar approach was adopted to evaluate methodological quality of each study utilizing the National Institutes for Health (NIH) Quality Assessment Tools.Results The database search identified 755 studies and a further 265 were identified from other sources and reference reviews of which 37 studies met the eligibility criteria.The majority of studies were of low strength for levels of evidence including 24 (65%) cross-sectional, 1(2.7%) case-control and six (16%) case studies. There were four (11%) cohort studies and only one (2.7%) RCT. There was only one (2.7%) meta-analysis or pooled study of observational study designs; there were no pooled results of randomized controlled trials. Of 37 studies, eight (22%) studies reported on benefits, two (2%) studies were neutral, reporting on both harm and benefits, the remaining 27 (73%) reported only on harms. The quality ratings were poor (20, 54%), fair (9, 24%) and good (8, 22%).In our review ENDS use has not been shown to be causative for any CVD outcomes and has been shown to be beneficial for hypertensive patients. Switching from cigarettes to e-cigarettes resulted in reduced exacerbations of COPD, with no evidence of long-term deterioration in lung function. There was a suggestion of short-term reductions in respiratory function in asthmatics, but no increased risk of asthma in ENDS users who were never smokers. Mental Health, cancer and mortality have not been adequately studied to form any consensus with regards to health outcomes from ENDS use.Conclusion Our review suggests that the majority of studies on the use of ENDS products reported on negative health impacts with few reporting on health outcomes from switching from cigarettes to e-cigarettes. The strength of evidence and quality of the published studies overall is poor.Our review has demonstrated that ENDS use is not causative for any harmful CVD outcomes and may be beneficial for hypertensive patients. Switching from cigarettes to e-cigarettes resulted in reduced exacerbations of COPD, with no evidence of increased risk of asthma, long-term respiratory harm or deterioration in lung function. Other health outcomes such as mental health, cancer and mortality have not been adequately studied to form a consensus. However, the findings of our review did not negate the consensus held by many that ENDS use is safer than the risks posed from smoking cigarettes.Overall, our review found the research on ENDS use is not yet adequate to provide quantitative estimates about health risks. Consequently, the current body of evidence is inadequate for informing policy around tobacco harm reduction.Competing Interest StatementCH received reimbursement from ECLAT for research conducted on tobacco harm reduction (2019-2020) including this article; she has served as a paid member of the advisory panel for the Tobacco Transformation Index (contracted by Sustainability, Sept 2019- April 2020); she is a paid consultant to TEVA pharmaceuticals on work related to multiple chronic conditions (2017 to present). ES received reimbursement from ECLAT for research conducted on tobacco harm reduction (2019-2020) including this article. SS has no conflict of interest to declare. RN has no affiliation with, nor does he accept funding from any tobacco, nicotine or vaping commercial or charitable interests including the FSFW. PF has no conflict of interest to declare. RP is full-time employee of the University of Catania, Italy. In relation to his work in the area of tobacco control and respiratory diseases, RP has received lecture fees and research funding from Pfizer, GlaxoSmithKline, CV Therapeutics, NeuroSearch A/S, Sandoz, MSD, Boehringer Ingelheim, Novartis, Duska Therapeutics, and Forest Laboratories. He has also served as a consultant for Pfizer, Global Health Alliance for treatment of tobacco dependence, CV Therapeutics, NeuroSearch A/S, Boehringer Ingelheim, Novartis, Duska Therapeutics, Alfa-Wassermann, Forest Laboratories, ECITA (Electronic Cigarette Industry Trade Association, in the UK), Arbi Group Srl., and Health Diplomats. RP is the Founder of the Center of Excellence for the acceleration of Harm Reduction at the University of Catania (CoEHAR), which has received a grant from Foundation for a Smoke Free World to develop and carry out eight research projects. RP is also currently involved in the following pro bono activities: scientific advisor for LIAF, Lega Italiana Anti Fumo (Italian acronym for Italian Anti-Smoking League) and Chair of the European Technical Committee for standardization on "Requirements and test methods for emissions of electronic cigarettes" (CEN/TC 437; WG4).Funding StatementThe paper was produced in part with the help of a grant from the Foundation for a Smoke Free World, Inc. ECLAT, a spin-off of the University of Catania, is the grant holder. The contents, selection and presentation of facts, as well as any opinions expressed in the paper are the sole responsibility of the authors and under no circumstances shall be regarded as reflecting the positions of the Foundation for a Smoke-Free World, Inc. The Grantor had no role in the selection of the research topic, study design, or the writing of the paper or the project. Author DeclarationsI confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.YesThe details of the IRB/oversight body that provided approval or exemption for the research described are given below:It is not applicable, as it is not clinical study involving humans, but a review on The Health Impact of Electronic Nicotine Delivery Systems.All necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived.YesI understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as ClinicalTrials.gov. I confirm that any such study reported in the manuscript has been registered and the trial registration ID is provided (note: if posting a prospective study registered retrospectively, please provide a statement in the trial ID field explaining why the study was not registered in advance).YesI have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines and uploaded the relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material as supplementary files, if applicable.YesThis is a review. So, we do not have any primary data. We are only reporting already published data.AbbreviationsBMIBody mass indexCATCOPD Assessment TestCADCoronary artery diseaseCOPDChronic obstructive pulmonary diseaseCVDCardiovascular diseaseDBPDiastolic blood pressureENDSElectronic nicotine delivery systemsECElectronic cigaretteHRHeart rateMAMeta-analysisMIMyocardial infarctionSBPSystolic blood pressure