Cite

Figure 1.

Simplified scheme for mechanisms leading to smoking-related cancers (modified from (25)).
Simplified scheme for mechanisms leading to smoking-related cancers (modified from (25)).

Figure 2.

Schematic spirogram for measuring the lung function parameters FVC, FEV1 and FEF25–75 (according to (190), modified).
Schematic spirogram for measuring the lung function parameters FVC, FEV1 and FEF25–75 (according to (190), modified).

j.cttr-2024-0001.tab.011

Column 1 Author, year, country (Reference) (self-explaining)
Column 2 Study type The following types are differentiated: cross-over, cross-sectional, RCT (randomized controlled trials), longitudinal, case-control, prospective
Column 3 User groups/Duration of product use If available number (N) in each group, duration and daily consumption of product use, mean age of group is provided. If not indicated other, groups contain both sexes. Important study design features are also provided.
Column 4 Endpoints and findings Major endpoints are given in bold. Abbreviations, see corresponding section at the beginning of the review.
Column 5 Comments (bias, compliance, etc.) The authors’ main conclusion is provided (labeled as such, AO). Comments on issues with product compliance (in particular exclusive use of an NGP over a longer time period), generally originate from the review authors (ARO).
Column 6 Conclusions of nicotine’s role Statement from the study authors (indicated as such, AO) or review authors are provided (ARO). In red, a simplified code for nicotine (N)’s role in generating the reported effects is stated:
? N’s role cannot be deduced from the study data
0 N is not involved in producing the effect
0.5 N is partly responsible, other product features probably also play a role
1.0 N causes the observed effect (other product features play no or only minor roles)
Combinations of codes are possible.
Column 7 Limitations (L) / Gaps (G) / Proposals (P) These evaluations in general originate from the review authors (AOR). Proposals are provided, if the endpoints of the study look promising and an improved study is assumed to provide valuable data.

Oral mucosa/cell changes and related biomarkers of potential harm (BOPH).

Author, year, country (Ref) Study type User groups / duration of product use Endpoints and findings Comments (bias, compliance, etc.) Conclusions regarding nicotine's (N) role Limitations (L) / Gaps (G) / Proposals (P)
Javed et al. 2017, Saudi Arabia (296) Cross-sectional

94 Males:

• 33 Smokers (CC), 41.3 y, CC use since 5.4 y, 13.3 cig/d

• 31 Vapers (EC), 37.6 y, EC use since 2.2 y, 6.8 sessions/d

• 30 NU, 40.7 y

Periodontal parameters, sign. diff.: < / >:

PI : CC > EC ≈ NU

BOP: CC ≈ EC < NU

CAL: CC ≈ EC ≈ NU

MBL: CC ≈ EC ≈ NU

Perceived oral symptoms (OS):

Gingival pain: CC > EC ≈ NU

Gingival bleeding: CC ≈ EC > NU

Gingival swelling: CC > EC ≈ NU

AO: periodontal inflammation and self-perceived OS were poorer among CC than among EC.

ARO: Dual users were excluded, but no verification of EC only users.

The authors cite evidence that N leads to vasoconstriction and therefore low BOP.

ARO: Study data do not allow to deduce N's role.

L: Small groups.

G: No verification of EC only use; no N-free EC group.

? / 0.5
Bardellini et al. 2018, Italy (297) Cross-sectional

• 45 Former smokers (FCC), mean 47 y

• 45 EC users (EC), mean age 47 y, ECs for at least 6 months, N content: 0–34 mg/mL

Oral mucosa lesions, sign. higher in EC:

Nicotine stomatitis

Hairy tongue

Hyperplastic candidiasis

Not sign. diff.:

Melanosis

Rhomboid glossitis

Lichen planus

Erythematous candidiasis

Leukoplakia

Squamous cell carcinoma

• Total

AO: EC use is linked to three types of inflammatory lesions, but not in precancerous lesions.

ARO: Only self-reports, no objective check for dual use.

ARO: N's role cannot be deduced from the study.

L: Small group sizes, only medium- to short-term use of EC.

G: No check for dual use; no N-free EC group.

P: Larger long-term study with EC only use verification and an N-free EC group would be of interest.

?
Mokeem et al. 2018, Saudi Arabia (298) Cross-sectional

154 Males:

• 39 Smokers (CC), 42.4 y, duration of habit: 17.2 y, 16.2 cig/d, 4.8 min/cig

• 40 Waterpipe (WP), 44.7 y, duration of habit: 14.6 y, 4.3 WP/d, 17.1 min/WP

• 37 Vapers (EC), 28.3 y, duration of habit: 3.1 y, 9.2 cig/d, 8.1 min/cig

• 38 NU, 40.6 y

Oral health parameters, > / <: sign. diff.:

• PI: CC ≈ WP > EC* ≈ NU

* not sign. diff. from all other groups

• BoP: CC ≈ WP > EC ≈ NU

• PD: CC ≈ WP > EC ≈ NU

• CAL: CC ≈ WP > EC ≈ NU

• MBL: CC ≈ WP > EC ≈ NU

BMs in saliva:

• Cot: CC ≈ WP ≈ EC > NU

• IL-1ß: CC ≈ WP > EC ≈ NU

• IL-6: CC ≈ WP > EC ≈ NU

AO: Parameters of oral health were poorer in CC and WP than EC and NU.

ARO: Dual users were excluded, but no verification of EC only use.

EC group is significantly (?) younger!

Authors cite constricting effect of N on gingival blood vessels.

ARO: N's role cannot been deduced from the study.

L: Small group sizes; EC only use not objectively verified.

G: No inclusion of an N-free EC group.

?
Alqahtani et al. 2018, Saudi Arabia (299) Cross-sectional

Male subjects with teeth implant :

• 40 Smokers (CC), 45.8 y, CC since 21.3 y

• 40 Water pipe users (WP), 43.5 y, WP use for 19.5 y

• 40 Vapers (EC), 35.6 y, EC use for 8.7 y, 6.5 sessions/d, 37.7 min/session

• 40 Non-smokers (NS), 42.6 y

Peri-implant parameters:

• PI: Sign. higher in CC, WP, EC vs NS

BOP: Sign. lower in CC, WP, EC vs NS

PD: Sign. higher in CC, WP, EC vs NS; also sign, higher in CC, WP vs EC

Bone loss:

• Sign, higher in CC, WP, EC vs NS; also sign. higher in CC, WP vs EC

TNF-α, IL-6, IL-1ß in PISF:

• Sign. higher in CC, WP, EC than in NS

ARO: The authors do not interpret their results with EC users.

No information on possible dual use of EC and other products.

The authors state that N is reported to exert vasoconstriction on gingival blood vessels.

ARO: A role of N cannot be deduced from the study.

G: No N-free EC group; no information on possible dual use EC/other products (CC, WP).

P: A study with these gaps filled would be of interest.

0.5 / ?
Al-Aali et al. 2018, Saudi Arabia (300) Cross-sectional

Subjects with teeth implants:

• 47 Male vapers (EC), 35.8 y, mean EC use: 4.4 y, 6.5 sessions/d, 37.7 min/session

• 45 Male never smokers (NS), 42.6 y

Peri-implant parameters:

PI: not sign. diff.

BOP: sign. lower in EC than NS

• PD: sign. higher in EC than NS

PIBL: sign. higher in EC than NS

TNF-α and IL-1ß in PISF: sign. higher in EC than NS

ARO: No information on possible additional CC use.

The authors state that N is reported to reduce the healing process and exerts vasoconstriction on gingival blood vessels.

ARO: A role of N cannot be deduced from the study.

G: No N-free EC group; no CC group (positive control); no information on possible dual use EC/CC.

P: A study with these gaps filled would be of interest.

0.5 / ?
Atuegwu et al. 2019, USA (301) Longitudinal

• 9,632 Never EC users (nEC)

• 329 Longitudinal EC users (LEC) for at least 1 year

• 8,298 Occasional EC users (OEC)

PATH study, waves 1, 2, 3

LEC sign. increased compared to nEC at wave 3 for:

New gum disease (compared to wave 1)

Bone loss around teeth

• any periodontal disease

nEC and OEC were not sign. different

AO: EC use may be harmful to oral health.

ARO: All data on behavior and endpoints were self-reports.

ARO: N's role or involvement in the effects cannot be deduced from the study.

L: Only self-reports; EC use might be too short.

G: No objective verification of EC only use; no N-free EC group.

?
BinShabaib et al., 2019, Saudi Arabia (302) Cross-sectional

• 46 CC users (14.2 pack × years)

• 44 EC users (duration of use: 9.4 y)

• 45 NU (never used CC or EC)

Periodontal health status:

CC < EC < NU

Indicators: PI, BOP, PD, CAL, MBL

Cytokine profile in gingival crevicular fluid (IL1ß, IL6, INFγ, TNF-α, MMP-8); CC sign. diff. from EC and NU; EC closer to NU

AO: Periodontal status is poorer and GCF levels of proinflam. cytokines are higher in CC compared with EC and NU. There is evidence for increased periodontal inflammation in EC users.

ARO: Compliance of EC use not approved (could be questionable).

ARO: N's role cannot be deduced.

L: Small group sizes; EC compliance questionable (given the long duration of use).

?
Alqahtani et al. 2019, Saudi Arabia (303) Cross-sectional

102 Males with tooth implants:

• 35 Smokers, 36.3 y, daily CC use for > 12 months

• 33 Waterpipe (WP) users, 34.1 y, daily WP use for > 12 months

• 34 Vapers, 33.5 y, daily EC use for > 12 months, 8.4 mg N/mL

• 35 NU, 32.2 y

Peri-implant (inflamm.) variables:

PI, PD, cotinine sign. increased, BOP decreased in CC, WP, EC compared to NU

AO: Cotinine peri-implant in fluid was increased in users of N products (ARO: trivial!).

ARO: Dual users were excluded, but not verification.

Authors suggest that N is the main effector.

ARO: N's role, however, cannot be deduced from the study data.

L: Small group sizes, unclear compliance (particularly of EC group).

G: No N-free EC group, no objective verification of compliance.

? / 1.0
ArRejaiie et al. 2019, Saudi Arabia (304) Cross-sectional

95 Males with tooth implants:

• 32 Smokers (CC), 40.4 y, CC since 13.7 y, 11.3 cig/d

• 41 Vapers (EC), 35.8 y, EC since 4.4 y, 6.5 sessions/d, 37.7 min/session

Peri-implant sign diff:

PI: CC > EC > NU

BOP: CC ≈ EC < NU

PD: CC ≈ EC < NU

MBL: CC > EC > NU

MMP-9: CC > EC > NU

IL-1ß: CC > EC > NU

AO: Peri-implant is compromised by CC and (to smaller degree) also by EC.

ARO: Dual users were excluded, but not verification of status.

The authors point out that N can reduce healing and BOP and also AGEs.

ARO: N's role cannot be deduced from the study data.

L: Small group sizes; unclear compliance.

G: No N-free EC group; no objective verification of EC only use.

0.5 / ?
AlHarthi et al. 2019, Saudi Arabia (305) Longitudinal

89 Males, at least 30% BOP:

• 28 Vapers (EC use daily since at least 12 months, no history of tobacco use), 32.5 y

• 30 Smokers (CC, > 5 cig/d on the previous 12 months), 36.4 y

• 31 NU, 32.6 y

Investigations at BL, 3 and 6 months; FMUS after BL

Gingival inflammation (as indicated by PI, PD, BOP) were similar in EC and NU group and worse in CC group (at all time points).

AO: State to be cautious with the interpretation of the results due to weaknesses in the study design.

ARO: Dual users excluded, but no verification of EC only use.

AO: It is stated that N has a vasoconstrictive effect reducing the microcirculation.

ARO: N's role cannot be deduced from the study.

L: Low number of subjects, short duration of product use.

G: No N-free EC group, no verification of EC only use.

0.5 / ?
Tommasi et al. 2019, USA (306) Cross-sectional

• 42 EC users, 28 y, CotP: 115 ng/mL

• 24 CC users, 42 y, CotP: 122 ng/mL

• 27 NU, 24 y, CotP: 2.5 ng/mL

Gene dysregulation in oral epithelial cells compared to NU: ~50% higher in CC (1,725 vs 1,152; 299 in common) “cancer pathway” was highest in EC and CC

AO: The findings have significant impact on public health.

ARO: Possible dual use not considered.

N's role not discussed by the authors.

ARO: cannot be deduced from the study results.

L: Small group sizes; dual use is possible.

G: No N-free group.

P: Study with the weaknesses eliminated would be of interest.

?
Al-Hamoudi et al. 2020, Saudi Arabia (307) Cross-sectional

71 Subjects with chronic periodontitis:

• 36 Vapers (EC), 47.7 y, mean duration of EC: 3.3 y, 17.6 sessions/d, 8.4 puffs/session, all were former smokers

• 35 NU, 46.5 y

Investigations at BL and 3 months, in between: SRP

BL: no sign. diff. between EC and NU in PI, PD, CAL, MBL, GCF IL-4, IL-9, IL-10, and IL-13; 3-months: no sign. diff. in PI, PD, CAL, MBL in EC compared to BL, but sign. reduction in PI, GI and PD in NU; GCF IL-4, IL-9, IL-10, and IL-13 elevated in both groups compared to BL (higher in NU than EC)

AO: The anti-inflammatory effect of SRP was higher in NU than in EC.

ARO: No verification of EC only use.

ARO: N's role cannot be deduced, although N may be involved mechanistically in the inflammation processes.

L: Small group sizes.

G: No verification of EC only use; no N-free EC group.

?
Karaaslan et al. 2020, Turkey (308) Cross-sectional

Periodontitis patients:

• 19 Smokers (CC), 35.3 y, smoking for 14.0 y

• 19 Vapers (EC), 34.7 y, CC use for 12.1 y than switched to EC since at least 12 months

• 19 Former smokers (FS), 35.6 y, CC use for 12.1 y then stopped since at least 12 months

PD and PI not sign. diff. between groups

GI: sign. diff., CC < EC < FS

• BMs in GCF:

IL-8: CC < EC < FS, sign.

TNF-α: CC > EC > FS, sign.

GSH-Px: CC ≈ EC < FS, sign.

8-OHdG: not sign. diff.

AO: CCs and ECs had the same unfavourable effects on the markers of oxidative stress and inflammatory cytokines.

ARO: Dual smokers (CC and EC) were excluded. No information on compliance.

ARO: Role of nicotine cannot be deduced from the study.

L: Small group sizes, no long-term use of ECs, no information on unique EC use in vapers.

G: No N-free EC group.

?
Ye et al. 2020, USA (309) Cross-sectional

• 12 NU, 35.7 y, CotS: 0.56 ng/mL

• 12 CC, 40.3 y, CotS: 142.5 ng/mL

• 12 EC, 34.9 y, CotS: 180.2 ng/mL, N in e-liquid: 0–24 mg/mL

• 12 Dual (EC, CC) users (DU), 39.4 y, CotS: 299.0 ng/mL

Sign. diff. between groups:

CotS: DU > NU

Inflamm BMs in saliva:

IL-1ß: none

PGE2: CC > NU, CC > EC, CC > DU

GCF BMs for inflamm, ox stress and growth factors:

RAGE: DU > EC

MMP-9: NU > EC

MPO: NU < CC, NU < EC, EC < DU

Various growth factors: none

AO: EC/CC induced differential changes on oral health.

ARO: Strange sign. diff. for CotS and some other BMs.

No detailed assessment of product use.

ARO: N's role cannot be deduced.

L: Small group sizes; EC compliance questionable.

G: No N-free EC group.

?
Vohra et al. 2020, Saudi Arabia (310) Cross-sectional

105 Males:

• 28 Smokers (CC), 33.3 y, 6.1 pack-years

• 26 EC users, 31.6 y, 0.9 y EC use, 30.2 sessions/d

• 25 JUUL (JU) users, 32.1 y, 0.8 y JU use, 25.3 sessions/d

• NU, 33.5 y

Self-rated oral symptoms, sign. diff.:

Pain in teeth: CC > JU, CC > NU, EC > NU

Bleeding gums: EC > NU

Bad breath: CC > EC, CC > JU, CC > NU

Pain in gums: CC > EC, CC > JU, CC > NU

Periodontal parameters, sign. diff.:

PI: CC > EC ≈ JU ≈ NU

BOP: none

PD: CC > EC ≈ JU ≈ NU

CAL: none

MBL: none

AO: Pain in teeth and gums are more often perceived by CC than EC and JUUL users and NU.

ARO: Dual users were excluded, but no verification of EC or JUUL only use.

Authors cite evidence that N is involved in gingival AGE formation and gum blood flow.

ARO: Study results do not provide evidence for N's role in oral health.

L: Small group sizes; only short use of EC and JU.

G: No N-free EC group.

?
Ibraheem et al. 2020, Saudi Arabia (311) Cross-sectional

Male subject N habit since > 12 months, mean age ~45 y in each subgroup:

• 30 Smokers (CC), CC habit: 18.3 y, 12.6 cig/d, 8.3 min/cig

• 30 WP users, WP habit: 15.6 y, 5.5 WP/d, 22.6 min/WP

• 30 EC users, EC habit: 6.4 y, 15.4 sessions/d, 20.5 min/session

• 30 NU

Oral health, sign. diff. (</>):

PI/PD/CAL/MBL: CC ≈ WP ≈ EC > NU

BOP: CC ≈ WP ≈ EC < NU

Markers in GCF:

RANKL:CC ≈ WP ≈ EC > NU

OPG: CC ≈ WP ≈ EC > NU

AO: All product users (including EC) show impairment of oral health.

ARO: Dual users were excluded. No verification of possible dual use in subgroups.

The authors cite some evidence that N can increase RANKL and OPG levels.

ARO: From this study, no involvement of N can be deduced.

L: Small group sizes; unclear, whether only EC were used (no objective verification).

G: No N-free EC group.

P: A larger study without these weaknesses would be worthwhile.

? / 0.5
Pushalkar et al. 2020, USA (312) Cross-sectional

• 39 NU, (m/f): 29/38 y, COex: 1.8 ppm, CotS: 11.9 ng/mL

• 40 EC users, (m/f): 36/36 y, COex: 5.1 ppm, CotS: 104 ng/mL

• 40 CC users, (m/f): 46/45 y, COex: 18.8 ppm, CotS: 536 ng/mL

Oral microbiome:

Sign. diff. in EC from NU and also from CC

AO: EC users are more prone to infections.

ARO: Dual use not unlikely (see COex in EC).

The authors mention evidence that N could be involved.

ARO: N's role cannot be deduced from the data.

L: Small group sizes; long-term product use not well characterized, misclassification possible.

G: No N-free EC group.

?
Faridoun et al. 2021, USA (313) Cross-sectional

64 Subjects, 28–83 y:

• 15 Controls (NU)

• 18 CC users

• 16 Mixed (CC, EC)

• 15 EC users

Pro-inflamm BMs in saliva:

IL-6, IL-8, IL1ß*, TNF-α*

Anti-inflamm BMs in saliva:

IL-10, IL-1RA, CRP

*: sign. diff. in ANOVA

EC closer to CC and mixed than to NU.

AO: The combined findings of this study and previous studies put into question the safety of ECs as a smoking cessation mechanism.

ARO: No statement on duration of EC use, no check of self-reported product use.

ARO: N's role cannot be deduced.

L: Small group sizes.

G: No information on duration of use of products.

?
Akram et al. 2021, Saudi Arabia (281) Longitudinal

• 30 Male vapers (EC), ≥ 2 y EC use

• 30 Male smokers (CC), ≥ 2 y CC use

• Investigations at BL, 3 and 6 months

Sign. differences

BOP: higher in EC

PD: higher in CC at 6 month

Sign. dose-response in CC group (pack-years) for:

• PD, CAL, MMP-8,CTX (at BL, 3 and 6 months)

Sign. dose-response in EC group (session-years) for:

• PD (all time points), MMP-8 (3 and 6 months)

Effects higher in CC than EC.

AO: CC showed higher periodontal worsening than EC. MMP-8, CTX are prognostic factors for clinical attachment loss in CC and EC users.

ARO: No verification of pure EC or CC status.

ARO: N can lead to reduced gingival blood flow (vasoconstriction, lower BOP in CC).

N's role and participation cannot be deduced distinctly from this study.

L: Small groups, 6 months might be too short.

G: No N-free group.

P: Larger study with verified long-term users would be of interest.

? / 0.5
Thomas et al. 2022, USA (314) Longitudinal

• 27 CC users, (m/f): 48/51 y

• 28 EC users, (m/f): 36/40 y

• 29 NU, (m/f): 29/39 y

Investigations at BL and 6 months later

Subgingival microbiome:

• consistent for 3 groups over time

• Unique in EC group, higher agreement with CC

• No clear group diff. for cytokines (IL-1ß, TNF-α, IL-6, IL-8, IL-10, others)

PD sign. higher in CC

AO: Suggest that there is a unique periodontal risk associated with e-cig use (similar to CC).

ARO: EC only use not verified.

The authors assume that N could have specific selection pressure on the microbiome.

ARO: N's role is not deducible from this study.

L: Small group sizes; duration of EC use too short?

G: No N-free EC group.

?
Cheng et al. 2022, USA (315) Longitudinal (6 months)

• 20 NU

• 20 EC users

• 8 CC users

Acrolein-DNA adducts in buccal cells (measured monthly, 3 time points), medians in fmol/μmol Gua:

CC / EC / NU:

446 /179 / 21.0

AO: This is the first identification of a carcinogen-DNA adduct in any tissue of EC users.

ARO: No involvement of N to be expected.

L: Small group sizes; dual use cannot be completely excluded.

P: Larger study with a long-term verification marker would be of interest.

0
Miluna et al. 2022, Latvia (316) Cross-sectional

76 Subjects, ~25 y :

• 12 Snus (including N pouch users)

• 19 Smokers (CC)

• 8 Vapers (EC)

• 37 NU

Oral mucosa changes:

• Only seen in snus group

Inflammation BMs in saliva:

IL-6: Snus > CC ≈ EC > NU

IL-1: Snus > CC ≈ EC > NU

IL-8: Snus > CC ≈ EC > NU

TNF-α: Snus > CC ≈ EC > NU

AO: Saliva is a suitable matrix for detecting oral mucosa changes. Product use relies on self-reports.

ARO: N's role cannot be deduced from the data.

L: Small groups; not well characterized product use history; snus and N pouch use not separated.

G: No N-free EC group.

?
Tommasi et al. 2023, USA (317) Cross-sectional

72 Healthy, young subjects:

• 24 EC only users, 24.3 y, CotP: 84.9 ng/mL

• 24 CC only users, 26.0 y, CotP: 76.7 ng/mL

• 24 NU (no CC, no EC), 25.3 y, CotP: 2.6 ng/mL

DNA lesions in oral epithelial cell (LA-PCR methods), (≈: not sign.)

POLP gene: CC ≈ EC > NU

HPRT gene: CC ≈ EC > NU

EC: dose-dependent and device-dependent

AO: DNA damage was shown for the first time.

ARO: EC/CC use only short-term verified.

The authors state that N-content in e-liquid was not a predictor for DNA damage.

ARO: No role of N deducable.

L: Product use not verified (long-term); small group sizes; DNA lesions are unspecific (strand breaks, bulky adducts, oxidation, etc.).

P: A larger study, avoiding the weaknesses with a specific DNA analysis would be of interest.

0 / ?

j.cttr-2024-0001.tab.012

Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) A preventable and treatable disease characterized by airflow limitation that is not fully reversible. The limitation is usually progressive and is associated with an abnormal inflammatory response of the lungs to noxious particles or gases, primarily caused by cigarette smoking. Although COPD affects the lungs, it also produces significant systemic consequences.
Emphysema Permanent enlargement of the airspaces distal to the terminal bronchioles, accompanied by destruction of their walls and without obvious fibrosis. In patients with COPD, either condition may be present. However, the relative contribution of each to the disease process is often difficult to discern.
Asthma A chronic inflammatory disease of the airways in which many cell types play a role — in particular, mast cells, eosinophils, and T lymphocytes. In susceptible persons, the inflammation causes recurrent episodes of wheezing, breathlessness, chest tightness, and cough, particularly at night and/or in the early morning. These symptoms are usually associated with widespread and variable airflow obstruction that is at least partly reversible either spontaneously or with treatment. The inflammation also causes an associated increase in airway responsiveness to a variety of stimuli.

CVD and CVD-related biomarkers of potential harm (BOPH).

Author, year, country (Ref) Study type User groups / duration of product use Endpoints and findings Comments (bias, compliance, etc.) Conclusions regarding nicotine's (N) role Limitations (L) / Gaps (G) / Proposals (P)
Myocardial infarction (MI)
Huhtasaari et al. 1992, Sweden (39) Case-control

35–64 y old men:

• 585 Cases with MI

• 589 Controls

Duration of SLT use: 10–30 y

ORs (CI) vs NU for MI:

• CC: 1.87 (1.40–2.48)

• SLT: 0.89 (0.62–1.29)

AO: Snuff dipping for middle aged men is associated with a lower risk for MI than smoking (CC).

ARO: No verification of SLT use.

The authors suggest that CO and PAH, rather than N, might be more important for MI formation.

N's role is probably small and cannot be deduced.

L: Relative low number of cases/controls using SLT (10–15%).

G: Dual use (SLT+CC) not assessed.

P: Larger study which avoids these weaknesses would be of interest.

0 / ?
Huhtasaari et al. 1999, Sweden (40) Case-control

WHO MONICA study, 25–64 y old men:

• 687 MI cases

• 687 Controls

Duration of SLT use: 5–30 y

ORs (CI) for first MI (fatal and non-fatal) compared to NU:

• SLT only (N=59): 0.96 (0.65–1.41)

• CC only (N=248): 3.65 (2.67–4.99)

SLT risk slightly (not sign.) higher for fatal MI (OR=1.50)

AO: MI is not increased in snuff dippers.

ARO: Dual use was evaluated separately, but no verification for SLT only users.

The authors conclude that N is probably not an important contributor to ischemic heart disease in smokers.

L: Small group sizes; only men, relatively young population.

G: No other NGPs; no N-free ECs.

0
Hergens et al. 2007, Sweden (41) Prospective 118,395 healthy, never-smoking men (construction workers), 19 years (mean) of follow-up

MI, RR for ever snuff users vs NU:

• Non-fatal: 0.91 (0.81–1.02)

• Fatal: 1.28 (1.06–1.55)

• Fatal, highest consumption: 1.96 (1.08–3.58)

AO: Snuff use increases the risk of fatal MI.

ARO: Tobacco use information was obtained from questionnaires at entry.

The authors cite evidence that N is a risk factor for MI.

Participation of N in MI generation cannot be excluded.

L: RR are very low and only sign. for fatal MIs; no clear dose-response; tobacco habits rely on self-reports; changes in habits are not assessed.

0.5 / ?
Boffetta and Straif 2009, Sweden, USA (42) Case-control and Prospective (meta-analysis)

9 Epi studies on MI

6 Epi studies on stroke

in Sweden (Swe) and USA

Duration of use: 20 y (estimate)

RR (CI) of current SLT users (number of studies):

Any MI:

• Swe (6): 0.87 (0.75–1.02)

• USA (3): 1.11 (1.04–1.19)

Fatal MI:

• Swe (5): 1.27 (1.07–1.52)

• USA (3): 1.11 (1.04–1.19)

Any stroke:

• Swe (3): 1.02 (0.93–1.13)

• USA (3): 1.39 (1.22–1.60)

Fatal stroke:

• Swe (3): 1.25 (0.91–1.70)

• USA (3): 1.39 (1.22–1.60)

AO: Use of SLT increases the risk of fatal MI and stroke, which does not seem to be explained by chance.

ARO: Dual use (SLT + CC) is a general issue.

The authors cite evidence that N might be involved in the development of MI and stroke.

ARO: From the data, the role of N cannot be deduced.

L: Heterogeneity; SLT products in USA and Sweden are different, limited or no dose-response shown.

G: No other NGPs.

0.5 / ?
Arefalk et al. 2011, Sweden (43) Prospective (2 studies)

• ULSAM: 1,056 elderly men, never smoking, median FU 8.9 y

• CWC: 118,425 construction workers, never smoking, median FU 18 y

Duration of snus use: 50 y (estimate)

Heart failure, harm ratio (CI) snus users vs NU:

• ULSAM: 2.08 (1.03–4.22)

• CWC: 1.28 (1.00–1.64)

AO: Use of snus increases the risk of heart failure.

ARO: Snus only use was not verified.

The authors assume that N per se could be detrimental for the CV tissue.

ARO: N's role cannot be deduced from the studies.

L: Low case numbers (particularly in ULSAM study); no reliable information on tobacco use habits (misclassification possible); no dose-response observed; men only.

0.5 / ?
Alzahrani et al. 2018, USA (44) Cross-sectional (NHIS = National Health Interview Survey)

Survey of 2014 and 2016

• 60,100 NU, 51.9 y, 2,309 MIs

• 7,093 Former EC users, 39.9 y, 225 MIs

• 1,483 EC some days, 41.4 y, 61 MIs

• 776 EC daily (41 never smoked), 44.2 y, 47 MIs

Duration of EC use: < 10 y (?)

Adjusted ORs (CI) for MI (vs NU):

• Former EC: 1.06 (0.86–1.30)

• EC some days: 1.16 (0.83–1.62)

• EC daily: 1.79 (1.20–2.16)

AO: Daily use of EC increases the MI risk.

ARO: Dual use was adjusted in the ORs, no verification.

ARO: N's role cannot be deduced from this study.

L: All data rely on self-reports.

G: No N-free EC group.

Causality between EC use and MI was questioned in a letter to the editor (47).

?
Vindhyal et al. 2020, USA (45) Cross-sectional

National Health Interview Survey, 2014, 2016, 2017, 2018; 16,855 participants:

• 2,848 NU, 30.3 y

• 401 Vapers (EC), 26.7 y

• 7,291 Tobacco users (mostly CC), 44.0 y

• 2,240 Dual, 42.2 y

Duration of EC use: < 10 y (estimate)

Adjusted ORs (CI) vs NU:

MI:

• EC: 4.09 (1.29–12.98)

• CC: 4.52 (2.49–8.21)

• Dual: 5.44 (2.90–10.22)

Stroke:

• EC: 1.22 (0.36–4.18)

• CC: 2.15 (1.38–3.35)

• Dual: 2.32 (1.44–3.74)

CHD:

• EC: 0.67 (0.18–2.44)

• CC: 1.90 (1.20–3.11)

• Dual: 2.27 (1.37–3.77)

AO: EC users have an increased risk for MI. The highest risk for MI, stroke and CHD were observed for dual users.

ARO: Grouping relies on self-reports (danger of misclassification).

ARO: N's role cannot be deduced.

L: All data rely on self-reports (misclassification of product use is possible).

G: No N-free EC group.

?
Stroke
Hergens et al. 2008, Sweden (48) Prospective

118,395 healthy, never-smoking men (construction workers), enrolled 1978–1993, follow-up 2003

• 3,248 cases of stroke

Duration of snuff use: 10–30 y (estimate)

RR for ever snuff users:

• All strokes: 1.02 (0.92–1.13)

Fatal strokes: 1.27 (0.92–1.76)

• Fatal ischemic strokes: 1.63 (1.02–2.62)

AO: Snuff use increases the risk of fatal ischemic stroke.

ARO: Tobacco use information was obtained from questionnaires at entry.

The authors cite evidence that N is a risk factor for stroke.

ARO: Participation of N in ischemic stroke generation cannot be excluded.

L: RR are very low and only sign. for fatal ischemic strokes; no clear dose-response; tobacco habits rely on self-reports; changes in habits are not assessed.

0.5 / ?
Parekh et al. 2020, USA (49) Cross-sectional

Telephone survey, 161,529 young adults (18–44 y):

• 13,3077 NU

• 13,318 CC only

• 3,437 EC only

• 4,204 EC/exCC

• 7,493 Dual

Duration of EC use: < 10 y (estimate)

OR (CI) for stroke (vs NU, adjusted):

• CC only: 1.59 (1.14–2.22)

• EC only: 0.69 (0.34–1.42)

• EC/exCC): 2.54 (1.16–5.56)

• Dual: 2.91 (1.62–5.25)

AO: Sole EC use is not a risk factor for stroke.

ARO: All data rely on self-reports (no verification of product use).

The authors cite evidence that N may be involved in stroke and CVD.

ARO: Absence of risk in EC only would suggest no role of N.

L: Misclassification due to self-report is possible; switching to EC due to early symptoms possible.

G: No N-free EC group.

0 / ?
Bricknell et al. 2021, USA (50) Cross-sectional

Behavior and risk factor survey (BRFSS), 2016, 486,303 participants:

• G1: EC every day, m/f: 2,778/2,229

• G2: EC some day, m/f: 5,018/5,151

• G3: Former EC, m/f: 29,014/29,815

• G4: NU, m/f:164,605/226,937, older than G1–G3

Duration of EC use: < 10 y (estimate)

Adjusted OR (CI) for stroke vs NU:

• G1: 1.62 (1.18–2.31)

• G2: 1.28 (1.02–1.61)

• G3: 1.09 (0.98–1.23)

AO: EC use is of potential concern for CVD.

Self-reports and cross-sectional design can lead to confounding and bias.

ARO: N's role cannot be deduced from this study.

L: Only short use of EC (2007–2016); most participants were former CC users; dual use possible; temporality (due to cross-sectional design) not determined.

?
Zhao et al. 2022, various countries (51) 6 Cross-sectional studies (meta-analysis)

1,134,896 Subjects, groups used for meta-analysis:

• EC1: EC users (all, including only, dual, former CC)

• EC2: EC only users

• EC3: Current dual users

• EC4: EC only users, former CC users

• CC: CC only users

• NU: no EC, no CC

Duration of EC use: ?

OR for prevalence of stroke:

• EC1 vs NU: 1.25 (1.01–1.55) (no publ. bias, high heterogen.)

• EC2 vs NU: 1.13 (0.99–1.29)

• EC3 vs CC: 1.39 (1.19–1.64)

• EC4 vs NU: 1.59 (1.22–2.07)

Subgroup analysis had lower heterogeneity

AO: The role of EC use in stroke development is inconclusive due to the strong effect of former CC use.

ARO: General problems with misreports of product use.

N's role in stroke cannot be deduced from these data.

L: Partly low quality studies; stroke types not differentiated; misclassification of product use possible; temporality unclear in cross-sectional studies.

G: No prospective studies available; no N-free EC groups available.

?
Patel et al. 2022, USA (52) Cross-sectional

NHANES 2015–2018, 79,825 users:

• 7,756 EC users, 48y

• - EC1: EC use in last 30d

• - EC2: No EC use in last 30d

• 23,444 Dual users, 50y

• 48,625 CC users, 59y

EC users are sign. younger

Adjusted ORs (CI) for stroke:

• EC vs CC: 1.15 (1.15–1.16)

• Dual vs CC: 1.14 (1.14–1.15)

• EC1 vs EC2: 1.60 (1.60–1.61)*

* discrepant to the text!?

AO: Stroke in EC users was earlier in onset than in smokers.

ARO: Usual problems with cross-sectional approach (temporality, recall bias).

The authors cited evidence that N might be involved in HT, CHD and MI (other EC components involved: acrolein, particles).

L: Temporality in cross-sectional studies; misreports in product use; stroke not further classified.

G: No N-free EC group.

0.5
Atherosclerosis, CVD, CHD and related markers
Wennmalm et al. 1991, Sweden (58) Cross-sectional

577 young men (18–19 y):

• 377 NU

• 43 CC only

• 127 Snuff only

• 30 Dual (Snuff + CC)

Sign. diff. in CVD-related BMs in urine:

• Tx-M: CC > NU, Dual > NU

PGI-M not sign. diff. between groups

AO: CC but not snuff use facilitates TBX-A2 formation, reflecting platelet activation and potential CVD development.

ARO: No verification of snuff only use.

The authors cite evidence that N might be involved in CVD formation, the snuff only results appear to disfavor this.

ARO: N's role cannot be deduced from the data.

L: Small user group sizes; young men only.

G: No other NGPs (EC, HTP), N-free EC.

P: Larger study with older subjects, including additional NGPs would be of interest.

?
Bolinder et al. 1994, Sweden (56) Prospective

Male construction workers, up to 65 y (1970/71), follow-up after 12 years for mortalities:

• 32,546 NU

• 6,297 SLT users

• 14,983 Smokers (CC1), < 15 cig/d

• 13,518 Smokers (CC2), ≥ 15 cig/d

Duration of SLT use: 10–40 y (estimate)

RR (CI) compared to NU:

CVD:

– SLT: 1.4 (1.2–1.6)

– CC1: 1.8 (1.6–2.0)

– CC2: 1.9 (1.7–2.2)

All cancers:

– SLT: 1.1 (0.9–1.4)

– CC1: 1.5 (1.3–1.8)

– CC2: 2.5 (2.2–2.0)

All causes:

– SLT: 1.4 (1.3–1.8)

– CC1: 1.7 (1.6–1.9)

– CC2: 2.2 (2.0–2.4)

AO: Both CC and SLT users have an increased risk for CVD, risk for SLT is lower.

ARO: SLT (only) use was not verified, dual use is not unlikely.

The authors cite evidence that N could be involved in atherosclerotic process and that the result show that N is partially involved in CVD generation.

ARO: N's role not deducible from the data.

L: Only male workers (healthy-worker effect?); dual use (SLT+CC) is possible.

G: Other NGPs; ECs without N missing.

0–0.5
Bolinder et al. 1997, Sweden (59) Cross-sectional

143 Men, 35–60 y:

• 40 NU, 43.1 y, CotP: 3.8 ng/mL

• 28 SLT users, 44.4y, median 25y of SLT use, CotP: 338 ng/mL

• 29 Smokers (CC), 48.0y, median 30y of CC use, CotP: 248 mg/mL

Markers for atherosclerosis sign. diff. (↑/↓) in CC, SLT were not sign. diff. from NU:

Carotid intima thickness: ↑

Plaques in intima: ↑

Plasma cholesterol: ↑

HDL: ↓

TG: ↑

Apo A-1: ↑

Apo B: ↑

Fibrinogen: ↑

• Alcohol consumption: ↑

AO: The increased occurrence of atherosclerosis in smokers is caused by other components of tobacco smoke than nicotine.

ARO: SLT only use not verified.

The authors state that, while N might play a role in CVD, result show that N is not involved in the atherosclerotic process.

L: Small group sizes; SLT group might contain dual users.

G: No other NGPs included.

P: A study avoiding these weaknesses would be worthwhile.

0
Wallenfeldt et al. 2001, Sweden (60) Cross-sectional

391 Healthy men, 58 y

• 139 NU (never SLT, never CC)

• 48 SLT users (29% also smoked)

• 96 CC users

Risk factors for atherosclerosis sign. diff. from NU:

• SLT: TG

• CC: TG, CRP, IMT (carotis and femoral), plaques (femoral), HI

AO: Smoking, but not SLT is an import risk for atherosclerosis.

ARO: No exclusive SLT group evaluated.

The authors conclude that the data clearly indicate that N may not be the most important etiological factor in the atherosclerotic process.

L: Only men, only one age.

G: No exclusive SLT group, no other NGPs.

0
Yatsuya et al. 2010, USA (57) Prospective (1987/89, FU: median 16.7 y later)

• NU (no SLT, no CC): Total: 9,906; 1,510 CVD cases

• SLT (no CC): Total: 354; 102 CVD cases; SLT = Snuff + chewing tobacco

Harm ratio (CI) for CVD vs NU:

• SLT: 1.31 (1.06–1.61)

• CC (only): lower CVD risk than SLT!?

AO: SLT use increases the risk CVD and is no alternative to CC use.

ARO: SLT use only was not verified.

No statement on role of N from the authors.

ARO: A role of N is possible, but cannot be deduced from the study data.

L: Misclassification of SLT (and CC) is possible (also conceded by the authors).

?
Nocella et al. 2018, Italy (62) Cross-over

40 Subjects (20 S and 20 NS) were investigated under 2 conditions, separated by 1 week:

• C1: Vaping, 9 puffs, EC with 16 mg N/mL

• C2: Smoking, 1 CC (0.6 mg N/cig);

Blood samples for BM analysis were taken right before and 5 min after product use

Sign. diff. between S and NS at baseline:

• sCD40L: higher in S

• sP-Selectin: higher in S

Changes pre/post:

Elevation in NS and S under both conditions (C1, C2) for the 3 BMs

sCD40L

sP-Selectin

Platelet aggregation

AO: Both CC and EC use acutely increase platelet activation.

ARO: Involvement of N is possible but cannot be deduced from the study (no EC without N included).

L: Low number of subjects.

G: No ECs without N included.

P: Results suggest a chronic effect of smoking on sCD40L, sP-Selectin. Therefore a larger study with long-term (> 12 months) use of CC and EC would be worthwhile.

?
Mobarrez et al. 2020, Sweden (63) Cross-over

17 occasional smokers were assigned to 2 conditions, separated by 1 week:

• C1: EC with N (19 mg/mL), 30 puffs in 30 min

• C2: EC without N, 30 puffs in 30 min

BM measurements at 0, 2, 4, 6 h post vaping

C1: sign. increase in:

endothelial cell-derived EVs (BM1)

platelet-derived EVs (BM2)

platelet-derived EVs expressing P-selectin (BM3)

platelet-derived EVs expressing CD40 (BM4)

C2: sign. increase only in

• BM4 (smaller than in C1)

AO: As few as 30 puffs of nicotine-containing EC vapor caused an increase in levels of circulating EVs of endothelial and platelet origin, which may signify underlying vascular changes.

ARO: Nicotine likely to be involved in the acute increase of all 4 BMs.

L: Low number of subjects.

G: BM levels after chronic use of EC and other NGP use.

1
Sahota et al. 2021, USA (61) Cross-sectional

Young adults:

• 20 Smokers (CC), 27.0 y

• 20 EC users (EC use only for the past 3 months, 80 % were previous smokers), 25.7 y,

• 20 NS, 24.6 y

Plaque burden (wall area and thickness) sign. higher in CC and EC than in NS (EC about in the mid between CC and NS); vascular inflammation not sign. diff. between the 3 groups

AO: CC and EC users had significantly more carotid plaque burden compared to NU. Results further indicate that vaping does not cause an increase in vascular inflammation.

ARO: Product use was self-reported (no biochemical validation).

ARO: Role of N cannot be deduced.

L: Small sample sizes; EC use probably too short and compliance not approved.

G: No N-free EC group.

?
Arterial stiffness
Granberry et al. 2003, USA (65) Cross-sectional

17 Men, 18–75 y

• 7 NU, 25.6 y, ≥2 containers SLT/week, CotP: < 10 ng/mL

• 5 SLT users, 28.2 y, CotP: 226 ng/mL

• 5 CC users, 21.2 y, ≥10 cig/d, CotP: 170 ng/mL

Sign. differences (>/<):

FMD (endothel-dependent): NU > SLT ≈ CC

• FMD (nitroglycerine-dependent): NU ≈ SLT ≈ CC

AO: Endothelial function is sign. impaired by CC and SLT.

ARO: SLT only use not verified.

The authors cite evidence (including their results) that N may impair endothel-dependent FMD.

L: Small sample size; only men; low average age (short product use period); dual use possible.

G: No other NGPs, no N-free EC group.

1 / ?
Rohani et al. 2004, Sweden (66) Cross-over

20 Snus users (m/f=18/2), mean age: 34 y:

• All 20 performed a session with 1 g snus

• 10 performed a similar session with placebo

Measurements at 0 (BL), 20 and 35 min

Sign. changes:

FMD (brachial artery): Snus after 35 min

HR: Snus after 20 and 35 min

SBP: Snus after 20 min

DBP: Snus after 20 min

AO: Oral moist snuff significantly impaired FMD of the brachial artery, predicting an increased CVD risk.

The authors cite evidence that N can impair endothelial function via ROS formation.

L: Small group size; mostly men, relatively young, only acute effects detected.

G: No other NGPs, no N-free EC group.

P: A study on chronic FMD impairment would be of interest.

1
Skaug et al. 2016, Norway (67) Cross-sectional

1,592 Healthy men (from HUNT3 Study):

• 886 NU, 47.4 y

• 238 Snuff only users, 42.8 y

• 447 Smokers (CC), 47.4 y

• 21 Dual users, 44.0 y

FMD tended to be lower in snuff users compared to NU.

The diff. in FMD was larger in SLT users with low fitness.

Sign. changes:

FMD (brachial artery): Snus after 35 min

HR: Snus after 20 and 35 min

SBP: Snus after 20 min

DBP: Snus after 20 min

The authors conclude that snus acutely impairs FMD and is a risk factor for CVD.

AO: The possible role of N is not discussed.

ARO: Role of N cannot be deduced from the provided information.

L: Partly small group sizes; only men; duration of SLT use not provided.

?
Franzen et al. 2018, Germany (68) Cross-over

15 Smokers, 22.9 y, were randomly allocated to 3 conditions:

• EC(+) with N: 10 4s-puffs, every 30s, 24 mg N/mL

• EC(−) without N: same vaping pattern, 0 mg N/mL

• CC: 1 CC

48 h washout period between conditions; measurements before and every 15 min after vaping/smoking up to 2 h

Sign. changes in CC and EC(+) conditions between 15 and 60 min:

HR, SBP, DBP, AI, PWV; effects larger in CC

No change in EC(−)

AO: Speculate that long-term EC(+) use may increase the risk for CVD.

ARO: The results suggest the CV effects were caused by N.

L: Very small number of subjects; changes after only one use of product was investigated.

G: Data allow no deduction of a dose-response relationship for N.

P: A study with long-term EC users avoiding the weaknesses would be of interest.

1
Ikonomidis et al. 2018, Greece (69) Cross-over

70 Smokers (CC) in cessation clinic:

Acute study:

• G1: 35 vaped ECs with N

• G2: 35 vaped ECs without N

Chronic study (1 month):

• G3: 24 were dual users (CC/EC)

• G4: 42 only used EC

• G5: 20 only used CC (control)

Acute study:

PWV (marker for arterial stiffness): increase CC > EC with N > EC no N > sham

AI: CC > EC with N ≈ EC no N > sham

MDA: CC > EC with N ≈ EC no N > sham

Chronic study:

• PWV, AIX75, MDA: decrease in G3 and G4 (larger in G4), unchanged in G5

AO: The findings suggest that ECs may be used in a medically supervised smoking-cessation program.

AO: EC use can reduce effect of smoking on arterial stiffness and oxidative stress (acute and chronic).

ARO: Effect of N (if any) on arterial stiffness and oxidative stress is only marginal.

L: Small group sizes, short duration.

P: Perform larger and longer studies.

0.5
Charmant et al. 2018, Belgium (70) Cross-over

25 Occasional smokers, 24 y, were allocated to 3 conditions:

• Vaping (EC) without N

• Vaping (EC) with N (3 mg N/mL)

• Sham vaping (EC switched off)

Vaping session: 25 puffs (4 s, 30 s intervals). Measurements before (BL) and up to 120 min after vaping

Changes when vaping with N (before vs after):

• Impaired vasodilution

• Increased arterial stiffness (AI, PWV)

• Increase in HR, SBP and DBP

• Increase in ox. stress (MPO)

These parameters did not change upon vaping without N or sham vaping

AO: The observed effects were solely attributable to N and that PG/VG aerosol (without N) does not alter micro- and macrovascular function and oxidative stress.

ARO: Measured (acute) effects are caused by N.

L: Only acute effects were measured, small group size.

P: Similar but larger study with long-term users would be of interest.

1
George et al. 2019, UK (71) RCT

• G1: 40 CC (> 2 years)

• G2: 37 CC switched to EC with N for 4 weeks

• G3: 37 CC switched to EC without N for 4 weeks

FMD: sign. improved in G2 (1.44%) and G3 (1.52%) vs G1; no sign. diff. between G2 and G3.

PWV: Sign. improved in G2/3 combined vs G1

AI: No sign. diff. between groups

oxLDL: no sign. diff. between G1, G2, G3

CRP: No sign. diff. between G1, G2, G3

BP: No sign. diff. between groups

AO: Improvements in women higher than in men.

ARO: More compliant groups G2 and G3 (COex < 6 ppm) show higher effect of switching to EC.

ARO: No evidence that nicotine is measurably involved in the observed effects.

L: Too short use of ECs; low numbers of subjects in all groups.

P: Long-term study (> 12 months) with larger group sizes (> 100/group).

0
Ikonomidis et al. 2020, Greece (72) Cross-over 40 S were switched to EC (12 mg N/mL) for 4 months, ad lib vaping (N = 20) or continued to smoke (N = 20) CC (own brand)

Sign. changes by condition:

LTA EPI: CC: sign. increase, EC: no change

PFA: CC: sign. increase, EC: no change

PWV: CC: sign. increase, EC: sign. decrease

MDA: CC: sign. increase, EC: sign. decrease

AO: Switching to ECs for 4 months has a neutral effect on platelet function while it reduces arterial stiffness and oxidative stress compared to CC smoking.

ARO: Role of N cannot be deduced because no N-free EC was applied as additional condition.

L: Small sample size, 4 month probably too short to assess long-term effects.

G: N-free EC would be of interest.

P: Perform study which overcomes the deficiencies (L, G).

?
Cossio et al. 2020, USA (73) Cross-over

16 NU (no nicotine products in the last 6 months) were assigned to 3 vaping conditions:

• V1: 18 puffs, 5.4 % nicotine

• V2: 18 puffs, no nicotine

• V3: 18 sham puffs

Measurements 0, 1 and 2 h after vaping

Biomarkers: FMD, SBP, DBP were not significantly different under all conditions at all time points.

AO: Vaping ECs regardless of nicotine content are not significantly different from each other and do not produce lasting effects over the course of a 2-hour trial.

ARO: No involvement of nicotine can be deduced, since no effects were observed.

L: Study duration too short (single use of product), too few subjects/conditions.

P: Long-term study (> 12 months) with larger group sizes (> 100/group).

?
Haptonstall et al. 2020, USA (74) Cross-over

• G1:49 Vapers (EC for > 1 year)

• G2: 40 Smokers (CC for > 1 year)

• G3: 47 NU (non-smokers or ex-smokers for > 1 year)

FMD

• Baseline FMD not sign. diff. between G1, G2 and G3

• Acute CC use of G2: FMD sign. lower (impaired)

• Acute EC use of G1 (with/without nicotine, N-inhaler, sham): no sign. diff.

• Acute EC use of G3 (NU) (with/without nicotine, N-inhaler, sham): no sign. diff.

HR, SBP, DBP:

• Acute use of CC (in G2): sign. increase of all three

• Acute use of EC with nicotine, N-inhaler (in G1 and G3: sign. increases

• Acute use of EC without nicotine, sham (in G1 and G3: partly decreases, mostly not sign.

AO: Although it is reassuring that acute EC vaping did not acutely impair FMD, it would be premature and dangerous to conclude that ECs do not lead to atherosclerosis or increase cardiovascular risk.

ARO: Nicotine is not involved in the acute decrease (impairment) of FMD.

L: Small group sizes.

P: Perform study with larger and well defined (in terms of product use) groups.

0
Nicotine caused acute increases of HR, SBP and DBP.
1
Chronic use of nicotine (with CC or EC) does not lead to permanent changes in FMD, HR, SBP and DBP (at least in the population investigated).
0
Kuntic et al. 2020, Germany (75) Cross-over 20 Smokers vaped 1 EC (18 mg N/mL) with 40 puffs at 30 s intervals over 20 min, measurements for BMs were performed pre and post vaping

Changes in vapers (pre/post):

FMD: sign. decrease

PTT: sign. increase

PWV: sign. increase

Ox stress via NOX-2: sign. increase

AO: EC vapour exposure increases vascular, cerebral, and pulmonary oxidative stress via a NOX-2-dependent mechanism. Our study identifies the toxic aldehyde acrolein as a key mediator of the observed adverse vascular consequences.

Experiments with mice show that:

• EC without N cause larger detrimental effects on endothelial function, ox stress, inflammation and lipid peroxidation;

• acrolein is mostly responsible for the effects of ECs.

L: (Human study): low subject number, too short.

G: (Human study): No condition without N.

? (human) / 0 (mice)
Fettermann et al. 2020, USA (76) Cross-sectional

• 94 NS, 29 y

• 285 CC, 32 y

• 36 EC, 29 y

• 52 Dual, 33 y

Vascular measures sign. diff. between groups:

• Carotid-femoral PWV

• Carotid-radial

AI

Central SBP

Central DBP

No sign. diff.: FMD

NO production reduced in CC and EC

eNOS activity reduced in EC compared to CC and NS

AO: EC use is not associated with a more favorable vascular profile.

ARO: No information on EC use duration.

ARO: N can possibly play a role in the observed effect (but not to be deduced from the data).

L: Most groups too small.

G: No information on EC use duration; EC without N should be included.

0.5 / ?
Podzolkov et al. 2020, Russia (77) Cross-sectional

• 51 Smokers (CC), 21.3 y, CC duration 3 y, 3 cig/d

• 22 Vapers (EC), 21.4 y, EC duration 4 y (2–6 y), 1 (0.8–1.6)mg N/mL

• 197 NU, 21.1 y

Sign. diff. in BMs:

• Albuminuria: EC > CC > NU

Arterial stiffness:

AI: NU < EC ≈ CE

No sign. diff. in SBP, DBP

AO: No association of BMs with N consumed was found.

ARO: Albuminuria measured with dipstick only.

Compliance of EC group not approved.

ARO: N's role cannot be deduced from the data, although no correlation was reported.

L: Only very young subjects; EC use somewhat questionable; albumin method doubtful.

G: No N-free EC group.

P: Larger study without the weaknesses would be of interest.

? / 0
Chatterjee et al. 2021, USA (78) and Caporale et al. 2019, USA (79) Cross-over

31 NS vaped 1 EC without N (16 puffs of 3 s)

Blood samples were drawn for BM analysis pre and post vaping

Sign. changes (post vs pre):

Increases:

CRP

s-ICAM-1

HMGB1

ASC

ROS

Decreases:

NO production

FMD

PWV

AO: The findings indicate that a single episode of vaping has adverse impacts on vascular inflammation and function.

ARO: No statement on the role of N possible by the authors.

L: Sample size is low, only acute effects investigated.

G: No condition with N for comparison.

P: Larger study including ECs with N. Also investigate these BMs in long-term users of CC, EC and possibly other products.

?
Antoniewicz et al. 2022, Sweden (80) Cross-sectional

• 24 Snus users (males, healthy), 44.8 y; ≥15 y snus, < 1 y CC use

• 26 NU (males, healthy), 43.4 y

Arterial stiffness (sign. diff.):

PWV: higher in snus users

AI: higher in snus users

Snus users reported sign. higher alcohol consumption at BL.

AO: Long-term snus use may alter endothelial function and increase CVD risk.

The authors cite (convincing) evidence that N is responsible for the observed effects.

L: Snus only use not verified; small group sizes; only males (women could have different CVD risks).

P: Larger study with both sexes and product use verification would be of interest.

1
Meng et al. 2022, various countries (82) Meta-analysis (8 studies)

372 Subjects, conditions compared:

• Vaping without N (control, EC−)

• Vaping with N (EC+)

• Smoking (CC)

Endothelial function, acute changes:

EC+ vs EC−:

FMD: no sign. change

PWV: sign. increase

AI: sign. increase

EC+ vs CC:

• FMD: no sign. change

• PWV: sign. decrease

• AI: sign. decrease

AO: EC use negatively changes the endothelial function.

ARO: Observed effects with EC+ are caused by N.

L: Relatively small number of studies and subjects; only acute effects evaluated (long-term use would be of interest).

1
Mohammadi et al. 2022, USA (81) Cross-sectional

Subjects with chronic product use:

• 42 Vapers (EC), 29 y, mean duration of EC use: 1.7 y, CotU: 923 ng/mL

• 28 Smokers (CC), 34 y, mean duration of CC use: 10.2 y, CotU: 1,735 ng/mL

• 50 NU, 28 y, CotU: 2 ng/mL

Endothelial function (≈: not sign.)

FMD: EC ≈ CC < NU

NO release (unstimulated and stimulated) : EC ≈ CC < NU

• Endothelial cell permeability in user sera: EC < CC ≈ NU

AO: EC use can increase CVD risk and dual use can further increase the CVD risk.

ARO: Misreports of product use history is possible.

ARO: The authors’ in vitro experiments show no difference with and without N in the EC aerosol, except for cell viability.

N's role cannot be deduced from the data.

L: Small group sizes; chronic EC use only 1.7 y (on average).

G: No N-free EC group.

?
Hypertension (HT)
Bolinder et al. 1992, Sweden (87) Cross-sectional

97,586 Male construction workers:

• 23,885 NU

• 5,014 SLT users

• 8,823 Smokers (CC), ≥15 cig/d

Duration of SLT use: 10–30 y (estimate)

Sign. OR (vs NU):

Hypertension (cause for disability pension): SLT: OR=3.0, CC: OR=2.2

• SBP > 160 mm Hg: SLT: OR=1.8/1.3 (in age groups: 46–55/56–65); CC: OR=0.8/0.7

AO: Also SLT use is associated with elevated risk for CVD.

ARO: No verification of SLT only use.

The authors cite evidence and conclude from their results that N is causally related to high BP and CVD risk in SLT users.

ARO: N's role cannot be deduced from the study data.

L: Only males included; healthy-worker-effect? No objective verification of SLT group.

G: No other NGPs, no N-free group.

1 / ?
Hergens et al. 2008, Sweden (88) Prospective 120,930 healthy, never-smoking men (construction workers), enrolled 1971–1978 (BL), follow-up (health-checks) 1978–1993; follow-up cohort: 42,005 (normotensive at BL)

Hypertension (HT): SBP > 160 or DBP > 100 mm Hg; RR for ever snuff users:

• BL: 1.23 (1.15–1.33)

• Follow-up: 1.39 (1.07–1.72)

No clear dose-response

AO: Snuff use increases the risk of hypertension.

The authors cite evidence that N can cause high blood pressure. ARO: Mechanistic involvement of N in causing increase in BP is possible.

L: No clear dose-response; tobacco habits rely on self-reports only; changes in habits are not assessed.

0.5 / ?
Miller et al. 2021, USA (89) Cross-sectional

PATH study 2015–2016, 19,147 participants:

• 8,783 NS (never CC or EC)

• 183 CEV-NS (current EC, never CC)

• 334 CEV-FS (current EC, former CC)

• 3,938 FS (former CC)

• 5,056 CES (current CC only)

• 581 CDU (current dual)

Duration of EC use: ~ 5 y (estimate)

Prevalence of self-reported hypertension (≈: not sign.): NS ≈ CEV-NS < CEV-FS ≈ FS ≈ CES ≈ CDU

AO: Current EC use is similar to CC in terms of hypertension.

ARO: Misclassification in product use possible (not verified)

The authors cite evidence that use of N-free ECs were associated with higher BP reduction.

ARO: N's role in BP appears plausible.

L: Authors consider a number of limitations including dietary factors (not assessed) and (unreliable) self-reports.

0.5 / 1
Kim et al. 2022, South Korea (90) Cross-sectional

Community Health Survey, 2019, groups:

• Dual users (EC and CC)

• EC only users

• CC only users

Duration of EC use: 5–10 y (estimate)

OR for hypertension (SBP > 140 or DBP > 90):

Males:

• Dual: 1.24*

• EC only: 1.22*

• CC only: 1.16*

Females:

• Dual: 1.44

• EC only: 1.41

• CC only: 1.35*

*: p < 0.05

AO: Also EC and dual user have an increased risk for hypertension.

ARO: Bias for misreport (particularly in female) is possible.

No verification of product use.

The authors cite evidence that N could be responsible for hypertension.

ARO: Involvement of N can be assumed.

L: Small group sizes for EC users (particularly female); misreport of product use cannot be excluded.

G: No N-free EC group.

0.5–1.0
Heart rate (HR) and blood pressure (BP)
Benowitz et al. 1988, USA (92) Cross-over

10 Healthy volunteers (smokers, 24–61y):

• Smoking CC, 12 puffs, intervals of 45 s (1–1.3 cig), 9 min

• Oral snuff, 2.5 g, 30 min

• Chewing tobacco, avg 7.9 g, 30 min

• Nicotine gum (NG), 2 pieces, 30 min

Random order, 24 h between conditions

Comparable increases in HR, SBP, DBP under all 4 conditions (somewhat lower in NG).

AO: N-related adverse effects also to be expected with the other N-products.

(See left cell)

ARO: All effects caused by N.

L: Low number of subjects.

G: No ‘sham’ experiments.

1
Van Duser and Raven 1992, USA (93) Cross-over

15 SLT users, 18–33 y performed exercises under 2 conditions:

• SLT, 2.5 g SLT: rest, 60%, 85% VO2max

• Placebo: same exercises

Cardio-respiratory responses: (SLT vs placebo):

VO2: No diff.

Qc: No diff.

HR: sign. increase

SV: sign. decrease

Lactate: sign. increase

AO: SLT compared to placebo under workload increases HR and anaerobic energy production.

The authors ascribe the observed (acute) effects to N.

L: Only few and young males were investigated; only acute effects were studied.

P: A study with long-term, older users including other NGPs would be of interest.

1
Bolinder et al. 1998, Sweden (94) Cross-sectional

135 Healthy men, 35–60 y :

• 59 NU, 45.1 y

• 47 SLT users, 44.3 y

• 29 Smokers (CC); 47.2 y

24 h-BP monitoring:

• Daytime SBP, DBP and HR sign. higher in CC and SLT compared to NU

Sign. positive correlation between CotP and BP in SLT, negative (not sign.) in CC.

AO: Increases in HR and BP in CC and SLT were most likely due to the effects of Nicotine, in CC additional influences play a role.

ARO: A few dual users were in the CC group. No verification of SLT only use.

The author cite evidence that N can cause increase in HR and BP and maybe also chronic hypertension.

L: Small group sizes; only men.

G: No other NGPs; no N-free EC.

P: Studies avoiding these weaknesses would be of interest.

0.5 / 1.0
Moheimani et al. 2017, USA (95) Cross-over

33 Users of CC or EC were assigned to 3 conditions with > 4 weeks separation:

• C1: EC with 1.2% N, vaped with 60 puffs at 30 s intervals

• C2: EC without N, similar vaping conditions

• C3: Sham (vaping without e-liquid)

HRV (indicator for sympathomimetic effect) was sign. increased in C1, but not C2 and C3.

Ox stress (measured by plasma paraoxonase activity) was unchanged under all 3 conditions.

Fibrinogen?

AO: Habitual EC use was associated with a shift in cardiac autonomic balance toward sympathetic predominance and increased oxidative stress, both associated with increased cardiovascular risk.

Sympathomimetic effect after acute EC use is causally related to N.

L: Small subject numbers; low N uptake in C1.

1
Boas et al. 2017, USA (96) Cross-sectional

Selected from 31 healthy subjects:

• 9 NU (29 y)

• 9 EC users (28 y, 2.1 y EC use)

• 9 CC users (27.1 y, 7.3 pack x years)

SBP, DBP, HR, glucose, fibrinogen, oxLDL, HOI, SBP not sign. diff. between groups

• FDG uptake in spleen and aorta sign. trend of increase NU < EC < CC (indicator for spleenocardiac axis)

ARO: Compliance status of EC users is unclear (although authors exclude dual use).

ARO: Sympathomimetic effect of N, role of other constituents in CC or EC unclear.

L: Very small group sizes; compliance unclear.

0.5 / 1
Ruther et al. 2018, Germany (97) Cross-over

• 9 Vapers (EC for > 3 months, no CC in last months), 28.5 y ; 4 conditions (separated by 1 week)

– 3 Types of CL (ciglike EC), 18 mg N/mL, 10 3-s-puffs at 26 s intervals

– TEC (tank EC), 18 mg N/mL, same puffing pattern

• 11 Smokers (CC for > 3 years), 26.2 y:

– 1 CC, 10 2-s-puffs at 28 s intervals (0.8 mg N/cig)

• Nicotine in plasma: CC >> TEC > CL

HR: CC >> TEC > CL

AO: TEC are potential cessation products but also have an addiction potential (like CC and unlike CL).

ARO: The results suggest that N dose-dependently and acutely cause an increase in HR.

L: Small group sizes, only short-term EC users.

G: No N-free condition, only HR no other physiological changes.

1
Spindle et al. 2018, USA (98) Cross-over

30 Dual users (< 5 cig/d, > 1 mL e-liquid/d), performed 4 conditions (EC with 18 mg N/mL, 2 sessions, each 10 puffs every 30 s, PG/VG varied:

• 1. 100% PG

• 2. 55% PG

• 3. 20% PG

• 4. 2% PG

• Nicotine in plasma: Higher in condition 1 and 2

HR: Increased under all 4 conditions (no sign. diff.)

100% PG less pleasant and satisfying

AO: The PG/VG ratio must be also considered when evaluating the N delivery from ECs.

ARO: N's role on HR cannot be deduced, but results are compatible with an involvement of N.

L: Small group sizes, only short-term EC users.

G: No N-free condition, only HR no other physiological changes.

0.5 / 1
Hickling et al. 2019, UK (99) Longitudinal (6 weeks) 50 Smokers (with schizophrenia and other mental disoders), 30 y, were provided with free ECs (4.5% N) for 6 weeks

Changes to BL at week 6:

• −37% reduced CPD

• 7% stopped

SBP: no sign. diff.

DBP: no sign. diff.

AO: The provision of ECs is a potentially useful harm reduction intervention in smokers with a psychotic disorder.

ARO: N's role cannot deduced

L: Small group size, only short-term effects were assessed.

G: No N-free group.

P: Patients with mental disorders might be a suitable group to investigate the long-term effects of EC (relatively high smoking rate).

?
Skotsimara et al. 2019, various countries (100) Cross-sectional Meta-analysis of 14 studies, in total 441 participants: Healthy smokers and switchers to ECs

Acute changes after EC use (* = sign.):

HR: 2.27 bpm* (11 studies)

SBP: 2.02 mm* (7 studies)

DBP: 2.01 mm* (7 studies)

Changes after switching to EC:

• HR: −0.03 bpm (3 studies)

• SBP: −7.00 mm (3 studies)

• DBP: −3.65 mm* (3 studies)

AO: EC should not be labelled as CV safe.

ARO: Effects could be caused partly of completely by N.

L: Low number of studies and subjects.

G: No separate evaluation for N-effects possible.

0.5–1
Pulvers et al. 2020, US (101) RCT

186 Smokers (CC), African Americans/Latinx: 92/94, 43.3 y, 12.1 cig/d; randomized to

• 125 EC use, 5% N

• 61 Controls (CC use as usual)

Sign. changes EC vs control (CC) on week 2 and 6:

• NNAL

• COex

No sign. changes EC vs CC:

• Cotinine in urine

• Respiratory symptoms (weeks 2 and 6)

FEV25–75% (w 2 and 6)

SBP (w 2 and 6)

DBP (w 2 and 6)

Significances similar in EC only users

AO: ECs may be an inclusive harm reduction strategy for this population.

ARO: 58–68% in EC group were dual users, 4% were CC only users in EC group. Compliance was not enforced.

ARO: All EC contained 5% N. The role of N cannot be deduced from this study.

L: Only short- to medium-term study (6 weeks).

G: No N-free EC group.

P: Long-term study (> 1 year) including an N-free EC group would be of interest.

?
Biondi-Zoccai et al. 2019, Italy (102) Cross-over 20 Smokers (CC) were assigned to CC, EC and HTP, with 1 week wash-out periods. One unit of each product was used (1 CC, 9 puffs of EC, 1 stick of HTP).

Biomarkers in blood were measured before and after product use:

s-NOX2-dp: increase

NO: decrease

H2O2 production: increase

8-Isoprostane: increase

Vitamin E: decrease

s-CD40 ligand: increase

s-P-Selectine: increase

FMD: decrease

SBP: increase

DBP: increase

All changes were sign., except NO and Vitamin E after HTP; CC use showed the largest changes

AO: Acute effects of HTPs, ECs, and CCs are different on several oxidative stress, antioxidant reserve, platelet function, cardiovascular, and satisfaction dimensions, with CCs showing the most detrimental changes in clinically relevant features.

ARO: Involvement of N in observed effects is possible but cannot be evaluated (EC without N is lacking).

L: Too short study duration.

G: Condition EC without nicotine is missing.

P: Long-term study (> 12 months) with larger group sizes (> 100/group) and an additional condition (EC without nicotine).

?
Maloney et al. 2019, USA (103) Cross-over

24 Smokers (CC for > 1 y), 30.9 y, were allocated to 4 conditions:

• 1. EC (36 mg N/mL), 2 sessions with 10 puff, separated by 20 min

• 2. EC (0 N), same regimen

• 3. CC (10 puffs, own brand)

• 4. Nicotine inhaler (10 mg N, 10 puffs)

HR: Increase in conditions 1, 3, 4; ranking: 3 > 1 > 4; no increase in condition 2 (not mentioned)?

BP: measured but not included in results

ARO: Incomplete reporting, abstinence (prior to experimental sessions) doubtful (according to the authors).

ARO: It can be deduced that N increases HR upon acute use.

L: Only smokers were investigated, small group, incomplete reporting (only HR, no results on BP).

P: A larger study with (long-term) EC users and more physiological measurements would be of interest.

1
Benowitz et al. 2020, USA (104) Cross-over

36 Dual users of CC and EC were investigated in the clinic under three conditions:

• C1: ad lib use of CC

• C2: ad lib use of EC

• C3: abstinence from nicotine

HR (bpm, 24 h): 72.5 (C1), 68.7 (C2), 66.8 (C3)

SBP (mm Hg, 24 h): 119 (C1), 120.2 (C2), 116.6 (C3)

DBP (mm Hg, 24 h): 76.8 (C1), 76.7 (C2), 73.2 (C3); C2 sign. higher than C3.

Urinary biomarkers:

Epinephrine, norepinephrine, dopamine, 8-isoprostane, 11-dh-TXB2; ratios between groups not sign., except for C1/C3 for epinephrine and 8-isoprostane.

Blood biomarkers:

IL6 and IL8: sign. for C1/C3 and C2/C3

AO: CC and EC had similar patterns of hemodynamic effects compared with NU, with a higher average HR with CC vs EC, and similar effects on biomarkers of inflammation. EC may pose some CV risk, particularly to smokers with underlying CVD, but may also provide a harm reduction opportunity for smokers willing to switch entirely to EC.

ARO: Involvement of nicotine in observed effects is possible but cannot be evaluated (EC without nicotine is lacking).

L: Too short study duration.

G: Condition EC without nicotine is missing.

P: Long-term study (> 12 months) with larger group sizes (> 100/group) and an additional condition (EC without nicotine).

?
Garcia et al. 2020, USA (105) Various (systematic review)

19 Studies evaluated,:

• Smokers (CC)

• Vapers (1. generation ECs, with N, (EC+))

• Vapers (1. generation EC−, without N (EC−))

Acute CV effects (sign. diff.) CC vs EC+:

ΔHR (10 studies): +1.86 bpm

ΔSBP (11 stud.): +1.68 mm Hg

ΔDBP (11 stud.): +2.09 mm Hg

EC+ vs EC−:

• ΔHR (4 studies): +6.44 bpm

• ΔSBP (5 stud.): +3.73 mm Hg

• ΔDBP (5 stud.): +3.25 mm Hg

HRV for CC vs NU:

Sign. increased

AO: EC are sympatho-excitatory, the effect is lower for the 1. generation ECs compared to CCs.

ARO: The effects are caused (completely?) by N.

L: Studies were done with 1. generation of ECs only.

P: Similar studies with newer generations of ECs and also other NGPs.

1
Hiler et al. 2020, USA (106) Cross-over

32 Vapers (EC use since > 3 months, partly CC), 25.6 y, were allocated to 4 EC conditions, separated by 48 h:

• 1: 0.5 Ω/3 mg N/mL

• 2: 0.5 Ω/8 mg N/mL

• 3: 1.5 Ω/3 mg N/mL

• 4: 1.5 Ω/8 mg N/mL

10 puffs at 30 s intervals, from min. 70 to 130: ad lib vaping

Changes by condition:

• Plasma N: 2 > 1 > 4 > 3

HR: 1 > 2 ≈ 4 > 3

• Puff number (ad lib): 2 ≈ 4 < 1 ≈ 3

ARO: Changes in topography and physiology (HR) follow the nicotine delivery.

ARO: Increase in HR directly dependent on N uptake.

L: Only acute effects were studied; relatively young subjects; 14 vapers were naive to sub-ohm ECs.

P: Study with older, long-term users, extension to other CV paramters: BP, FMD, PWV, AI.

1
Ip et al. 2020, USA (107) Cross-over and cross-sectional

• 37 CC users, 26.7 y

• 43 EC users (self-reported), 28.0 y

• 65 NU, 21–45 y

Groups allocated to

• CC (1 CC in 7 min)/straw (CC group only)

• ECN (with 1.2% N)/EC0 (without N) (EC and NU); 60 4s-puffs at 30 s intervals

• Nicotine inhaler (NI)/straw (EC and NU)

HR: no diff. at BL; increase by acute CC use, partly by ECN, not by NI, straw and EC0

ECG-indices (indicating ventricular repolarization, risk for sudden death): no diff. at BL; increase by acute CC use, partly by ECN (in EC users), not by NI, straw and EC0

AO: If one does not currently smoke, one should not use ECs due to adverse CV effects.

NI only slightly increase plasma N (therefore no effect to be expected).

ARO: Unclear how long EC was used in EC group.

ARO: Use of EC with N but not without N increased HR.

L: Small groups, only young subjects, EC use duration not provided.

P: Larger study with long-term EC users would be of interest.

1

ECG-indices: only partial influence of N.

0.5
Gonzalez et al. 2021, USA (108) Cross-over

15 NU, healthy, 21 y, were assigned to 2 conditions:

• EC(+) with N, 20 puffs at 30 s intervals, 59 mg N/mL

• EC(−) without, same puffing profile, 0 mg N/mL

Conditions were separated by ~1 month; measurements were done before (BL), during and after vaping (recovery), each for ~10 min

Sign. changes occurred only in EC(+) condition:

HR: increase

SBP, DBP, MAP: increase

MSNA: decrease

All changes lasted into the recovery phase

AO: Suggest that the decrease in MSNA is mediated by an intact baroreflex (resulting from the increase in MAP) in the healthy young subjects. In older population N may cause exaggerated sympatho-excitation being detrimental to CV health.

ARO: The results suggest the CV effects were caused by N.

L: Very small number of subjects; changes after only one use of product was investigated; very young population.

G: Data allow no deduction of a dose-response relationship for N.

P: A study with long-term EC users avoiding the weaknesses would be of interest.

1
Caponnetto et al. 2021, Italy (109) Longitudinal (12 weeks) 40 Smokers (schizophrenics), 48.3 y, 28 cig/d, were provided with ECs for free for 12 weeks

37 vapers decreased CPD from 28 (BL) to 6.4 cig/d (12 weeks and 6 months);

HR, SBP and DBP sign. decreased after 12 weeks

ARO: EC group was actually a dual user group.

ARO: Role of N cannot be deduced from this study.

L: Small group size, only medium term effects can be observed.

G: No N-free group.

P: Schizophrenics might be suitable group to investigate the long-term effects of EC (very high smoking rate).

?
Other BOBEs related to CVD (oxidative stress, inflammation, lipids)
Eliasson et al. 1991, Sweden (113) Cross-sectional

• 18 NU, male, 24.4 y

• 21 Snuff users, male, 24.1 y, duration of snuff use: 7.0 y

• 19 Smokers (CC), male, 25.3 y, duration of CC: 9.1 y

Sign. diff. in CVD-related BOBEs (≈ : not sign.):

Hb: CC > Snuff ≈ NU

WBC: CC > NU, Snuff > NU

Fibrinogen: CC > NU

Serum insulin: CC > NU, Snuff > NU

Serum cholesterol: CC > Snuff ≈ NU

TG: CC > NU, Snuff > NU

Not sign. diff. between groups: LDL, HDL, LDL/HDL, Lp(a)

AO: Snuff use has similar but lower effects on CVD-related BOBEs, except for lipids.

ARO: Use of snuff only not verified.

The authors cite evidence that NG use does not affect lipids and that CC-related hyperlipidemia is not due to N.

ARO: N's role cannot be deduced from this study.

L: Small group sizes; only very young men included.

G: Other NGPs (EC, HTP), N-free EC.

P: Larger study with older subjects, including additional NGPs would be of interest.

?
Siegel et al. 1992, USA (114) Cross-sectional

1,061 Baseball players (mostly 20–29 y):

• 477 SLT users

• 584 NU

CC excluded

No sign. difference SLT vs NU in:

HR

SBP

DBP

HDL

Cholesterol

WBC sign. lower in SLT vs NU

AO: SLT use has at most a modest effect on CVD risk factors.

ARO: No verification of SLT use.

The authors cite evidence that N might contribute to CVD development.

ARO: Results suggest that N uptake does not increase CVD-related risk factors.

L: Only young and fit subjects included.

G: No other NGPs.

0 / ?
Eliasson et al. 1995, Sweden (115) Cross-sectional

Swedish men, 25–64 y :

• 124 Smokers (CC)

• 130 Ex-CC

• 92 Snuff dippers

• 38 Snuff+CC

• 220 NU

BMs for fibrinolysis (t-PA, PAI-1, fibrinogen, pre-/post-load insulin):

• CC: Fibrinogen sign. increased

No sign. diff. for other groups and BMs

AO: Snuff use does not appear to affect potential CVD risk factors.

ARO: Possibility of mis-report and -classification of product use.

The authors cite evidence that N is not involved in fibrinogenesis.

ARO: N's role not deducible from the data.

L: Relatively small group sizes; only male snuff users.

0 / ?
Moffatt et al. 2000, USA (116) Cross-over (longitudinal) Smokers (CC, 10 m/17 f, 35 y/38 y), 29 cig/d, stopped CC at day 0, NRT (N-patch) until day 35, no CC and NRT until day 77 Non-smokers (NU, 7 m/9 f, 42 y/40 y)

HDL-C/HDL2-C/HDL3-C), sign. diff. or changes:

• Day 0: NU > CC

• Day 35: no change in HDL

• Day 77: CC: increase in HDL to NU levels

Weight gain:

• Day 35: no changes

• Day 77: increase in CC (f)

AO: N inhibits HDL normalization in m/f quitters and weight gain in f quitters.

AO: see left column. Evidence is cited that weight gain occurs in long-term NRT users.

ARO:

HDL increase: 1

ARO:

Weight gain: 1/0

L: Small sample sizes; only short-term NRT use.

G: No other NGPs tested, in particular EC with/without N.

P: Long-term study including NGPs would be of interest.

Moheimani et al. 2017, USA (117) Cross-sectional

• 16 Habitual EC users, 28.6 y, EC use: 241 min/d, EC use duration: 1.6 y

• 18 NU, 26.6 y

BMs for CVD risk factors sign. increased in EC vs NU:

CAB (shift to sympathetic predominance)

oxLDL and HDL: not sign. diff. between groups

AO: EC use increases the risk for CVD.

ARO: Some CC use cannot be excluded (also conceded by the authors).

The authors cite evidence that N could cause the observed effects (CAB shift, ox stress).

ARO: An effect of N in CAB shift is likely.

L: Small sample sizes; only young subjects; short period of EC use.

G: no other NGPs studied; no group with N-free ECs.

P: A study avoiding these weaknesses would be of interest.

0.5 / ?
Ludicke et al. 2018, Japan (118) Cross-over (longitudinal, 90 d)

160 Smokers (CC menthol), randomized to:

• 78 HTP (menthol, 1.21 mg N/stick), 39.2 y

• 42 CC (menthol), 33.7 y

• 40 Smoking abstinent (SA), 38.8 y

5 d confined, 85 d ambulatory conditions

Sign. improvement after 90 d vs CC:

8-epi-PGF, s-ICAM-1, WBC, HDL,

No sign. diff. HTP vs CC after 90 d:

11-dh-TXB2, fibrinogen, homocysteine, hs-CRP, BG, HbA1c, LDL, TG, cholesterol, apolipoprotein A1, SBP, DBP, FEV1

All BOBEs were not sign. diff. between HTP vs SA on day 90 (except BG and TG, higher in HTP than SA)

Compliance (checked with COex < 10 ppm for HTP and SA) was high: 89.7% (HTP), 97.6% (CC), 92.5% (SA).

Dual use (HTP + CC): 2.6%

AO: The reductions in HTP users were promising and reached almost the levels in the SA group.

ARO: N's role cannot be deduced from this study.

L: Low actual compliance in HTP and SA group after 90 d (could have spoiled the results); 3 months might be too short for biological effects.

P: Larger and longer study with better compliance would be of interest.

?
Walele et al. 2018, UK (119) Cross-over (longitudinal, up to 24 months)

206 Users of CCs and ECs were switched to vaping (EC, 1.6 % N, ad lib use).

Follow-ups (FUs) at 1, 3, 6, 12, 18 and 24 months; 102 subjects completed the study.

No clinically relevant adverse effects (AE) were observed during the 24 months study.

No consistent changes over time were observed for EC-compliant subjects:

WBC, LDL, HDL, FVC, FEV1, PEF

Authors’ definition: “EVP-compliant subjects” were defined as subjects who were abstinent from CCs for “at least 80% of the completed study days.”

ARO: N's role cannot be deduced.

L: Compliance criteria not sufficient to see effects.

G: Control groups are missing: CC, NU.

?
Haziza et al. 2020, USA (120) Cross-over (longitudinal, 90 d)

160 Smokers (CC), randomized to:

• 80 HTP (menthol, 1.21 mg N/stick), 39.2 y

• 41 CC (menthol), 33.7 y

• 39 Smoking abstinent (SA), 38.8 y

5 d confined, 86 d ambulatory conditions

Sign. improvement after 90 d compared to CC:

8-epi-PGF, s-ICAM-1

No sign. diff. HTP vs CC after 90 d:

11-dh-TXB2, fibrinogen, homocysteine, hs-CRP, BG, HbA1c, LDL, HDL, TG, cholesterol, apolipoprotein A1, WBC, SBP, DBP, FEV1

All BOBEs were not sign. diff. between HTP vs SA on day 90 (except WBC, higher in HTP than SA).

Compliance (checked with COex < 10 ppm): 51% in HTP group, 18% in SA group.

AO: The reductions were promising with respect to health risk reduction.

ARO: N's role cannot be deduced from this study.

L: Low actual compliance in HTP and SA group after 90 d (could have spoiled the results); 3 months might be too short for biological effects.

P: Larger and longer study with better compliance would be of interest.

?
Fettermann et al. 2020, USA (76) Cross-sectional

• 94 NS, 29 y

• 285 CC, 32 y

• 36 EC, 29 y

• 52 Dual, 33 y

Vascular measures sign. diff. between groups:

• Carotid-femoral PWV

• Carotid-radial

AI

Central SBP

Central DBP

No sign. diff.: FMD

NO production reduced in CC and EC

eNOS activity reduced in EC compared to CC and NS

AO: EC use is not associated with a more favorable vascular profile.

ARO: No information on EC use duration.

ARO: N can possibly play a role in the observed effect (but not to be deduced from the data).

L: Most groups too small.

G: No information on EC use duration; EC without N should be included.

0.5 / ?
Kim et al. 2020, South Korea (121) Cross-sectional

All men:

• 337 Dual users (CC + EC), 36.7 y, CotU: 1,303 ng/mL, 15.1 cig/d

• 4079 CC only, 46.3 y, CotU: 1,236 ng/mL, 14.8 cig/d

• 3,027 Never smokers (NS), 39.8 y, CotU: 0.7 ng/mL

Sign. diff. of dual users to other groups:

WBC: higher than CC and NS

SBP: lower than CC

FBG: higher than NS

TG: higher than NS

HDL: lower than NS

Metabolic syndrome: higher than NS

AO: Given that most EC users are dual users and dual users are more vulnerable to CV risk factors than CC-only smokers and NU, more active treatment for smoking cessation should be considered with priority.

ARO: Proportion of EC use in dual users appears low.

ARO: Role of N cannot be decuced.

L: EC only group is missing.

?
Majid et al. 2021, USA (122) Cross-sectional

• 104 Never users, 29 y, CotU: 3 ng/dL

• 290 CC users, 33 y, CotU: 927 ng/dL

• 42 Sole EC users, 28 y, CotU: 686 ng/dL

• 47 Dual (EC+CC) users, 33 y, CotU: 851 ng/dL

• 23 Sole pod users, 26 y, CotU: 970 ng/dL (pods are new generations of ECs)

• 19 Dual pod users, 24 y, CotU: 508 ng/dL

Sign. diff.:

• NU vs CC: FBG,TGs, HDL, VLDL

• NU vs sole EC: FBG, TGs, HDL

• NU vs dual EC: TGs, HDL, VLDL

• CC vs sole EC: none

• NS vs sole pod: none

• NS vs dual pod: none

AO: Overall, users of early generation electronic cigarettes display adverse metabolic profiles. In contrast, pod-based electronic cigarette users have similar lipid profiles to never users.

ARO: Duration of use of ECs and pods not provided (probably shortest in pod users).

ARO: Relative high cotinine levels in pod users and lack of sign. diff. to NS suggest only a minor (if any) role of N in lipid profile.

L: Duration of EC/pod use was least 3 months, but might be too short.

G: Role of N difficult to elucidate (no EC/pod group without N included).

0–0.5
Gale et al. 2021, UK (123) Cross-over (longitudinal, 180 d)

Healthy current smokers (CC) were allocated to 3 groups:

• 59 CC (continue smoking), 17.9 cig/d (at 180 d)

• 127 HTP use, 21.9 sticks/d (at 180 d)

• 109 Cessation (NU) 40

Never-smokers also included

Sign. diff. HTP vs CC (improvement) at 180 d:

FeNO, WBC, 11-dh-TXB2, 8-epi-PGF, s-ICAM-1

No sign. diff. HTP vs CC at 180 d:

HDL, FEV1

AO: Larger studies are needed for evaluating the risk reduction.

ARO: Compliance was approved by CEVal: 76% of HTP and 73 % of NU group (180 d).

ARO: N's role cannot be deduced from the study results.

L: Too short durations o HTP use.

G: No comparisons of NU vs HTP groups included.

P: A larger and longer study would be of interest.

?
Amraothar et al. 2022, USA (124) Cross-sectional

324 Healthy participants, 21–45 y

• 65 NU, CotU: 3 mg/dL

• 19 EC users, CotU: 826 mg/dL

• 212 Smokers (CC), CotU: 854 mg/dL

• 28 Dual users, CotU: 910 mg/dL

Number of sign. changes in CAC subpopulation (15) vs NU:

• EC: 2

• CC: 4

• Dual: 6

No sign. diff. when EC and Dual groups were compared to CC

AO: EC use is associated with higher endothelial inflammation.

ARO: Product habits rely on self-reports (no verification).

ARO: N's role cannot be deduced from the study.

L: Small group sizes; self-reports only for product habits; temporal issues (cross-sectional study).

G: No N-free EC group.

?

Cancer and cancer-related BOPH/BOBEs.

Author, year, country (Ref) Study type User groups / duration of product use Endpoints and findings Comments (bias, compliance, etc.) Conclusions regarding nicotine's (N)role Limitations (L) / Gaps (G) / Proposals (P)
Bolinder et al. 1994, Sweden (56) Prospective

Male construction workers, up to 65 y (1970/71), follow-up after 12 y for mortalities:

• 32,546 NU

• 6,297 SLT users

• 14,983 Smokers (CC1), < 15 cig/d

• 13,518 Smokers (CC2), ≥ 15 cig/d

Duration of SLT use: 10–30 y (estimate)

RR (CI) compared to NU:

CVD:

– SLT: 1.4 (1.2–1.6)

– CC1: 1.8 (1.6–2.0)

– CC2: 1.9 (1.7–2.2)

All cancers:

SLT: 1.1 (0.9–1.4)

– CC1: 1.5 (1.3–1.8)

– CC2: 2.5 (2.2–2.0)

All causes:

– SLT: 1.4 (1.3–1.8)

– CC1: 1.7 (1.6–1.9)

– CC2: 2.2 (2.0–2.4)

AO: Both CC and SLT users have an increased risk for CVD, risk for SLT is lower.

ARO: SLT (only) use was not verified, dual use is not unlikely.

The authors cite evidence that N could be involved in atherosclerotic processes and that the results show that N is partially involved in CVD generation.

ARO: N obviously has no role in risk for all cancers.

L: Only male workers (healthy-worker effect?); dual use (SLT + CC) is possible.

G: Other NGPs; ECs without N.

0 / ?
Accortt et al. 2002, USA (161) Prospective

NHANES I (BL), 20 y-follow-up:

• 5,192 NU (no tobacco), 47.8 y

• 505 SLT (exclusive), 54.0 y

• 5,523 CC (exclusive), 44.9 y

Hazard ratio for SLT vs NU (=1.1, not sign.) for

All causes

All cancers

All CVD

Dual use did not increase all cause mortality beyond the sum of CC and SLT risks.

• Borderline increase in SLT (f) for all cancers (not sign.)

AO: See a limitation that only ever use of SLT could be included in the study.

ARO: Use pattern could have changed during the 20 y of follow-up.

ARO: Overall results suggest that N is not a contributor to the reported mortalities.

L: SLT use not completely assessed.

G: No other NGPs included.

P: Future evaluations of NHANES data could include NGPs.

0 / ?
Alguacil et al. 2004, USA (162) Case-control

• 123 Pancreatic cancer cases

• 682 Matched controls

All non-CC users (life-long)

Duration of SLT use: 10–30 y (estimate)

OR for pancreatic cancer vs NU:

• Cigar (ever/only): 1.7/1.9

• Pipe (ever/only): 0.6/0.3

• SLT (ever/only): 1.4/1.1

All ORs not sign.

SLT: sign. (p = 0.04) trend with amount/d

AO: Suggest that heavy use of SLT may increase risk for pancreas cancer.

ARO: Compliance with product use was not checked.

ARO: Most probably, TSNAs play a role. Involvement of N is possible.

L: Product use relies on self-reports, past tobacco history may be questionable

0–0.5
Murray et al. 2009, USA (163) Prospective

Lung Health Study (substudy), 3,320 subjects (smoking intervention with NRT, N gum), FU at 7.5 years:

• 1,986 NRT users, mean age 48 y

• 1,329 no NRT users, mean age 48 y

• Unclear what the CC group during 5-year surveillance is

Cancer risks:

Lung cancer:

• CC: sign. increase

• NRT: not sign.

GI (incl. oral): CC and NRT not sign.

All cancer: CC and NRT not sign.

AO: Despite short FU time period, smoking predicted cancer in this analysis and nicotine replacement therapy did not.

ARO: Danger of misreports of product use (CC, NRT) and abstinence.

The authors cite genetic evidence that N might contribute to cancer risk, which the data failed to prove (ARO).

L: Small number of cancer cases; short FU period; unclear CC group; low N doses from gum.

G: Nicotine inhaler not studied (of interest for lung cancer).

0 / ?
Corbett et al. 2019, USA (168) Cross-sectional

• 9 Smokers (CC), 42.2 y, CotU: 5.87 ng/mL

• 15 Vapers (EC, all containing N), 35.7 y, CotU: 5.25 ng/mL, quit CC since 8.7 months

• 21 Ex-smokers, 43.0 y, CotU: 1.23 ng/mL, quit CC since 67.0 months

Gene expression in bronchial epithelial cells (obtained by brushing):

468 (of 3,165) genes varied between EC and Ex-CC, 79 of these were in accordance with CC; downregulated genes in EC were mostly also downregulated in cells exposed to EC aerosol.

AO: Pattern of EC is closer to former CC than to current CC users.

ARO: No check of dual use (CC and EC) was performed.

ARO: CotU in CC and EC appears much too low (μg/mL?).

ARO: Role of N cannot be deduced.

L: Small group sizes.

G: No N-free EC group; also no initial EC user group (only former CC users who switched to EC).

?
Flacco et al. 2020, USA (169) Observational study (longitudinal)

At BL:

• 469 CC users, ≥1 cig/d, ~50 y

• 228 EC users, ≥50 puffs/week, ~50 y

• 215 Dual users, ~50 y

FU after 6 y

Incidence of ‘possibly smoking-related diseases’ (included cancer):

Not sign. diff. between 3 groups

AO: That there was no evidence for harm reduction in EC only or dual users after 6 y.

ARO: Possibility of mis-reports of product use (COex in only 50% of subjects).

ARO: N's role not deducable.

L: Small group sizes; misclassification not excluded.

G: No N-free EC group.

?
Caliri et al. 2020, USA (164) Cross-sectional

• 15 Vapers (EC), 29.3 y, EC but no CC use for at least 6 months

• 15 Smokers (CC), 29.5 y, CC use for at least 1 year

• 15 Controls (NU), 28.9 y

Epigenetic measurements in peripheral blood leukocytes

• 5-mC in LINE-1: NU* > EC ≈ CC

• 5-hmC (global): NU* > EC ≈ CC

*: sign. diff. from other 2 groups

Expression levels of various DNA methyl transferases: not sign. diff. between groups.

AO: In conclusion, we have demonstrated, for the first time, key epigenetic modifications, including hypomethylation of LINE-1 repeat elements and global loss of DNA hydroxymethylation, in a well-defined population of exclusive vapers (EC) and smokers (CC) relative to controls.

ARO: Dual users excluded (but only COex and COHb applied for approval).

ARO: N's role cannot be deduced from the present study.

L: Small group sizes; no objective check of dual use; changes in peripheral leukocytes may differ from those in target cells.

G: No inclusion of N-free EC group.

P: Larger study with similar endpoints but inclusion of an N-free EC group.

?
Richmond et al. 2021, UK (166) Cross-sectional

• 116 EC users, 20.9 y, e-liquid consumption: 7.8 mg/d, 5.6 mg N/mL

• 117 CC users, 22.8 y

• 117 NU, 20.6 y

Epigenome-wide DNA methylation profiles in saliva:

• EC were distinct from CC

• Biological aging profile: EC more similar to NU than CC

• EC profile did not discriminate between lung cancer from normal tissue (CC profile did)

• EC profiles did not replicate in independent samples

AO: DNA methylation profiles are clearly distinct from CC.

ARO: Relationship to chronic effects are not yet clear.

ARO: Role of N cannot be deduced from the present study.

L: Very young population; only short durations of products use possible.

G: No N-free EC group.

P: Endpoints may be of interest when more data are collected.

?
Hamad et al. 2021, USA (167) Longitudinal (3 visits over 3 weeks) 3 Vapers (EC, 6 mg N/mL), had not smoked for 2 months: 20 EC puffs/visit, 3 visits; blood and buccal cell samples taken before and after EC use

TP53 gene was upregulated, MPG gene was downregulated.

AO: A single EC use can modify gene expressions (towards a cancer risk).

ARO: Role of N cannot be deduced.

L: Extremely small group.

G: No N-free EC group.

P: Perform larger study including CC group, N-free EC group; investigate effects after long-term (chronic) use.

?
Andersen et al. 2021, USA (165) Cross-sectional

• 269 Controls, NU, 30.4 y

• 22 Control subgroup, NU, 33.5 y (= controls who had BOEs measured in urine)

• 112 Smokers (CC), 41.2 y

• 35 Vapers (EC), 23.5 y

• 19 SLT users, 36.6 y

DNA methylation was measured in blood samples.

CC had sign. lower methylation rate in cg05575921 (CpG residue in AHRR) than all other groups.

AO: Methylation extent of cg05575921 together with CEMA is suitable to distinguish CC from other NGP users.

ARO: The same can be achieved by CEMA alone!

ARO: N not involved in the demethylation of cg05575921.

L: Small group sizes; short product use durations.

0

Respiratory/Lung diseases (RLD) and RLD-related biomarkers of potential harm (BOPH).

Author, year, country (Ref) Study type User groups / duration of product use Endpoints and findings Comments (bias, compliance, etc.) Conclusions regarding nicotine's (N) role Limitations (L) / Gaps (G) / Proposals (P)
Martin et al. 2016, USA (195) Cross-sectional

Healthy adults, 18–50 y

• 13 NU, 30.4 y, CotS: 0.08 ng/mL

• 12 EC users, 28.7y, CotS: 200.7 ng/mL, predominantly used EC in last 6 months

• 14 Smokers (CC), 30.7 y, CotS: 159.0 ng/mL

Gene expression changes (decreases vs NU) in nasal biopsies, immune-related:

• 53 genes common in CC and EC

• 305 additional genes in EC

AO: EC use leads to immune suppression in the nasal mucosa.

ARO: Dual users were excluded, but not verified.

ARO: N's role cannot be deduced from the data.

L: Small group sizes; probably only short use duration of EC; relatively young subjects.

G: No N-free EC group.

?
Campagna et al. 2016, Italy (196) Cross-over (longitudinal, up to 1 y)

134 Smokers (CC) were assigned to ECs with:

• A: 49 subjects, 2.4% N over 12 weeks

• B: 45 subjects, 2.4% N (6 weeks) and 1.8% N (following 6 weeks)

• C: 40 subjects 0% N (12 weeks)

For final evaluation, subjects were classified into:

• Failures (F): continued CC, not meeting criteria for reducers (R) or quitters (Q)

• R: reduced CC by ≥50%

• Q: no CC, COex<7ppm

FeNO and COex measurements at BL, 12, 34, 52 weeks:

• FeNO: stayed at BL level for F and R groups, sign. increased for Q

• COex after 52 weeks: F > R > Q

AO: Switching from CC to EC can revert harm in the lung.

ARO: Unfortunately, data were not evaluated to EC N-content.

N's role cannot be deduced from the data.

L: Small group sizes; no evaluation by N-content.

P: A larger study avoiding the weaknesses would be of interest.

?
McConnell et al. 2017, USA (197) Cohort study (FU after 12 months)

2,086 Adolescents (16–18 y)

• 502 Ever EC users (past users)

• 201 Current EC users (EC use in last 30d)

OR (CI) for bronchitic symptoms:

• Past EC: 1.85 (1.37–2.49)

• Current EC: 2.02 (1.42–2.88), become insign. after adjustment for life-time CC use

OR not increased for wheeze after adjustment for CC.

AO: EC use increases risk for bronchitis in adolescents.

ARO: EC only use not verified (authors also concede confounding by CC).

ARO: N's role cannot be deduced from this study.

L: Possibly insufficient assessment of CC use in EC groups.

?
Polosa et al. 2017, Italy (198) Longitudinal (42 months)

• 9 Vapers (EC), 26.6 y, 0.0–1.8% N

• 12 NU, 27.8 y

No sign. changes between BL, 12, 24 and 42 months for:

BW

HR

SBP

DBP

FEV1

FVC

FEV1/FVC

FEF25–75%

FeNO

AO: EC long-term use is not associated with health concern in young users.

ARO: Non-compliant subjects were excluded (but no objective prove for compliance).

ARO: N's role cannot be deduced from the data.

L: Very small groups; use of only 1. generation of EC with probably low N uptake.

G: No N-free EC group.

P: A larger study including N-free EC group would be of high interest.

?
Polosa et al. 2018, Italy (199) Longitudinal (36 months)

• 22 Smokers with COPD, switched to EC, 65.2 y

• 22 Smokers with COPD, continued CC use, 66.5 y

BL, and follow-up (FU) at 12, 24 and 36 months

• CC group: CPD almost unchanged at 20 cig/d; no sign. change in lung function and walk distance

• EC group: decrease in CPD (20 to 1.5 cig/d); sign. improvements in lung function and walk distance

Also improvements in dual users

AO: EC use ameliorates COPD outcomes and might also reverse the harm of some smoking effects.

ARO: Although dual use was evaluated separately, compliance is an open question.

The authors speculate that N is not the compound responsible for COPD in smokers.

L: Small group sizes.

See also Polosa et al. 2020 (223).

?/0

ARO: From the study data, the role of N in COPD cannot be deduced.

?
Lappas et al. 2018, Greece (200) Cross-over (acute)

• 27 healthy smokers (H-CC), 23.0 y

• 27 smokers with mild asthma (MA-CC), 23.0 y

Both groups performed a control (EC without liquid) and vaping session (e-liquid with 12 mg/mL N) of 10 puffs with 30 s intervals

• Control session: no changes

• EC session: acute increase in resp. resistance (larger effect in MA-CC); acute decrease in FeNO

AO: One EC session has acute mechanical and inflammation effect on the respiratory tract (larger in smokers with MA).

ARO: N's role cannot be deduced from this study.

L: Only acute effects of EC smokers were investigated.

G: No N-free group included.

?
Staudt et al. 2018, USA (201) Cross-over

10 NS were assigned to one of 2 conditions:

• C1 (N=7): EC with N, 10 puffs, after 30 min again 10 puffs

• C2 (N=3): EC without N, same regime as in C1

BM measurements pre and 30 min after vaping

Observed changes (post vs pre vaping):

• C1: EMPs elevated, transcriptoms of SAE and AE changed

• C2: No changes found

AO: This study provides in vivo human data demonstrating that acute inhalation of EC aerosols dysregulates normal human lung homeostasis in healthy naive individuals.

ARO: Effects were found only after exposure to EC with N.

L: Very low subject numbers, only acute effects were investigated, which were completely reversible.

G: No information available whether chronic use of N-products can lead to persistent changes.

1
Meo et al. 2018, Saudi Arabia (202) Cross-sectional

• 30 Vapers (EC), males, 27.1 y, former and current CC or tobacco users were excluded; self-reported EC use for > 6 months

• 30 NU, males, 25.9 y, former CC and tobacco users were excluded; self-reported

Sign. lower in EC vs NU:

FEV1

FEV1/FVC

FEF 25, 50, 75, 25–75, 75–85%

Not sign. diff.:

FeNO

FVC

PEF

AO: EC use impairs lung function.

ARO: Product use status replies on self-reports, not objectively approved.

ARO: N's role cannot be deduced from this study.

L: Small groups, only short- to medium term use.

G: No N-free EC group; no CC group (as a positive control).

?
Coppeta et al. 2018, Italy (203) Cross-over

30 NS performed one

• 5 min EC session (1.8% N, 15 puffs)

• 5 min CC session (0.6 mg N/cig)

Lung function measured after 1 and 15 min sign. differences (decrease) from BL;

FEV1: EC only after 1 min; CC after 1 and 15 min

FEV1/VC: EC only after 1 min; CC after 1 and 15 min

FEV25–75: EC and CC both after 1 and 15 min

AO: EC use may be dangerous for CC smokers.

ARO: AO appears at least questionable.

ARO: Only short term use and effects were observed.

ARO: N's role cannot be deduced.

L: Only short-term use was investigated.

G: No N-free EC condition included.

P: A study with long-term EC users (included N-free) would be warranted.

?
Reidel et al. 2018, USA (204) Cross-sectional

• 16 NU, 29.6 y, CotP: 0.06 ng/mL

• 17 CC, 31.8 y, 10.5 cig/d, CotP: 184 ng/mL

• 16 EC, 28.3 y, 218 puffs/d, CotP: 218 ng/mL

BMs in induced sputum, sign. diff. in CC and EC vs NU:

Elastase

MMP-9

Myeloperoxidase

MUC5AC

ADH3A1

Thioredoxin

GST

AO: EC use alters the profile of innate defense proteins in airway secretions.

ARO: Only self-reports for product use, not objectively verified.

ARO: N's role cannot be deduced from the study.

L: Small group sizes, no verification of product use, short EC use?

G: No other NGPs, no N-free ECs.

P: Improved study with these endpoints would be of interest.

?
Ghosh et al. 2018, USA (205) Cross-sectional

• 18 NU, 27.3 y

• 13 CC, 34.0 y: 9.5 pack-years, 10.1 cig/d (last 2 weeks)

• 10 EC, 26.8 y: last 2 weeks: 44.1 puffs/d, 11.4 mL e-liquid/d

Bronchial brush biopsies and lavage (BAL) samples: 300 proteins alter in CC and EC, 78 in both groups, 113 uniquely in EC (e.g. CYP1B1, MUC5AC and MUC4); PG/VG aerosol altered human resp. cell cultures

AO: EC use has long-term effects on the lung, possibly mediated by PG/VG.

ARO: Unclear for how long ECs were used.

ARO: Effect of N cannot be excluded. Effects of PG/VG alone also possible.

L: Small group sizes, long-term use (in EC users) is not well defined.

P: Proteome study with long-term users would be of interest.

0.5 / ?
Walele et al. 2018, UK (119) Cross-over

206 Users of CCs and ECs were switched to vaping (EC, 1.6% N, ad lib use)

Follow-ups (FUs) at 1, 3, 6, 12, 18 and 24 months; 102 subjects completed the study

No clinically relevant adverse effects (AE) were observed during the 24 months study

No consistent changes over time were observed for EC-compliant subjects: WBC, LDL, HDL, FVC, FEV1, PEF

Authors’ definition: “EVP-compliant subjects” were defined as subjects who were abstinent from CCs for “at least 80% of the completed study days.”

ARO: N's role cannot be deduced

L: Compliance not sufficient to see effects.

G: Control groups are missing: CC, NU.

?
Ghosh et al. 2019, USA (206) Cross-sectional

• 14 NU, 25.8 y

• 14 CC, 29.5 y: 9.5 pack-years, 10.1 cig/d (last 2 weeks)

• 14 EC, 26.1 y: last 2 weeks: 44.1 puffs/d, 11.4 mL e-liquid/d

Bronchial brush biopsies and lavage (BAL) samples: Release of proteases (elastase, MMP-2, MMP-9) and gelantinolytic activity higher in CC and EC users than NU, N-dependent

AO: EC users are at increased risk for chronic lung disease.

ARO: Unclear for how long ECs were used.

ARO: N might play a role in protease release of lung cells and can disturb protease-antiprotease balance.

L: Small group sizes, long-term use (in EC users) is not well defined.

P: Study of anti-protease/protease balance in NGP long-term users (EC, HTP) would be of interest.

0.5 / ?
Kerr et al. 2019, UK (207) Cross-over

20 Smokers (CC), assigned to two conditions, separated by 24 h:

• C1: Vaping, 15 puff, EC with N (18 mg/mL)

• C2: Smoking 1 CC ad lib

Acute biomarker changes pre/post, sign. for C1 and C2:

HR (C2 > C1)

PWA (pulse wave amplitude) (C2 > C1)

PMPs (platelet microparticles) (C1 >C2);

Sign. change only in C2:

PECAM-1, MPs, EMPs:

Sign. change only in C1:

RHI, AI, s-P-selectin, PEF;

No sign. change (C1 or C2):

SBP, DBP, s-ICAM-1, s-VCAM-1, s-E-selectin, FEV1, FVC, FEV1/FVC

AO: These findings suggest that both electronic cigarettes and tobacco smoking negatively impact vascular function.

ARO: Involvement of N possible for HR, PWA and PMPs, RHI, AI, s-P-selectin.

L: Small group sizes, only acute changes.

G: No condition EC without N.

0.5

Sign. role of N unlikely for PECAM-1, MPs, EMPs.

0

Role of N unclear for SBP, DBP, s-ICAM-1, s-VCAM-1, s-E-selectin, FEV1, FVC and FEV1/FVC.

?
Antoniewicz et al. 2019, Sweden (208) Cross-over

15 Occasional smokers (< 10 CC/month):

Cross over of two conditions separated by 1 week:

EC with N (19 mg/mL), 30 puffs in 30 min

EC without N (0 mg/mL), 30 puffs in 30 min

Vascular measurements over 4 h:

DBP, HR and PWV increase over 2 h compared to BL, sign. higher in EC with N compared to EC without N (sign. for HR and PWV)

Respir. measurements over 6 h:

• No sign. diff. + vs −N for VC, FEV1 FeNO;

• FeNO sign. increased in EC (+/−N) vs BL

• VC sign. decreased in EC (+/−N) vs BL;

Airway resistance sign. increased 0.5 h post exposure in EC with N

AO: ECs with N have an acute impact on vascular and respiratory functions. Long-term effects require further studies.

ARO: N clearly involved in acute effects.

L: Small group sizes; only acute effects investigated.

P: Investigate long-term effects in users of EC with and without N.

0.5 – 1
Chaumont et al. 2019, Belgium (209) Cross-over

25 Occasional smokers (CC) were assigned to 3 conditions (random order):

• Sham vaping (EC switched off)

• EC with N

• EC without N

20 Heavy smokers (CC):

• 10 assigned to sham EC

• 10 assigned to EC without N

Vaping: 25 puffs at 30 s intervals, 4 s inhalation

PO2: sign. decrease vs BL in EC without N (in both occasional and heavy smokers)

Serum CC16: sign. increase vs BL in EC without and with N (in occasional smokers)

Serum SP-D: no changes

FEV1: sign. decrease in EC without N vs BL

AO: Effect on PO2 is caused by PG/VG in ECs rather than N.

ARO: N appears to play no or only a minor role in the decrease of PO2.

L: Results are valid for intense vaping under acute conditions only with a low number of subjects.

P: A larger study under long-term, realistic use conditions would be of interest.

0
Tsai et al. 2019, USA (210) Cross-sectional

• 12 Never-smokers (NS), 26 y

• 15 Vapers (EC), 27 y: 80% were former smokers, duration of EC use (average, range): 3 (0.5–4) y, 127 puff/d, 7 mL e-liquid/d, N-content: 12 (1.5–36) mg/mL

• 16 Smokers (CC), 26 y

Cell counts in BAL fluid:

Sign. diff.: a: NS vs EC, b: NS vs CC, c: CC vs EC

Total cells: b

Macrophages: b

Lymphocytes: –

Neutrophils: b

Inflammasome components (ASC, caspase-1): EC more like NS

AO: Suggest to also investigate NS who started EC use (in order to avoid the influence of former smoking) and to study the role of N.

ARO: EC were relatively well characterized. EC use was relatively short.

ARO: The observation that EC users were close to never-smokers suggests that N has no major impact on the BMs investigated.

L: Small group sizes; relatively short duration of EC use.

G: No cessation group, no group using N-free ECs.

0 / ?
Veldheer et al. 2019, USA (211) RCT

263 Smokers (CC) at baseline assigned to replace CC progressively by

• EC (N = 191, 3 groups: 0, 6, 36 mg/mL N), 19.1 cig/d at BL: after 1 month: −8 cig/d, after 3 months: −9 cig/d

• EC-dummy (fresh air) (N = 72), 18.1 cig/d at BL: after 1 month: −5 cig/d, after 3 months: −6 cig/d

Lung function parameters

FEV1

FVC

FEV1%

FEF25–75

FET

• and

HR

DBP

SBP

were not sign. diff. between EC and fresh air at BL, 1 and 3 months

AO: EC use sign. contributes to health outcome.

ARO: Amount of CC used by the two groups might be too high to see an effect.

ARO: No effects were observed, therefore, role of N cannot be deduced.

L: Sensitivity of the measured study parameters might be too low; study duration might be too short.

?
Osei et al. 2019, USA (212) Cross-sectional (BRFSS)

402,822 Never CC users:

• 399,719 NU (no CCs or ECs), median age group: 45–49 y

• 3,103 EC only users, median age group: 18–25 y (!)

Duration of EC use: ~ 5 y (estimate)

OR for self-reported asthma:

• Occasional EC: 1.31 (1.05–1.62)

• Daily EC: 1.73 (1.21–2.48)

AO: EC use is a risk factor for asthma (to be approved in future longitudinal studies).

ARO: Dual use cannot be excluded.

ARO: N's role cannot be deduced from the study data.

L: EC use not further characterized; EC users much younger than NU; self-selection (to use ECs because of asthma) possible.

?
Perez et al. 2019, USA (213) Cross-sectional (PATH)

32,320 Adults:

Propensity matching:

• 2,727 EC users

• 2,727 NU

Duration of EC use: < 10 y (estimate)

OR (CI) for self-reported COPD diagnosis (EC vs NU): 1.43 (1.12–1.85)

AO: EC use is associated with COPD in adults, long-term studies are required.

ARO: Confounding is possible.

Possible N involvement not discussed by the authors.

ARO: N's role cannot be deduced from the study.

L: Data rely on self-reports; confounding possible (EC used started after diagnosis?); duration and dose of EC not considered.

G: No long-term use of ECs.

?
Brozek et al. 2019, Poland (214) Cross-sectional (chronic (BL) and acute)

• 30 Smokers (CC), 23.2 y, CC since 50 months, 0.6 mg/cig, 6.2 cig/d

• 30 Vapers (EC), 22.2 y, EC since 29 months, 12 mg N/mL, 15.6 sessions/d

• 30 Dual (CC/EC), 22.3 y, since 67.3/27.7 months, 0.6/12 mg N, 8.0/14.7 /d

• 30 NU, 22.9 y

FeNO (BL, 1, 30 min)

– BL: NU > CC ≈ Dual ≈ EC

– 1 m: NU > CC ≈ Dual ≈ EC

– 30 m: CC ≈ Dual < EC

FVC, FEV1, PEF:

– BL: no clear diff. between groups(same after acute exposure 1 and 30 min)

AO: EC use is similar in terms of reduced airflow (PEF) and FeNO as smoking.

ARO: Long-term use was not well assessed. Changes in terms of lung function are variable.

ARO: N's role cannot be deduced

L: Long-term use of EC (> 2 y), but compliance not well assessed.

G: No long-term, N-free EC group.

P: Long-term study with these groups (+ N-free EC) would be of interest.

?
Lee et al. 2019, South Korea (215) Cross-sectional

58,336 Adolescents, 12–18 y Self-reported tobacco/N use:

• 49,542 NU

• 4,496 CC only users

• 540 EC only users

• 51 HTP only users

• 2,344 Dual users (CC + EC)

Sign. increased OR (NU = 1):

Asthma: CC, HTP

• Allergic rhinitis: none

• Atopic dermatitis: CC, (EC), dual

AO: Any product use might be risk for the indicated allergic diseases, however, longitudinal studies are required.

ARO: No verification of product (only) use.

ARO: N involvement cannot be deduced from the study data

L: Some groups are very small (EC, HTP); high probability of dual/multi use in the “only” groups; very young subjects and short product uses.

G: No N-free EC group.

?
Goniewicz et al. 2020, various countries (216) Cross-sectional (5 studies), prospective (1 study)

Review of 6 epidemiological studies with former CC users who switched to ECs

Duration of EC use: < 10 y (estimate)

EC vs CC:

• 3 Studies on RD (COPD, chronic bronchitis, emphysema, asthma, and wheezing): all ORs < 1.0 (sign.)

• 3 Studies on CVD (MI, CHD, stroke): all ORs ≈ 1.0 (not sign.)

AO: Switching to ECs reduces risk for RD but does not change risk for CVD.

ARO: General issue with misclassification in epidemiological studies.

ARO: N's role cannot be deduced from the presented data.

L: Low number of studies, problem of misclassification.

G: No N-free EC group.

P: Authors emphasize need for prospective studies and RCTs.

?
Song et al. 2020, USA (217) RCT

• G1: 15 NU (< 100 CC in lifetime, no EC in past year)

• G2: 15 NU switched to EC without N or flavor for 4 weeks

Biomarkers in BAL:

Total cell yield, cell concentration, macrophages, lymphocytes, neutrophils, eosinophils, IL1ß, IL2, IL4, IL6, IL8, IL10, IL12p70, IL13, IFNγ, TNF-α: no sign. diff. between baseline and 4 weeks follow-up in G1 and G2;

Biomarkers in bronchial brush:

mRNA, miRNA: also no sign. diff.

AO: Although limited by study size and duration, this is the first experimental demonstration of an impact of e-cig use on inflammation in the human lung among never-smokers.

ARO: G2 had sign. elevated PG levels in urine after EC use.

ARO: Role of N cannot be evaluated (due to study design).

L: Too short use of ECs; low numbers of subjects in both groups.

P: Long-term study (> 12 months) with larger group sizes (> 100/group).

?
Song et al. 2020, USA (218) Cross-sectional

• 42 Never-smokers, 25 y

• 15 EC users, 27 y: 80% were former smokers, duration of EC use (average, range): 2.6 (0.5–4) y, 163 puff/d, 8.3 mL e-liquid/d, N-content: 10.7 (1.5–36) mg/mL

• 16 Smokers (CC), 26 y

Level in EC group mostly between NS and CC (closer to NS): Cells in BAL fluid:

Sign. diff: a: NS vs EC, b: NS vs CC, c: CC vs EC

Total cells: b

Macrophages: b, c

Lymphocytes: b, c

Neutrophils: –

Eosinophils: –

• Differential gene expression and DNA methylation: EC more like NS

AO: Suggest to also investigate former smokers without switching to ECs.

ARO: EC were relatively well characterized. EC use relatively short.

ARO: The observation that EC users were close to never-smokers suggests that N has no major impact on the BMs investigated.

L: Small group sizes; relatively short duration of EC use.

G: No cessation group, no group using N-free ECs.

0 / ?
Ashford et al. 2020, USA (219) Cross-sectional

61 College students:

• 32 self-reported EC use in the last 30 d, 34.4% reported CC use in last month

• 29 NU in the last 30 d, 10.3% reported CC use in last month

EC vs NU:

Recent cough: 25.0 vs 3.4% * Sign. diff. cytokines in saliva: IL2, IL4, INFγ

Not sign. diff.:

IL6, IL8, IL10, IL12p70, IL13, TNF-α

AO: Findings reveal dysregulation of salivary immune profiles toward a TH1 phenotype in emerging adult EC users and short-term immune function may be dysregulated in young adult EC users.

ARO: No pure EC users of NU (almost multi-product users).

ARO: N's role cannot be deduced.

L: Small groups, no ‘pure’ product use; probably very short time of product use (< 30 d).

G: No data to evaluate role of N.

?
Kaur et al. 2020, USA (220) Cross-sectional

• 6 Vapers (EC), EC use since ≥ 6 months

• 6 Smokers (CC), CC since ≥ 6 months

• 6 WP smokers, WP since ≥ 6 months

• 6 Dual CC/WP smokers

• 6 NU

Age range (all groups) 18–65 y

lncRNAs in plasma exosome: Distinct profile in the user groups with some overlap

AO: lncRNAs allow risk estimates for COPD, asthma, IPF.

ARO: No verification of EC only use.

ARO: N's role cannot be deduced.

L: Small group sizes; no verification of product compliance (especially EC).

G: No N-free EC group.

?
Singh et al. 2020, USA (221) Cross-sectional

• 22 Vapers (EC), 35.5 y

• 26 Smokers (CC), 32.8 y

• 12 WP smokers, 32.8 y

• 10 Dual CC/WP smokers, 35.5 y

• 26 NU, 33.9 y

microRNA from plasma exosome:

The 4 user groups show common differential expression of micro-RNAs which are different from NU.

AO: The exosomes/microRNAs are BMs to understand the lung injury caused by smoking and vaping.

AO: Suggest that the differences between the user groups and NU demonstrate “nicotine-specific” effects.

ARO: Given the study design, the role of N remains open.

L: Small group sizes; no verification of product compliance.

G: No N-free EC group.

?
Chaumont et al. 2020, Belgium (222) Cross-over

30 EC users (former CC, EC since 38 months), 38 y, randomly allocated to 3 conditions, separated by 7 d):

• (1) EC with N, 5 d

• (2) EC without N, 5 d

• (3) Cessation (EC stop), 5 d

Sign. diff. between conditions:

• PG in serum: 1 ≈ 2 > 3

• PG in urine: 1 ≈ 2 > 3

TCO2: none

HR: 1 > 2 ≈ 3

SBP: 1 > 2 ≈ 3

DBP: 1 > 2 ≈ 3

Serum CC16: 1 ≈ 2 < 3

• Serum SP-D: none

FEV1, PEF, FEF25/50/75: none

AO: Short-term EC cessation can lead to decrease in lung inflammation (indicated by change in CC16). Effects appear to be related to a disturbance of the lung gas exchange.

ARO: N is not involved in the observed pulmonary changes.

L: Only acute effects in a limited population were investigated.

P: Investigations of long-term EC use (with and without N) with larger groups would be worthwhile.

0

N is causally related to the observed CV effects (HR, SBP, DBP):

1
Polosa et al. 2020, Italy (223) Longitudinal (60 months)

• 19 Smokers with COPD, switched to EC, 65 y, 22.1 cig/d at BL

• 20 Smokers with COPD (control), continued CC use, 65.9 y, 20.2 cig/d at BL

BL, and follow-up (FU) at 12, 24, 48 and 60 months

• CC group: CPD almost unchanged at 20 cig/d; no sign. change or slight improvement in lung function and walk distance, COPD exacerbations, CAT score

• EC group: decrease in CPD (20 to 1.5 cig/d); sign. improvements in lung function and walk distance, COPD exacerbations, CAT score

Also improvements in dual users (about 3 cig/d)

AO: EC use ameliorates COPD outcomes and might also reverse the harm of some smoking effects.

ARO: Although dual use was evaluated separately, compliance is an open question.

The authors speculate that N is not the compound responsible for COPD in smokers.

ARO: From the study data, the role of N in COPD cannot be deduced.

L: Small group sizes.

P: A larger study over longer time periods including a N-free EC group would be of value.

0/?

Of note: N strength in e-liquid was reduced over time.

Jackson et al. 2020, USA (224) Cross-sectional

• Cohort 1: 26 NU, 22 vapers (EC)

• Cohort 2: 25 NU, 26 CC, 12 Waterpipe (WP), 10 Dual (CC/WP)

Grouping according to self-reports

Self-reported resp. symptoms:

• EC and CC reported the most symptoms

IgE: EC sign. higher than NU; dual users higher than other groups of Cohort 2

IgG: EC and NU not diff.; dual users higher than other groups of Cohort 2

AO: Our pilot study showed that users have a preference toward fruit and more sweet flavors and that EC and dual use resulted in an augmented systemic immune response.

ARO: Only self-reported data (except IgE and IgG). No verification of product use (particularly EC only).

ARO: Role of N cannot be deduced from the data.

L: Small group sizes; probably too short product use durations.

G: No N-free EC group.

?
Kotoulas et al. 2020, Greece (225) Cross-over

25 healthy and 25 asthmatic smokers (aged 40 y) vaped 1 EC (with nicotine)

Acute changes (after vs before, sign.):

Healthy subjects:

FeNO: 3.6 ppb (↑)

FEV1: unchanged

Inflam. BM in EBC (IL-1ß, IL-4, IL-6, IL-8, IL-10, TNF-α, LTB4, 8-isopr: unchanged

All BM sign changed in asthmatics after 1 EC

AO: EC vaping resulted in acute alteration of both pulmonary function and airway inflammation in stable moderate asthmatic patients.

The authors cite evidence that EC use without N had no effects.

ARO: N's role cannot be deduced from the data.

L: Small group sizes; only acute effects.

G: No N-free EC group; no long-term observations.

P: A study without these weaknesses would be of interest.

0.5 / ?
Lee et al. 2020, USA (226) Cross-over

Evaluation of RNA expression data sets from:

• Smokers (CC)

• Vapers (EC with N)

• Vapers (EC without N and flavors)

Gene expressions:

• ACE2: upreg. in CC

Pro-inflammatory cytokines: upreg. in CC and EC with N

Inflammasome genes: upreg. in CC and EC with N

AO: CC and EC (with N) increase susceptibility to COVID-19

ARO: Product use not well characterized

Authors do not clearly separate effects of N and flavors.

ARO: N possibly involved in proinflamm. gene expression

L: Product use not well characterized, misclassification possible

0.5 / ?
Shields et al. 2020, USA (227) Cross-sectional

64 Healthy, young adults, mean age: 26 y

• 28 NU, PG in urine: 2.1 mg/L

• 13 Vapers (EC for > 1 y, no CCs for > 5 month), PG in urine: 25.5 mg/L

• 27 Smokers (CC), PG in urine: 6.6 mg/L

Lipid laden macrophages (LLM) in BAL:

• NU: 18%

• EC: 54%

• CC: 96%

AO: LLM are related to EVALI, relation to inflammation is open.

ARO: Dual use cannot be excluded

ARO: N's role cannot be deduced.

L: Small group sizes; dual use in EC group is possible; not clear what LLM indicates.

G: No N-free EC group.

?
Pulvers et al. 2020, USA (101) RCT

186 Smokers (CC), African Americans/Latinx: 92/94, 43.3 y, 12.1 cig/d; randomized to

• 125 EC use, 5% N

• 61 Controls (CC use as usual)

Sign. changes EC vs control (CC) on week 2 and 6:

• NNAL

• COex

No sign. changes EC vs CC:

• Cotinine in urine

Respiratory symptoms (weeks 2 and 6)

FEV25–75% (w 2 and 6)

SBP (w 2 and 6)

DBP (w 2 and 6)

• Significances similar in EC only users

AO: ECs may be an inclusive (suitable) harm reduction strategy for this population.

ARO: 58–68% in EC group were dual users, 4% were CC only users in EC group. Compliance was not enforced.

ARO: All EC contained 5% N. The role of N cannot be deduced from this study.

L: Only short- to medium-term study (6 weeks).

G: No N-free EC group.

P: Long-term study (> 1 year) including an N-free EC group would be of interest.

?
Kizhakke et al. 2021, USA (228) Cross-sectional (acute and chronic (BL))

• 9 Vapers (EC since > 1 y), 23 y, range EC use: 1.5–4 y, 3.3 pack-year equivalents

• 7 NU, 21 y

Sign. diff. at BL:

FEV1: EC < NU

FEV1/FVC: EC < NU

• VA/Q mismatch: EC > NU

BL vs post acute EC use:

V/Q mismatch: gets worse

No sign. diff. at BL:

• SPO2 (oxygen saturation)

• HR (but sign. increase after acute vaping)

AO: EC use leads to early lung changes. Authors could not exclude some dual use. The authors suppose that nicotine is involved in the VA/Q changes.

ARO: No direct involvement of N can be deduced, but can theoretically be possible.

L: Very small groups, dual use cannot be excluded.

G: No N-free EC group.

P: Larger, long-term study with N-free EC group would be of interest.

?/1
McClelland et al. 2021, USA (229) Cross-sectional (acute resp. changes)

• 76 Vapers (EC), 20 min EC use with 5% N

• 73 NU, passively exposed to EC for 20 min

Sign. changes after 20 min (active) vaping:

HR,↑

ventilation frequency, ↑

oral temperature, ↑

SPO2, ↓

Passive exposure:

• oral temp, ↑

Blood sugar and FVC not changed (both groups)

AO: Vaping with mint-flavored ECs with 5% N for 20 min resulted in significant immediate physiological changes. Exposure to EC vapor significantly increased oral temperature.

ARO: N's role cannot be deduced from this study.

L: Only short-term effects.

?
Ruther et al. 2021, Germany (230) Cross-over study (BL and 3 months investigations)

• 60 Smokers (CC), 39.1 y, reduced CC and increased EC use (still 25% CC use after 3 months)

• 20 Smokers (CC), 44.2 y; stopped CC use

Changes after 3 months:

Bronchial reactivity (BHR) (mannitol provocation test) decrease in both groups

FEV1 small change in both groups

FeNO small change in both groups

No sign. diff. in the changes between both groups

AO: Whether the decrease in BHR observed after 3 months is maintained when using ECs over longer time periods or has an individual prognostic value, must be clarified in long-term studies.

ARO: No clear improvements by EC use or stopping smoking were observed. Both groups contain CC users after 3 months.

ARO: Role of N cannot be deduced from the study.

L: Use of CCs in both groups.

G: No N-free EC group.

?
Chand et al. 2021, various countries (231) 13 Cross-sectional studies (meta-analysis)

1,039,203 Subjects

• Current EC users

• Ever EC users

• NU

Duration of EC use: < 10 y (estimate)

Pooled OR (CI) for asthma vs NU:

• Current EC: 1.36 (1.21–1.52)

• Ever EC: 1.24 (1.13–1.36)

AO: EC use is correlated with asthma (however, limitations are considered).

ARO: N's role cannot be deduced from this study.

L: All weaknesses of cross-sectional studies: temporality, misclassifications by self-reports.

?
Xian et al. 2021, various countries (232) 11 Cross-sectional studies (meta-analysis)

Groups:

• EC ever

• EC current

• EC former

• Dual

• CC

• NU

Duration of EC use: < 10 y (estimate)

OR (CI) for asthma vs NU:

• EC ever: 1.27 (1.17–1.37)

• EC current: 1.30 (1.17–1.45)

• EC former: 1.22 (1.08–1.39)

• Dual: 1.47 (1.13–1.91)

• CC current: 1.33 (1.19–1.49)

AO: Current and former EC use is associated with asthma.

ARO: Usual weaknesses of cross-sectional studies.

ARO: N's role not discussed by authors.

Cannot be deduced from this study.

L: Cross-sectional study: no causality, temporality open; mis-report of product use possible.

G: No N-free EC group.

?

Other disorders and diseases (eyes, bones, physical performance, brain/mood).

Author, year, country (Ref) Study type User groups / duration of product use Endpoints and findings Comments (bias, compliance, etc.) Conclusions regarding nicotine's (N) role Limitations (L) / Gaps (G) / Proposals (P)
Ocular disorders
Munsamy et al. 2019, South Africa (371) Single (acute) vaping 64 Subjects, 21 y (CC/EC history not reported, EC-naive); measurements pre and post vaping: 0.05 mL e-liquid (10 puffs), 8 mg N/mL Corneal epithelial thickness and tear film quality not sign. diff. post vs pre

AO: More frequent and higher EC use is required, experienced EC users should be used.

The authors speculate that little or no N was taken up.

ARO: N's role cannot be deduced from this study.

L: Small sample size, EC-naive subjects, only young people, only acute effects.

G: N-uptake completely unknown.

?
Md Isa et al. 2019, Malaysia (372) Cross-sectional

• 21 Male vapers (~23 y), EC use: ≥1 y, 3 mL/d, quit of occasional CC use

• 21 Male NU (~23 y)

Ocular surface health (OSH) (dry eyes, tear quality) sign. impaired in EC group

Effects increase with EC voltage (3.0–5.9 V).

AO: Vaping leads to moderate to severe impairment of OSH.

ARO: No verification of EC only use (probably dual users included).

Authors suggest that irritating compounds may be responsible for the observed effects.

ARO: N's role cannot be deduced.

L: Small group sizes, only young subjects, only short duration of EC use, probably dual users included.

?
Kalayci et al. 2020, Turkey (373) Cross-sectional

• 21 Male vapers (EC), 28.8 y, ECs (3 mg N/mL) since > 3 y

• 21 Male NU, 28.8 y

FAZ sign. higher in EC compared to NU.

AO: EC use enlarges FAZ and decreases vascular density in retina micro-circulation.

ARO: Possible dual use not mentioned.

The authors cite evidence that N causes vasoconstriction and thus FAZ enlargement.

ARO: The study data cannot provide involvement of N.

L: Small group sizes, only young males; EC use relatively short.

G: No check of dual use; no N-free EC group.

0.5 / ?
Makri et al. 2020, Greece (374) Cross-over

47 Dual users (daily CC (duration: 6 y), at least once per week EC use, 25 y, EC mean duration: 2.4 y, allocated to 4 conditions:

• 1. CC: 1 cig, 10 puffs in 5 min

• 2. EC, 10 puffs in 5 min, 18 mg N/mL

• 3. EC, 10 puffs in 5 min + 25 min ad lib EC

• 4. Sham, 60 min

No sign. changes in CT (choroid thickness) and CFT (central-foveal thickness) under all 4 conditions.

AO: CC and EC use does not result in acute changes in central foveal (CFT) and choroid thickness (CT) in young subjects.

ARO: No effects observed, therefore N has no acute effects as well.

L: Low number of subjects, only young subjects, only short- no long-term effects were studied.

G: No N-free EC group.

P: A larger study, including an N-free group looking for long-term effects would be of interest.

0 (acute effects) / ?
Bone disorders
Agoons et al. 2021, USA (381) Cross-sectional

NHANES 2017–2018, 5,569 subjects:

• 4,519 NU, 54.3 y

• 1,050 Ever EC users (EEC), 56.1 y

• 463 CC (no EC) users

• 143 Dual users

Duration of EC use: < 10 y (estimate)

Adjusted prevalence ratio, PR (CI) vs NU for fragility fracture (hip, spine wrist):

• EEC: 1.46 (1.12–1.89)

• CC: 1.63 (1.18–2.25)

• Dual: 2.41 (1.28–4.55)

AO: EC use can be detrimental to bone health.

ARO: Data rely on self-reports.

The authors discuss a possible involvement of N in the pathomechanism.

ARO: N's role cannot be deduced from this study.

L: All data rely on self-reports; EC use not well characterized; subjects may have started EC use after the bone fracture.

G: No N-free EC group.

?
Tian et al. 2022, USA (382) Cross-sectional

Behavior and Risk Factor Surveillance System (BRFSS), 924,882 participants

• 30,569 Current EC users (cEC)

• 119,309 Former EC users (fEC)

• 775,004 Never EC users (nEC)

• 486,015 Never EC, never CC (NU)+

+: contain 29.7% former CC and 7.6% current CC (!?)

Duration of EC use: < 10 y (estim.)

Adjusted OR (*=sign) for inflammatory arthritis:

• fEC vs nEC: 1.45*

• cEC vs nEC: 1.81*

• fEC vs NU: 1.20*

• cEC vs NU: 1.25(*)

AO: EC use is an important risk factor for arthritis.

ARO: Usual issues with cross-sectional studies: causality/temporality, recall bias, misreports. Unclear NU group!

The authors cite evidence that N is involved in the pathomechanism (also: dual user had the highest risk).

ARO: A role of N in the inflammatory processes can be assumed.

L: Weaknesses of a cross-sectional study; no classification of the arthritis type.

G: No N-free EC group.

0.5 / ?
Impaired physical performance
Bolinder et al. 1997, Sweden (387) Cross-sectional

151 Healthy males:

• 68 NU, 44 y

• 50 SLT, 45 y, 25 y SLT use (median)

• 48 CC, 48 y, 28 y CC use (median)

Sign. diff. of CC vs NU and SLT:

VO2max (decrease)

Workload (decrease)

HR (at 190 W): increase

SBP (at 190 W): increase

No sign. diff. between SLT and NU

AO: Long-term use of SLT does not sign. influence exercise capacity in healthy, young subjects.

The authors cite some evidence for negative effects of N in CVD.

ARO: The study suggest that N has no (neg) effect in healthy subjects.

L: Small group sizes; only rel. young and well trained subjects included.

P: Long-term study including more NGPs and older subjects would be of interest.

0
Mental disorders
Lee et al. 2019, South Korea (397) Cross-sectional

Web-based survey with 62,276 students:

• 53,466 NU

• 4,508 Smokers (CC only)

• 660 Vapers (EC only)

• 3,642 Dual users

Duration of EC use: < 10 y (estimate)

Prevalence of depression and suicidality:

• Sign. increased vs NU in all 3 user groups

AO: Claim an urgent need for cessation programs.

ARO: Misclassification of product use cannot be excluded.

The authors cite evidence that N is involved in mental processes and disorders.

L: Data rely on self-reports; misclassification possible.

G: No N-free EC group.

P: A study including a N-free EC group would be of interest.

0.5–1
Pham et al. 2020, Canada (398) Cross-sectional

Self-reports in a Community Health Survey with 53,050 subjects from 2015/2016, mean age 45 y:

• Smokers (CC, no EC)

• Dual (CC and EC)

• EC users

• NU

Duration of EC use: < 10 y (estimate)

Mental health symptoms (MHS):

Depression symptoms

Mood/anxiety disorders

Suicidal thoughts/attempts

Binge drinking

EC use is associated with adverse MHS, particularly in women (but no sign. diff.).

AO: EC use is associated with adverse MHS, particularly in non-smokers and women.

ARO: General problem of self-reports and bi-directionality in cross-sectional studies.

The authors cite evidence that N plays a role in MHS.

ARO: Study data do not allow to identify a role of N.

L: Misclassification of product use and symptoms; bi-directionality in cross-sectional studies.

G: No N-free EC group.

0.5 / ?
Majdi et al. 2021, various countries (399) Clinical trial

Meta-analysis of 31 studies with 978 subjects (non-smokers) allocated to:

• Nicotine patch

• Placebo patch

N patch improved:

Cognitive function*

• Attention*

Memory

*statistically sign.

AO: N patch improves cognitive outcomes.

ARO: Observed effects are causally related to N.

L: Only acute effects; only non-smokers investigated; authors list 8 additional shortcomings.

P: Study with long-term NGP users would be of interest.

1

Reproduction.

Author, year, country (Ref) Study type User groups / duration of product use Endpoints and findings Comments (bias, compliance, etc.) Conclusions regarding nicotine's (N) role Limitations (L) / Gaps (G) / Proposals (P)
Cardenas et al. 2019, USA (359) Cross-sectional

248 Pregnant women, 232 with singleton life-birth:

• 17 Dual EC/CC users

• 6 Current EC only users

• 23 Any current EC users

• 56 Current CC users

• 97 NU

Pregnancy outcome, risk for SGA (CI):

• Dual EC: 2.5 (0.7–8.8)

• Current EC only: 5.1 (1.2–22.2)

• Any current EC: 3.8 (1.3–11.2)

• Current CC: 2.6 (0.9–7.2)

AO: Suggest that EC use is associated with an increased risk of SGA.

ARO: Strange results! Misclassification is likely.

The authors cite (weak) evidence that N might play a role.

ARO: N's role cannot be deduced from this study.

L: Very small groups; misclassification is likely.

?
Holmboe et al. 2020, Denmark (360) Cross-sectional

2,008 Men, median age: 19 y, were asked for their smoking habits (multiple use possible):

• 52% CC users

• 13% EC users (mostly with N)

• 25% snuff users

• 33% marijuana users

Sign. diff. vs NU:

• Total sperm count: Lower in daily CC and daily EC

Total and free testosterone:

• Higher in daily CC

AO: Stated that ‘confounding by behavioral factors cannot be excluded’.

ARO: There is probable significant dual use in EC group.

The authors cited evidence that EC effects were dependent and independent of N content.

ARO: N's role cannot be deduced from the study data.

L: Dual use (CC/EC) highly likely.

G: No N-free EC group.

?
McDonnell et al. 2020, Ireland (361) Cross-sectional

Pregnancy outcome in a clinic:

• 218 EC users, 31 y

• 195 Dual users, 29 y

• 99 Smokers (CC), 29 y

• 108 NU, 33 y

Mean birthweight (g):

• EC: 3,470

• Dual: 3,140*

• CC: 3,166*

• NU: 3,471

* sign. lower than NU and EC

AO: Birthweight of EC users is similar to NU.

ARO: Product use relies on self-reports at 2nd trimester.

The authors cite evidence that N (in NRT) had no effect on birthweight, but possibly on development of offspring.

ARO: No effect of EC and, therefore, also of N.

L: Product use at delivery not assessed; socioeconomic status higher in NU and EC.

0
Harlow et al. 2021, USA (362) Cross-sectional

4,586 Women, 21–45 y, web-based study, question on current, former, never use of ECs and CCs

Fecundability (fertility) ratios (FRs) not sign. diff. in any EC or CC user group compared to NU

AO: Stated that FR estimates were inconsistent and imprecise because lack of independence of CC use.

ARO: N-free EC users were excluded.

N's role cannot be deduced.

L: No clear user groups defined.

G: No N-free EC group included.

?
Regan et al. 2021, USA (363) Cross-sectional

Pregnancy monitoring study (PRAMS), 79,176 women, 72,256 using no CC during pregnancy:

• 241 EC before preg. (EC1)

• 73 EC during preg. (EC2)

• 9,795 NU (no EC, no CC)

Pregnancy outcome compared to NU (only life-births):

• EC1: no adv. effects

• EC2: sign. increased prevalence in low birth weight (LBW), only in daily users

AO: Daily use of EC during pregnancy leads to adverse outcome.

ARO: Product use relies on self-report.

The authors cite evidence that N is a developmental toxicant.

ARO: N's role cannot be deduced from this study.

L: Small EC groups; dual use in EC groups possible; heterogeneity in ECs; recall bias; false report of product use.

G: No N-free EC group.

P: A study including an N-free EC would be of interest (also other weaknesses avoided).

?

Probability for an involvement of nicotine in various diseases, disorders, detrimental changes in NGP users (evaluations extracted from Tables 1–8).

Diseases / disorder / detrimental changes Number of evaluations Class I (%) Class II (%) Class III (%)
Myocardial infarction (MI) 7 28.5 28.5 43
Stroke 5 20 40 40
Atherosclerosis (related diseases) 8 25 50 25
Arterial stiffness 19 21 32 47
Hypertension (HT) 4 0 0 100
Heart rate (HR) / blood pressure (BP) 18 0 28 72
CVD related BOBEs 14 21 50 29
Sum of CVD 75 16 35 49
Cancer (various organs or all) 10 40 50 10
Respiratory disorders (RD) 43 16 65 19
Oral health disorders 23 9 57 35
Inflammation / oxidative stress 11 18 82 0
Metabolic syndrome 7 14 43 43
Reproduction 5 20 80 0
Eye disorders 4 20 50 20
Bone disorders 2 0 50 50
Physical performance 1 100 0 0
Mental disorders 2 0 0 100
All observed disorders 183 17 50 33

Metabolic syndrome.

Author, year, country (Ref) Study type User groups / duration of product use Endpoints and findings Comments (bias, compliance, etc.) Conclusions regarding nicotine's (N) role Limitations (L) / Gaps (G) / Proposals (P)
Eliasson et al. 1991, Sweden (113) Cross-sectional

• 18 NU, male, 24.4 y

• 21 Snuff users, male, 24.1 y, duration of snuff use: 7.0 y

• 19 Smokers (CC), male, 25.3 y, duration of CC: 9.1 y

Sign. diff. in CVD-related BOBEs (≈ : not sign):

Hb: CC > Snuff ≈ NU

WBC: CC > NU, Snuff > NU

Fibrinogen: CC > NU

Serum insulin: CC > NU, Snuff > NU

Serum cholesterol: CC > Snuff ≈ NU

TG: CC > NU, Snuff > NU

Not sign. diff. between groups: LDL, HDL, LDL/HDL, Lp(a)

AO: Snuff use has similar but lower effects on CVD-related BOBEs, except for lipids.

ARO: Use of snuff only not verified.

The authors cite evidence that NG use does not affect lipids and that CC-related hyperlipidemia is not due to N.

ARO: N's role cannot be deduced from this study.

L: Small group sizes; only very young men included.

G: Other NGPs (EC, HTP), N-free EC.

P: Larger study with older subjects, including additional NGPs would be of interest.

?
Eliasson et al. 1996, Sweden (345) Cross-sectional

• 20 Males, nicotine gum (NG) users (> 11 months, mean: 50 months), 48.8 y

• 20 NU, 51.0 y

Sign. diff. NG vs NU:

Insulin resistance increased

Insulin levels increased

C-peptide increased

M/I decreased (neg. correlated with cotinine)

AO: N is the major constituent in cigarette smoke that leads to insulin resistance, metabolic abnormalities associated with increased CVD morbidity.

ARO: N appears to be the main cause of insulin resistance.

L: Small group sizes.

P: Other NGPs should be used in long-term studies (> 1 year) with these endpoints.

0.5–1
Orimoloye et al. 2019, USA (346) Cross-sectional (NHANES: 2013–2016)

3,415 Subjects:

• 2,636 NU

• 30 Vapers (EC)

• 711 Smokers (CC)

• 38 Dual users

Similar age and sex distributions

Duration of EC use: < 10 y (estimate)

No sign. diff. between groups:

Insulin resistance

Glucose tolerance test

CC and dual group tend to have higher insulin resistance.

Also no sign. diff. in a 12-week mice study exposed to air, CC, EC (with and without N).

AO: EC use is not linked to insulin resistance.

ARO: The authors concede that the EC use was not well characterized (confounding possible).

Authors cite evidence that N enhances insulin resistance.

ARO: Data suggest that EC and N have no effects on insulin resistance.

L: Small EC and dual group sizes; no verification of EC only status; too short EC use?

G: No N-free EC group.

0 / ?
Kim et al. 2020, South Korea (121) Cross-sectional

All men:

• 337 Dual users (CC+EC), 36.7 y, CotU: 1,303 ng/ml, 15.1 cig/d

• 4,079 CC only, 46.3 y, CotU: 1,236 ng/ml, 14.8 cig/d

• 3,027 Never smokers (NS), 39.8 y, CotU: 0.7 ng/ml

Sign. diff. of dual users to other groups:

WBC: higher than CC and NS

SBP: lower than CC

FBG: higher than NS

TG: higher than NS

HDL: lower than NS

Metabolic syndrome: higher than NS

ARO: Proportion of EC use in dual users appears low.

ARO: Role of N cannot be deduced.

L: EC only group is missing.

?
Assali et al. 1999, Israel (347) Cross-over

11 Smokers (CC), healthy, middle-aged were investigated at 3 timepoints:

• 1. Prior to CC cessation with NRT

• 2. After 6 weeks with NRT (N patch)

• 3. After further 2 weeks with no CC and no NRT

Weight gain after 6 and 8 weeks

Insulin sensitivity decreased after 6 weeks (NRT), but increased after 8 weeks (no nicotine)

AO: N is responsible for insulin resistance.

ARO: N's role in weight gain: unclear.

L: Very small group sizes; short phases with N (NRT) and without.

G: No NGPs studied (including EC with/without N).

P: Larger long-term study with the mentioned groups would be of interest.

0 / ?

N's role in insulin resistance:

1
Carlsson et al. 2017, Sweden (348) Prospective (5 pooled cohort studies)

54,531 Never-smoking men, mean age 49 y, among them never and current snus users mean FU: 10.3 y

Duration of snus use: 10–30 y (estimate)

Harm ratio (CI) for diabetes type 2 (DT2), current vs never snus:

HR = 1.15 (1.00–1.32)

• (boxes/week)

• use (<30 vs ≥30y)

AO: High consumption. of snus is a risk factor for DT2, as is use of CC.

ARO: Use of snus only not verified.

The authors state that the results support the notion that N is involved in DT2 generation (evidence that N induces insulin resistance is cited).

ARO: N involvement is possible.

L: Only self-reports on product use, no verification.

P: Study including NGPs (with/without N) and women would be of interest.

0.5–1.0
Atuegwu et al. 2019, USA (344) Cross-sectional

• 143,952 Never EC users

• 1,339 Current EC users (EC)

• 7,625 Former EC users (FEC)

Duration of EC use: < 10 y (estimate)

Self-reported prediabetes OR (95% CI)

• EC: 1.97 (1.25–3.10)

• FEC: 1.07 (0.84–1.37)

Risk was higher in males History in never EC users sign. higher than in the other 2 groups (Table 1)?

AO: EC use may be associated with prediabetes.

ARO: No verification of reported EC use was performed.

ARO: N's role cannot be deduced from the study.

G: No verifications of self-reports on prediabetes and EC use.

P: A long-term study with objective verifications (dual use, HbA1c, blood glucose) would be of interest.

?

Inflammation and oxidative stress.

Author, year, country (Ref) Study type User groups / duration of product use Endpoints and findings Comments (bias, compliance, etc.) Conclusions regarding nicotine's (N) role Limitations (L) / Gaps (G) / Proposals (P)
Chatterjee et al. 2019, USA (323) Cross-over

10 NU (CC and EC naive), 28.7 y:

Vaped an EC (without N), 16–17 puffs of 4 s over 3 min

Blood samples at −30 (BL), 30 min, 1, 2, 4, 6 h

Sign. changes of ox. stress and inflammation BMs (vs BL):

CRP

ICAM-1

NOx

ROS (in endothelial lung cell) ↑

BMs returned to BL after 6 h

AO: EC use (also without N) increases ox stress and inflammation and thus vascular pathologies.

The authors cite evidence that EC could adverse impacts also without N.

ARO: N could have additional impact.

L: Small sample size; only young and EC/CC-naive subjects; only acute effects.

G: No group with N-containing ECs.

P: A study with chronic EC users would be of interest.

?
Singh et al. 2019, USA (324) Cross-sectional

• 26 NU, 33.9 y

• 22 EC users (mean duration of use 2.00 ± 1.64 y), 35.5 y

Lung function variable lower in EC than in NU group; EC users showed a series of inflamm. and ox. stress biomarkers sign. increased, a high number of these BMs showed no sign. diff. Some anti-inflamm. mediators were sign. decreased, others not.

AO: EC use is risk factor for various systemic diseases and lung injuries.

ARO: N's role in the observed changes cannot be elucidated.

L: Small group sizes; short use of ECs.

G: No positive control (CC); no N-free EC group.

Moon et al. 2020, South Korea (325) Cross-sectional

• 430 Non-smokers (NS), 38.4 y

• 715 CC users, 42.3 y

• 63 EC users, 37.1 y

Sign. diff. in baseline biomarker levels between groups:

FBG: CC > EC ≈ NS

HDL: NS > EC ≈ CC

TG: NS < CC ≈ EC

WBC: NS < CC ≈ EC

Not sign. diff. between groups:

hs-CRP, uric acid

AO: EC use may be associated with systemic inflammation as in CC users.

ARO: only deducible from model calc.

ARO: No conclusions on N's role can be drawn.

L: Small group size for EC users; EC use possibly only in last month.

?
Oliveri et al. 2020, USA Cross-sectional

• 62 Smokers (CC), 47.1 y

• 132 Vapers (EC, 70 tank, 62 cartridge), 44.4 y

Subjects used own brands ad lib throughout the study (30 d).

Minimum use of EC: 6 months

Nequ (mg/g crea):

• CC: 10.1; EC: 6.3

WBC (1000/μL):

• CC: 7.3; EC: 6.6

HDL (mg/dL):

• CC: 56.0; EC: 55.4

11-dh-TXB2 (ng/g crea):

• CC: 952.6; EC: 844.2

8-Epi-PGF (ng/g crea):

• CC: 480.9; EC: 342.7 s-ICAM-1 (ng/mL):

• CC: 266.9; EC: 217.9

Model calc.: all diff. CC vs EC sign., except WBC and HDL

AO: EC users may have lower health risks than CC users.

ARO: 6 months EC use approaches long-term use. Compliance is somewhat uncertain.

ARO: Since Nequ are sign. lower in vapers, an influence of N on the observed levels of BOPH cannot be excluded.

L: Larger group sizes and longer EC use would be better.

G: No inclusion of N-free ECs.

?
Sakamaki-Ching et al. 2020, USA (327) Cross-sectional

• 19 NS, 23–66 y

• 21 Vapers (EC only in the past 6 months, confirmed by NNAL in urine), 19–66 y

• 13 Smokers (CC), 24–75 y

BMs in urine for ox stress:

Metallothionein: EC ≈ CC > NS (sign.)

8-OHdG: EC ≈ CC > NS (sign.)

8-isoprostane: EC ≈ CC > NS (sign.);

Sign. corr. between total metals and metallothioneine and 8-OHdG in EC users.

AO: The biomarker levels in EC users were similar to (and not lower than) CC. In EC users, there was a link to elevated total metal exposure and oxidative DNA damage.

ARO: At least mid-term use of ECs only (6 months). EC compliance not sufficiently approved.

ARO: Role of N in ox. stress cannot be deduced from this study.

L: Small groups.

G: No N-free EC group.

?
Perez et al. 2021, USA (328) Cross-sectional

Women in reproductive age (WRA) (18–49 y):

• 74 EC users (all former smokers), CotU: 91.9 ng/mL

• 536 Smokers (CC), CotU: 1,508 ng/mL

• 448 NU (controls), CotU: 0.4 ng/mL

s-ICAM and 8-isoprotane: sign. lower in EC compared to CC, similar to NU;

hs-CRP, IL-6, fibrinogen: not sign. diff. between groups

AO: WRA who use ECs had lower levels of some of the evaluated urinary BMs of toxicant exposure and serum BMs of inflammation and oxidative stress than those who use CCs.

ARO: N uptake in EC users very low (compared to CC).

ARO: A role of N on ox. stress and inflammation cannot be deduced from this study.

L: Small EC group size; EC use appears to be low (or only occasional); duration of EC use not provided.

?
Stokes et al. 2021, USA (329) Cross-sectional

PATH Wave 1 (2013–2014):

• 2,191 NU

• 261 EC only

• 3,261 CC only

• 1,417 Dual

Ratios of BMs for ox. stress and inflamm. vs NU for EC/CC/Dual:

hs-CRP: 1.08/1.19*/1.17*

IL-6: 1.00/1.15*/1.11*

s-ICAM: 1.05/1.19*/1.16*

Fibrinogen: 1.00/1.04*/1.03*

8-Isoprostane: 1.02/1.24*/1.26*

Ratios vs CC:

• EC: < 1* (all BMs)

• Dual: ~1 (not sign., all BMs)

*: sign.

AO: We observed no difference in inflammatory and oxidative stress biomarkers between exclusive EC users and NU, and levels were lower in exclusive EC users relative to exclusive CC.

ARO: Results were surprisingly consistent. Same weaknesses: Danger of product misclassification.

Authors do not discuss the role of N.

ARO: N's role cannot be deduced.

L: Only short period of EC use possible; mis-report of product use possible.

G: No N-free EC group.

P: Study with other NGPs and N-free group would be of interest.

?
Tommasi et al. 2021, USA (330) Cross-sectional

Study with:

• 23 NU, 24.0 y, CotP: 2.5 ng/mL

• 37 EC only users, 28.0 y, CotP: 115 ng/mL, 8.0 y CC, 3.0 y EC

• 22 CC only users, 36.5 y, CotP: 121 ng/mL, 21.9 y CC

Gene expression in mitochondria of leukocytes: Higher extent of dysregulation in CC compared to EC, some common patterns. Genes of immune and inflammation response are impacted.

AO: Important genes for disease development are dysregulated, with high impact on public health.

ARO: Dual use possible chronic or acute effects?

ARO: N's role not discussed by the authors (cannot be deduced from the data).

L: Small samples sizes; misclassification of product use not excluded.

G: No N-free EC group.

?
Kim et al. 2022, USA (331) Cross-over

Smokers (CC) allocated to switch to:

• 8 NRT/Varenicline, no CCs, 55 y

• 7 EC, no CC, 57 y

• 7 continued CC, 55 y

After 12 weeks inflammation BMs were analyzed in ELF (NEC)

Inflammation BMs in ELF (epithelial lining fluid) and NEC (nasal epithelial cells):

• NRT/Var: TNF-α decreased, TGF-ß1 and MMP-9 unchanged

• EC and CC: all three BMs unchanged

AO: Inflammation in the upper airways persisted after switching to EC.

ARO: Compliance only checked by COex.

ARO: Findings with NRT suggest that systemic N is not involved in the inflammation process.

L: Very small group sizes; compliance over 12 weeks not verified.

G: No N-free EC group

P: A study avoiding these weaknesses would be of interest.

0 / ?
Lizhnyak et al. 2022, USA (332) Cross-sectional

PATH study Wave 1:

• 2,442 Smokers (CC only)

• 169 Vapers (EC only)

• 970 Dual users: with increasing frequency of EC use

• 1,700 NU

BOBEs:

hs-CRP

IL-6

s-ICAM

Fibrinogen

BOBEs levels decrease with increasing EC use.

AO: Dual users must be differentiated according to frequency of use.

ARO: Same weaknesses as other PATH studies.

ARO: Role of N cannot be deduced from the data.

L: Certainty of self-reports for product use not reliable.

G: No N-free EC group.

?
Azzopardi et al. 2022, Denmark/Sweden (333) Cross-sectional

195 Subjects

• 97 Nicotine pouch users (NP), 25.6 y, mean NP duration: 2.8 y

• 30 Smokers (CC), 29.7 y, CC use for 11.4 y

• 29 Former smokers (fCC), 32.5 y

• 39 NU, 29.6 y, no CCs since 3.5 y

BOBEs diff. between groups (≈ not sign.):

11-dh-TXB2: CC > NP ≈ fCC ≈ NU

FeNO: CC < NP ≈ fCC ≈ NU

8-Epi-PGF: CC ≈ NP > fCC ≈ NU

WBC: CC > NP ≈ fCC ≈ NU

s-ICAM: CC ≈ NP ≈ fCC ≈ NU

HDL: CC ≈ NP ≈ fCC ≈ NU

AO: NP users have more favorable BOPH than smokers.

ARO: Sampling during clinic stay, CEVal for long-term compliance.

ARO: No effect of NP on BOBEs for ox. stress and inflammation, therefore N may play no role.

L: Partly small groups; relatively short NP use.

G: no other NGPs, no N-free EC group.

P: A study avoiding these weaknesses would be of interest.

0 / ?

Frequent limitations, weaknesses and gaps in human studies investigating the association between NGP use and detrimental health effects as well as suggestions for avoidance and improvements.

Limitations / weaknesses / gaps Avoidance / improvements
1. Duration of NGP use in most studies was too short for the development of diseases or disorders Inherent weakness, due to the relative short market availability of modern NPGs (ECs, HTPs, NPs). Improvement can only come with time
2. Group sizes in most studies was too small Larger studies have to be performed in the future
3. Many studies included only one sex (mostly males) Males and females should be included
4. In many studies, the NGP users were relatively young (hence also the controls) Inherent weakness (see 1.)
5. The majority of studies investigated ECs (HTPs and NPs are clearly under-represented) All NGPs should be evaluated for the health risks. With respect to NPs (and partly also to HPTs), presently this is an inherent weakness (see 1.)
6. Concealed dual use (mostly CC + NGP) was a general problem in epidemiological and field studies. Erroneously increased risks for NGP could be the consequence Exclusive NGP use (‘NGP only’) is preferable for a reliable product risk evaluation. To achieve this goal will be quite difficult for the years to come. The application of suitable (ideally product-specific) biomarkers which indicate concurrent CC use over weeks to months could help to circumvent this problem
7. The long-term use history of tobacco/nicotine products in study subjects was usually not adequately assessed More efficient questionnaires have to be developed for this purpose. Where applicable, interviewers have to be well-trained. Combining questionnaires/interviews with suitable biomarkers would be also of advantage
8. The majority of studies did not include dose-response relationships (DRR) An existing DRR is very strong evidence for a (causal) effect. Therefore, future NGP study designs should allow to investigate DRRs
9. In most studies, only one control group was included Ordinarily, NGP studies can (and should) have a positive and a negative control group: positive controls are usually smokers (or in longitudinal studies: smokers who continue to smoke); negative controls are usually (‘life-time’) non-users (NU) (or in longitudinal studies: smokers who quit smoking)
10. Almost all (long-term) human studies do not include a nicotine-free product group (only a few short-term experimental studies do) For elucidating the role of nicotine in disease/disorder development upon NGP use, comparison to a nicotine-free NGP would be ideal. However, it appears rather unlikely that this goal can be achieved in field studies
11. In many studies NGP users are former smokers, there was rarely a group of initial NGP users For a proper evaluation of the health risk of NGP use, initial NGP user would be most suitable. However, this again is an inherent weakness. Improvement (i.e. inclusion of groups of initial NGP users) would be possible in some years from now. On the other hand, the main focus of NGP evaluation is presently to approve their suitability for tobacco harm reduction. For this purpose, no initial NGP users are required.
12. Cross-sectional and case-control studies (most frequently used in epidemiology) have immanent limitation: in principle no causality can be deduced, temporality (what is first, product use or disorder?) In principle, prospective studies can avoid these weaknesses. However, cross sectional studies are faster and much cheaper and will, therefore, always take up an important role. More important is the careful interpretation of results from cross-sectional studies, clearly pointing to weaknesses and limitations
eISSN:
2719-9509
Language:
English
Publication timeframe:
4 times per year
Journal Subjects:
General Interest, Life Sciences, other, Physics