E-cigarette use and respiratory disorders: an integrative review of converging evidence from epidemiological and laboratory studies.

BACKGROUND: Use of electronic cigarettes (e-cigarettes) is prevalent among adolescents and young adults, but there has been limited knowledge about health consequences in human populations. We conduct a systematic review and meta-analysis of results on respiratory disorders from studies of general-population samples and consider the mapping of these results to findings about biological processes linked to e-cigarettes in controlled laboratory studies. METHOD: We conducted a literature search and meta-analysis of epidemiological studies on the association of e-cigarette use with asthma and with COPD. We discuss findings from laboratory studies about effects of e-cigarettes on four biological processes: cytotoxicity, oxidative stress/inflammation, susceptibility to infection and genetic expression. RESULTS: Epidemiological studies, both cross-sectional and longitudinal, show a significant association of e-cigarette use with asthma and COPD, controlling for cigarette smoking and other covariates. For asthma (n=15 studies), the pooled adjusted odds ratio (aOR) was 1.39 (95% CI 1.28-1.51); for COPD (n=9 studies) the aOR was 1.49 (95% CI 1.36-1.65). Laboratory studies consistently show an effect of e-cigarettes on biological processes related to respiratory harm and susceptibility to illness, with e-cigarette conditions differing significantly from clean-air controls, although sometimes less than for cigarettes. CONCLUSIONS: The evidence from epidemiological studies meets established criteria for consistency, strength of effect, temporality, and in some cases a dose-response gradient. Biological plausibility is indicated by evidence from multiple laboratory studies. We conclude that e-cigarette use has consequences for asthma and COPD, which is of concern for respirology and public health.

Use of Flavored E-Cigarettes Among Adolescents, Young Adults, and Older Adults: Findings From the Population Assessment for Tobacco and Health Study.

OBJECTIVES: The use of flavored electronic cigarettes (e-cigarettes) is common among e-cigarette users, but little is known about the potential harms of flavorings, the extent to which the concurrent use of multiple flavor types occurs, and the correlates of flavor type use. The objective of this study was to assess the types of e-cigarette flavors used by adolescent (aged 12-17), young adult (aged 18-24), and older adult (aged ≥25) e-cigarette users. METHODS: We assessed the prevalence of flavored e-cigarette use within the past month by flavor types and concurrent use of multiple flavor types among past-month e-cigarette users sampled during Wave 2 (2014-2015) of the Population Assessment for Tobacco and Health Study among 414 adolescents, 961 young adults, and 1711 older adults. We used weighted logistic regression models for the use of fruit-, candy-, mint/menthol-, tobacco-, or other-flavored e-cigarettes and concurrent use of multiple flavor types. Covariates included demographic characteristics, e-cigarette use frequency, cigarette smoking status, current use of other tobacco products, and reasons for e-cigarette use. RESULTS: The leading e-cigarette flavor types among adolescents were fruit, candy, and other flavors; among young adults were fruit, candy, and mint/menthol; and among older adults were tobacco or other flavors, fruit, and mint/menthol. Compared with older adults, adolescents and young adults were more likely to use fruit-flavored e-cigarettes (adjusted odds ratio [aOR] = 3.35; 95% confidence interval [CI], 2.56-4.38; and aOR = 2.31; 95% CI, 1.77-3.01, respectively) and candy-flavored e-cigarettes (aOR = 3.81; 95% CI, 2.74-5.28; and aOR = 2.95; 95% CI, 2.29-3.80, respectively) and concurrently use multiple flavor types (aOR = 4.58; 95% CI, 3.39-6.17; and aOR = 2.28; 95% CI, 1.78-2.91, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: Regulation of sweet e-cigarette flavors (eg, fruit and candy) may help reduce the use of e-cigarettes among young persons without substantially burdening adult e-cigarette users.

Short-term survival after colorectal cancer in a screened versus unscreened population.

Aims: United States' (US) colorectal cancer (CRC) screening and treatment practices seek to reduce mortality. We examined the survival of US patients compared with patients in the virtually unscreened Norwegian population. Methods: We compared short-term survival after CRC between the US and Norway using relative survival (RS) and excess mortality (EMR) analyses. The CRC patients were aged 50 and older diagnosed in the US (Surveillance, Epidemiology and End Results registry, 2004, N=9511) and in Norway (Cancer Registry of Norway, 2003-2005, N=8256). Results: Death occurred within three years for 39% of the CRC patients. Stage distributions were more favorable for US patients. Stage-specific survival was similar for localized and regional cancers, but more favorable for US distant cancers. In multivariate models of patient, tumor and treatment characteristics, patients (especially below age 80) in the US experienced longer survival (EMR 0.9, CI 0.8-0.9). Stage-specific analyses showed, however, that survival for localized cancers was relatively shorter in the US than in Norway (EMR 1.4, CI 1.1-1.8), but longer for distant cancers (EMR 0.8, CI 0.7-0.8). Conclusions: The enhanced survival for US CRC patients likely reflects a screening-related earlier diagnostic stage distribution, as well as prioritized life extension for patients with metastatic cancers, reflecting vastly different health care systems in the two countries. CRC screening is currently under consideration in Norway. For survival outcomes, the current findings do not discourage such an implementation. Other screening-related aspects such as feasibility and cost-benefit are, however, also relevant and warrant further research within a socialized health system.

Quantifying population-level health benefits and harms of e-cigarette use in the United States.

BACKGROUND: Electronic cigarettes (e-cigarettes) may help cigarette smokers quit smoking, yet they may also facilitate cigarette smoking for never-smokers. We quantify the balance of health benefits and harms associated with e-cigarette use at the population level. METHODS AND FINDINGS: Monte Carlo stochastic simulation model. Model parameters were drawn from census counts, national health and tobacco use surveys, and published literature. We calculate the expected years of life gained or lost from the impact of e-cigarette use on smoking cessation among current smokers and transition to long-term cigarette smoking among never smokers for the 2014 US population cohort. RESULTS: The model estimated that 2,070 additional current cigarette smoking adults aged 25-69 (95% CI: -42,900 to 46,200) would quit smoking in 2015 and remain continually abstinent from smoking for ≥7 years through the use of e-cigarettes in 2014. The model also estimated 168,000 additional never-cigarette smoking adolescents aged 12-17 and young adults aged 18-29 (95% CI: 114,000 to 229,000), would initiate cigarette smoking in 2015 and eventually become daily cigarette smokers at age 35-39 through the use of e-cigarettes in 2014. Overall, the model estimated that e-cigarette use in 2014 would lead to 1,510,000 years of life lost (95% CI: 920,000 to 2,160,000), assuming an optimistic 95% relative harm reduction of e-cigarette use compared to cigarette smoking. As the relative harm reduction decreased, the model estimated a greater number of years of life lost. For example, the model estimated-1,550,000 years of life lost (95% CI: -2,200,000 to -980,000) assuming an approximately 75% relative harm reduction and -1,600,000 years of life lost (95% CI: -2,290,000 to -1,030,000) assuming an approximately 50% relative harm reduction. CONCLUSIONS: Based on the existing scientific evidence related to e-cigarettes and optimistic assumptions about the relative harm of e-cigarette use compared to cigarette smoking, e-cigarette use currently represents more population-level harm than benefit. Effective national, state, and local efforts are needed to reduce e-cigarette use among youth and young adults if e-cigarettes are to confer a net population-level benefit in the future.

Second opinion strategies in breast pathology: a decision analysis addressing over-treatment, under-treatment, and care costs.

PURPOSE: To estimate the potential near-term population impact of alternative second opinion breast biopsy pathology interpretation strategies. METHODS: Decision analysis examining 12-month outcomes of breast biopsy for nine breast pathology interpretation strategies in the U.S. health system. Diagnoses of 115 practicing pathologists in the Breast Pathology Study were compared to reference-standard-consensus diagnoses with and without second opinions. Interpretation strategies were defined by whether a second opinion was sought universally or selectively (e.g., 2nd opinion if invasive). Main outcomes were the expected proportion of concordant breast biopsy diagnoses, the proportion involving over- or under-interpretation, and cost of care in U.S. dollars within one-year of biopsy. RESULTS: Without a second opinion, 92.2% of biopsies received a concordant diagnosis. Concordance rates increased under all second opinion strategies, and the rate was highest (95.1%) and under-treatment lowest (2.6%) when all biopsies had second opinions. However, over-treatment was lowest when second opinions were sought selectively for initial diagnoses of invasive cancer, DCIS, or atypia (1.8 vs. 4.7% with no 2nd opinions). This strategy also had the lowest projected 12-month care costs ($5.907 billion vs. $6.049 billion with no 2nd opinions). CONCLUSIONS: Second opinion strategies could lower overall care costs while reducing both over- and under-treatment. The most accurate cost-saving strategy required second opinions for initial diagnoses of invasive cancer, DCIS, or atypia.

Cost-effectiveness of CT screening in the National Lung Screening Trial.

BACKGROUND: The National Lung Screening Trial (NLST) showed that screening with low-dose computed tomography (CT) as compared with chest radiography reduced lung-cancer mortality. We examined the cost-effectiveness of screening with low-dose CT in the NLST. METHODS: We estimated mean life-years, quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), costs per person, and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) for three alternative strategies: screening with low-dose CT, screening with radiography, and no screening. Estimations of life-years were based on the number of observed deaths that occurred during the trial and the projected survival of persons who were alive at the end of the trial. Quality adjustments were derived from a subgroup of participants who were selected to complete quality-of-life surveys. Costs were based on utilization rates and Medicare reimbursements. We also performed analyses of subgroups defined according to age, sex, smoking history, and risk of lung cancer and performed sensitivity analyses based on several assumptions. RESULTS: As compared with no screening, screening with low-dose CT cost an additional $1,631 per person (95% confidence interval [CI], 1,557 to 1,709) and provided an additional 0.0316 life-years per person (95% CI, 0.0154 to 0.0478) and 0.0201 QALYs per person (95% CI, 0.0088 to 0.0314). The corresponding ICERs were $52,000 per life-year gained (95% CI, 34,000 to 106,000) and $81,000 per QALY gained (95% CI, 52,000 to 186,000). However, the ICERs varied widely in subgroup and sensitivity analyses. CONCLUSIONS: We estimated that screening for lung cancer with low-dose CT would cost $81,000 per QALY gained, but we also determined that modest changes in our assumptions would greatly alter this figure. The determination of whether screening outside the trial will be cost-effective will depend on how screening is implemented. (Funded by the National Cancer Institute; NLST ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00047385.).