Electronic cigarette research you should know about.

CleanCigaretteLogo(1)resize

Hey Dawn here again. I understand that today’s blog is not exciting reading. In fact, it is very black and white in nature. That being said this is incredibly important stuff and if you or a loved one use electronic cigarettes than having this information is a MUST! No worries though, we will have some lighter and more exciting reading in our next post visit! We have done the legwork here so please care and share these facts!  Be involved with the future of electronic cigarettes means being educated on them.

We have done the legwork here so please care and share these facts!  Be involved with the future of electronic cigarettes means being educated on them.

{These Quotes, Articles and Studies are not from A Clean Cigarette. We can not confirm nor deny the information in these documents. We do try to only bring reputable sources forward. Please e-mail AccAnswers@gmail.com for any questions or conserns. A Clean Cigarette contains nicotine, nicotine is addictive. A Clean Cigarette is not intended to treat, diagnose or cure any illness or addiction. None of these statements have been reviewed or approved by the FDA.}

Reaserch

This cross-sectional survey of 5863 current smokers that have made an attempt to quit smoking in the past 12 months aims to assess the effectiveness of electronic cigarettes compared to currently available over the counter NRTs (nicotine replacement therapies) in regards to quitting burning tobacco. It relies heavily on self-reporting of the subjects. The finding that smokers who use electronic cigarettes have a higher tendency to report on going discontinued use of burning tobacco, even in the absence of professional support.  The research report is published in a monthly peer-reviewed journal titled Addiction. It was created by The Society for the Study of Addiction to Alcohol and other Drugs. It is a reputable source for addiction science since it was founded in 1884 according to multiple on-line sites.

QUOTE(S):

“In conclusion, among smokers trying to stop without any professional support, those who use e-cigarettes are more likely to report abstinence than those who use a licensed NRT product bought over-the-counter or no aid to cessation. This difference persists after adjusting for a range of smoker characteristics such as nicotine dependence.”

______________________________________

This research article reviewed available data on the exposure of electronic users to harmful toxins in comparison to currently accepted occupational standards. It took an in-depth look at not only the risk to the individual electronic cigarette user but to the risk of the public around the electronic cigarette user. It concluded that while more research needs to be done in reference to the individual user’s risk, there is no risk associated with nearby bystanders that are outside of acceptable limits for occupational safety standards. This article comes from BMC Public Health which is an electronic resource that is in direct relation to Medline. Both are commonly used and trusted sources for the National Institute of Health. The author, Dr. Igor Burtyn, is considered an industry expert in the field of occupational health.

QUOTE(S):

“Even when compared to workplace standards for involuntary exposures, and using several conservative (erring on the side of caution) assumptions, the exposures from using e-cigarettes fall well below the threshold for concern for compounds with known toxicity. That is, even ignoring the benefits of e-cigarette use and the fact that the exposure is actively chosen, and even comparing to the levels that are considered unacceptable to people who are not benefiting from the exposure and do not want it, the exposures would not generate concern or call for remedial action”

______________________________________

This randomized clinical trial took place over a one-year time frame and aimed to observe long-term changes in the exhaled breath of smokers that were asked to either, quit or reduce, their use of burning tobacco by using electronic cigarettes. The clinical trial found that current smokers who were able to maintain abstinence from burning tobacco showed marked improvement in a number of areas in spite of their electronic cigarette usage. BMC Public Health is a monthly open access peer-reviewed journal that has a mostly academic audience according to Info Trac.  The Journal purportedly focuses on all aspects related to public health. Each of the authors are reputable in their individual fields of expertise according to multiple sites.  Their individual credentials range from MD to researcher.

QUOTE(S):

“Smokers invited to switch to electronic cigarettes who completely abstained from smoking showed steady progressive improvements in their exhaled breath measurements and symptom scores. FeNo and eCO normalization is highly supportive of improved respiratory health outcomes and adds to the notion that quitting from tobacco smoking can reverse harm in the lung.”

______________________________________

This self-proclaimed “proof-of-principle study” took a look at the blood, urine and exhaled breath of the study subjects in an effort to compare the difference between the tobacco and nicotine biomarkers of an electronic cigarette user and a burning tobacco user. In the case of the nicotine biomarkers there appeared to be mostly unchanged. In the case of the tobacco biomarkers however, there was a notable reduction of harmful biomarkers. In addition, this study assessed the urge to smoke of subjects using electronic cigarettes. BMC Public Health is a peer-reviewed monthly open access science journal. BMC Public Health has been around for many years and garners very impressive valid review status as a student resource.

QUOTE(S):

“The results of this study demonstrate that smokers who completely substitute combustible cigarettes with e-cigarettes over a short period of time (5-days) experience reductions in exposure to a number of known harmful tobacco-related toxicants and carcinogens similar to smokers who quit smoking over the same period of time as measured by urine, blood and exhaled breath BoEs. As expected, the notable exceptions were the nicotine-related biomarkers, as subjects continued to consume nicotine in the e-cigarettes.”
“The study also showed that subjects who switched to dual use also experienced significantly reduced exposure after partially replacing cigarettes with an e-cigarette product, albeit to a lesser extent.”

______________________________________

This is a systematic review of more than one hundred available studies. The research aimed to take a unifying approach to as much available data as possible. Through the process of gathering and assessing the said data, the authors were able to evaluate what the combined data suggested as a whole in regards to electronic cigarettes as an alternative to burning tobacco cigarettes. This systematic review is published inTherapeutic advances in Drug Safety, which is a peer reviewed journal. This journal shows interest in all regards pertaining to drug safety. The authors R. Polosa, a professor of medicine, and K. Faraslinos, a reputable researcher from Onassis Cardiac Surgery Center, both have a considerable amount of experience in the tobacco research field.

QUOTE(S):

“Currently available evidence indicates that electronic cigarettes are by far a less harmful alternative to smoking and significant health benefits are expected in smokers who switch from tobacco to electronic cigarettes. Research will help make electronic cigarettes more effective as smoking substitutes and will better define and further reduce residual risks from use to as low as possible, by establishing appropriate quality control and standards.”

______________________________________

  • Goniewicz, M. Knysak, J. Gawron, M. Kosmider, L. Sobczak, A. Kurek, J. Prokopowicz, A. Janlonska-Czapla, M. Rosik-Dulewska, C. Havel, C. Jacob, P. Benowitz, N. (2012) Levels of Selected Carcinogens and Toxicants in Vapour from Electronic Cigarettes. Tobacoo Control 23:133-139. Retrieved:http://tobaccocontrol.bmj.com/content/23/2/133.short

This research paper took 12 brands of electronic cigarettes and compared them to a nicotine inhaler. The inhaler was considered a reference product since it is a FDA regulated smoking cessation approved prescription product. The authors aimed to find a way to study the vapor of electronic cigarettes and compare specific toxins and heavy metal between it and burning tobacco smoke. The results of these comparisons indicate that there is significantly less exposure to these in vapor produced by electronic cigarette versus smoke that is produced by burning tobacco. In fact, the levels in some cases were similar to the reference produced listed above. This paper is published in a bimonthly internationally peer-reviewed journal titled Tobacco Control. A team of twelve authors of varying credentials came together to produce this data.

QUOTE(S):

“Our findings are consistent with the idea that substituting tobacco cigarettes with e-cigarettes may substantially reduce exposure to selected tobacco-specific toxicants. E-cigarettes as a harm reduction strategy among smokers unwilling to quit, warrants further study.”

______________________________________

This research article aims to document the levels of Nicotine, Carbon Monoxide and Acrolein, all of which are present in burning tobacco. Findings show that electronic cigarettes reduce exposure to toxins in comparison to burning tobacco. Even duel users saw risk reduction although not as significant a number. CO levels are a main concern for COPD patients. Acrolien is a carcinogen that is prevalent in burning cigarettes and is considered a public health risk. The paper went on to monitor the nicotine craving experienced by subjects as well as interesting findings on the dropout rate of electronic cigarettes users attempting to quit in comparison with other quit aid studies. This research was completed and published for the American Association for Cancer Research by a group of heavily credentialed researchers in correlation with Queen Mary University of London.

QUOTE(S):

“The headline finding concerning acrolein is that in dual users, EC use significantly reduces rather than increases exposure to this toxicant. As expected, dual use also reduced smoke intake generally, as indexed by expired CO levels.”

______________________________________

This article takes a look at available electronic cigarette data in an effort to distinguish, what, if any harm reduction can be expected via electronic cigarette use versus burning tobacco use. It touches not only on what data is available at present, but also on what data needs to be completed still in reference to electronic cigarettes. The Author of this article is Dr. Polosa. He is a Professor of internal medicine with tenure at the University of Catania in Italy. He has years of experience in the tobacco and tobacco harm reduction research industry. Dr. Polosa maintains a high industry reputation and is noted on many tobacco-related studies and trials. This article was published by BMC Medicine, a well-renowned peer review journal. After review and explaining the data he researched Dr. Polosa concludes this article with a range of expert opinions. These conclusions will help support the major thesis claim about the levels of harm not only to the electronic cigarette user but the public around them as well.

QUOTE(S):

“Compared to combustible cigarettes, e-vapor products are at least 96% less harmful and may substantially reduce individual risk and population harm”
“Although large longitudinal studies are warranted to elucidate whether ECs are a less harmful alternative to tobacco cigarettes and whether significant health benefits can be expected in smokers who switch from tobacco to ECs, the emerging evidence that EC use can reverse harm from tobacco smoking should be taken into consideration by regulatory authorities seeking to adopt proportional measures for the e-vapor category”

______________________________________

This is a blog article published on the A Harvard Health Blog site. The site is maintained and administrated by Harvard Medical School, which has an impeccable reputation for facts. In this blog both the good and bad involving electronic cigarettes is discussed. A look is taken at the apparent health benefits as well as the also apparent health dangers involved with any form of nicotine delivery system. In addition, it touches base on the health risks involved with nicotine as a drug. The author, DR. John Ross, is considered a public health expert. In addition, Dr. Ross is an assistant professor of medicine at Harvard Medical school as well as a practicing team member of the Brigham Woman’s Hospital.

QUOTES:

” e-cigarettes are almost certainly less lethal than conventional cigarettes. Cigarette smoking is a uniquely dangerous addiction. In fact, cigarettes might be the only consumer product that kills when used as directed. Cigarettes are the number one cause of preventable death in the United States, killing 480,000 people every year. That’s more deaths than HIV, heroin, methamphetamine, cocaine, alcohol, motor vehicle accidents, and firearms combined.”

______________________________________

This article discuses the outcome of an online survey that was administered in the year 2010 regarding electronic cigarettes and their role as a possible smoking cessation tools. The results of the 222 respondent survey were assessed and conclusions were drawn from the data it produced. The survey itself was conducted in conjunction with the Department of Community Mental Health and Boston University School of Public Health. The primary author, Dr.Siegel has many years of experience in the study of tobacco health related issues. The Results and conclusions were then published by The American Journal of Preventive Medicine, which is a peer-reviewed medical journal of above standard reputation.

QUOTES:

“The primary finding was that the 6-month point prevalence of smoking abstinence among the e-cigarette users in the sample was 31.0% (95% CI=24.8%, 37.2%). A large percentage of respondents reported a reduction in the number of cigarettes they smoked (66.8%) and almost half reported abstinence from smoking for a period of time (48.8%)”
“Those respondents using e-cigarettes more than 20 times per day had a quit rate of 70.0%. Of respondents who were not smoking at 6 months, 34.3% were not using e-cigarettes or any nicotine-containing products at the time”

______________________________________

This long-term study supported by Moores Cancer Center, University of California was completed by Dr Shu-Hong Zhu, Department of Family Medicine and Public Health, University of California. It concludes that about 85% smokers used an e-cigarette for their last quit attempt It also shows that smoking cessation rate (42.4%) is higher among long-term e-cigarette users in addition it shows that quit attempts occur more frequently (72.6%) with the e-cigarette than with other types of NRTs, so more people find e-cigarettes as a realistic cessation tool than the FDA approved products.

QUOTES:

“Short-term e-cigarette use was not associated with a lower rate of smoking cessation. Long-term use of e-cigarettes was associated with a higher rate of quitting smoking.”

______________________________________

Well there it is. A ton of research and articles. But even this list is not the tip of the ise burg as far as electronic cigarette research. So the next time some one says “we just dont have enough evidence on e-cigarettes” Point them to this page. It’s not all that is avalible, but it sure is a heck of a lot of information! Thanks for stoping by and feel free to visit Acleancigarette.com for information on A Clean Cigarette brand electronic cigarettes. Isn’t it time to make the switch?

Bye,

Dawn

One thought on “Electronic cigarette research you should know about.”

  1. Really great writing! More writers should care as much as you do about the content they produce. This has really given me a good reason to think more on this subject. Thank you for this.

Have questions or thoughts? We want too hear from you! Let's chat.

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.