Welcome to Scribd, the world's digital library. Read, publish, and share books and documents. See more
Download
Standard view
Full view
of .
Look up keyword
Like this
1Activity
0 of .
Results for:
No results containing your search query
P. 1
5 Scientists on E-Cigs

5 Scientists on E-Cigs

Ratings: (0)|Views: 19|Likes:
Published by wendiigo
from http://www.ecigarettedirect.co.uk/ashtray-blog/2013/10/scientists-case-electronic-cigarettes.html ...

"In a new paper five scientists, Professor Polosa, Professor Brad Rodu, Assistant Professor Caponneto, Research Fellow Maglia and Assistant Professor Raciti, argue the case for electronic cigarettes..."
from http://www.ecigarettedirect.co.uk/ashtray-blog/2013/10/scientists-case-electronic-cigarettes.html ...

"In a new paper five scientists, Professor Polosa, Professor Brad Rodu, Assistant Professor Caponneto, Research Fellow Maglia and Assistant Professor Raciti, argue the case for electronic cigarettes..."

More info:

Categories:Types, Presentations
Published by: wendiigo on Oct 11, 2013
Copyright:Attribution Non-commercial

Availability:

Read on Scribd mobile: iPhone, iPad and Android.
download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
See more
See less

10/09/2014

pdf

text

original

 
REVIEW Open Access
A fresh look at tobacco harm reduction: the casefor the electronic cigarette
Riccardo Polosa
1,2*
, Brad Rodu
3
, Pasquale Caponnetto
1
, Marilena Maglia
1
and Cirino Raciti
1
Abstract
Smokers of any age can reap substantial health benefits by quitting. In fact, no other single public health effort islikely to achieve a benefit comparable to large-scale smoking cessation. Surveys document that most smokerswould like to quit, and many have made repeated efforts to do so. However, conventional smoking cessationapproaches require nicotine addicted smokers to abstain from tobacco and nicotine entirely. Many smokers areunable
or at least unwilling
to achieve this goal, and so they continue smoking in the face of impendingadverse health consequences. In effect, the status quo in smoking cessation presents smokers with just twounpleasant alternatives: quit or suffer the harmful effects of continuing smoking. But, there is a third choice forsmokers: tobacco harm reduction. It involves the use of alternative sources of nicotine, including modern smokelesstobacco products like snus and the electronic cigarette (E-cig), or even pharmaceutical nicotine products, as areplacement for smoking. E-cigs might be the most promising product for tobacco harm reduction to date,because, besides delivering nicotine vapour without the combustion products that are responsible for nearly all of smoking
s damaging effect, they also replace some of the rituals associated with smoking behaviour. Thus it is likelythat smokers who switch to E-cigs will achieve large health gains. The focus of this article is on the health effects of using an E-cig, with consideration given to the acceptability, safety and effectiveness of this product as a long-termsubstitute for smoking.
Keywords:
Tobacco, Harm reduction, Snus, Electronic cigarettes
Introduction
Tobacco smoking is a global pandemic, affecting anestimated 1.2 billion people, that poses substantialhealth burdens and costs. With nearly six milliondeaths annually, smoking is the single most importantcause of avoidable premature mortality in the world[1], mainly from lung cancer, coronary heart disease,chronic obstructive pulmonary disease and stroke [2,3]. As also underscored by the World Health Organization(WHO) Framework Convention on Tobacco Control(FCTC), the key to reducing the health burden of tobaccoin the medium term is to encourage cessation amongsmokers [4].Unfortunately, smoking is a very difficult addiction tobreak, even for those with a strong desire to quit. It hasbeen shown that approximately 80% of smokers whoattempt to quit on their own relapse within the firstmonth of abstinence, and only about 5% achieve longterm abstinence [5]. Moreover, currently available smokingcessation medications such as nicotine replacementtherapy, the antidepressant bupropion and the partialagonist of the
α
4
β
2 nicotinic acetylcholine receptor, varenicline, at best double or triple this quit rate under theideal circumstances of an experimental setting but havehad low uptake and inferior efficacy in the community [6-8]. Furthermore, varenicline and bupropion have come under increasing scrutiny due to reports of seriousadverse events that include behaviour change, depression,self-injurious thoughts, and suicidal behaviour [9].The Tobacco Advisory Group of the Royal College of Physicians acknowledges that the development of addiction includes modifications in behaviour togetherwith changes in brain structure and function that impair
* Correspondence:polosa@unict.it
1
Presidio G. Rodolico
Unità Operativa di Medicina Interna e Medicinad
Urgenza, Centro per la Prevenzione e Cura del Tabagismo (CPCT), AziendaOspedaliero-Universitaria
Policlinico-Vittorio Emanuele
, Università di Catania,Catania, Italy
2
Institute of Internal Medicine, G. Rodolico Hospital, AziendaOspedaliero-Universitaria
Policlinico-Vittorio Emanuele
, Università di Catania,Catania, ItalyFull list of author information is available at the end of the article
© 2013 Polosa et al.; licensee BioMed Central Ltd. This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the CreativeCommons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, andreproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
Polosa
et al. Harm Reduction Journal 
2013,
10
:19http://www.harmreductionjournal.com/content/10/1/19
 
the ability to achieve and sustain abstinence. They notethat some of these changes may not be entirely reversible[10]. Lastly, even tobacco control policies - particularly when not integrated and well supported by adequatefunding - are not very effective [11].Consequently, many smokers will keep smoking because,when given only the options of smoking or completely giving up nicotine, many will not give it up. Bearing inmind that nicotine
per se
does not cause much risk whenseparated from inhaling smoke, it is important to considerthat a third option is also available to smokers; thereduction of smoking-related diseases by taking nicotinein a low-risk form. Tobacco harm reduction (THR), thesubstitution of low-risk nicotine products for cigarettesmoking, is likely to offer huge public health benefitsby fundamentally changing the forecast of a billioncigarette-caused deaths this century [12].
Value of harm reduction as a tobacco control strategy
The history of THR may be traced back to 1974, withthe publication of a special article in the Lancet by British tobacco addiction research expert Michael A.H.Russell [13]. There are many and varied approaches toTHR. Broadly, these can be categorised into two groups:(I) non-tobacco interventions aimed at decreasing tobaccoconsumption, and (II) alternative tobacco products. THRempowers smokers to gain control over the consequencesof their nicotine addiction and at its simplest it is nonintrusive and solely educational, therefore having a strongethical rationale [14]. The strategy is cost-effective andaccessible today to almost all smokers. Harm reduction isparticularly compelling for nicotine because so manpeople have such a strong propensity for using it.Most scientists and commentators agree that completetobacco cessation is the best outcome for smokers, andany efforts to make available safer products need to bepart of a comprehensive tobacco control strategy aimed atminimising tobacco use through cessation and prevention[15]. Opponents of THR often claim that providing saferalternatives sidetracks smokers from quitting completely.However, refusing to provide truthful information aboutand access to safer alternative sources of nicotinedissuades smokers from quitting the most harmfulmethod of obtaining nicotine - inhaling smoke.Quit rates may be improved by advancing physicians
understanding of predictors of success in smokingcessation [16], and some have purported that it may be better to focus efforts on developing and improvingpharmacologic therapies than to promote safer alternativessuch as smokeless tobacco [17,18]. Currently, however, there is a growing trend in physicians
indifference or scepticismtowards the efficacy of smoking cessation programs [19].Moreover, the use of pharmaceutical cessation aids[20] and behavioural support [21] have led to limited success in cessation, and it has been argued that themajority of current smokers will continue to smokewithout acceptable safer alternatives [22]. Therefore,the case for an effective THR strategy is legitimate.
Avoiding confusion about true health consequences of nicotine use
When considering harm reduction as a tobacco controlstrategy it is important to separate the risk associatedwith inhaling smoke from that of taking nicotine. AsRussell noted 30 years ago, "There is little doubt that if it were not for the nicotine
people would be little moreinclined to smoke than they are to blow bubbles or lightsparklers" [13], "The rapid absorption of nicotinefrom snuff confirms its potential as an acceptableand relatively harmless substitute for smoking"
. "Switchingfrom cigarettes to snuff would substantially reduce therisk of lung cancer, bronchitis, emphysema, and possibly coronary heart disease as well, at the cost of a slightincrease in the risk of cancer of the nasopharynx (or oralcavity in the case of wet snuff)" [23]. Nicotine fulfils allthe criteria of an addictive agent (including psychoactiveeffects, drug-reinforced behaviour, compulsive use, relapseafter abstinence, physical dependence, and tolerance) by stimulating specialized receptors in the brain whichproduce both euphoric and sedative effects [24]. Individ-uals who have emotional dysfunctions or attention deficitsare more likely to start smoking and less likely to quit.Nicotine has beneficial effects on attention, concentration,and mood in many smokers; these individuals may bedepending on nicotine as a means of self-medication [25].Are there important associated adverse health conse-quences of nicotine intake? The landmark work, NicotineSafety and Toxicity, edited by Neal Benowitz, consideredthe potentially harmful effects of nicotine as well as itsbenefits [26]. After reviewing the evidence, the authorsconcluded that nicotine presents little if any cardiovascularrisk, and that nicotine has not been shown to be carcino-genic. It is has been reported that nicotine may be poten-tially harmful during pregnancy, but probably less harmfulthan continued smoking [27-29]. There are data suggesting that nicotine may be beneficial in treating ulcerative colitis[30] and Tourette syndrome [31]. Other conditions for which nicotine is being considered as treatment includememory impairment, attention deficit disorder, depression,and Parkinson
s disease [32]. Regarding long-term use, eventhough nicotine is a potential toxin, it appears to bewell-tolerated during weeks and months of nicotinemedication therapy without evidence of serious adversehealth effects [10]. Using the multi-criteria decision ana-lysis method previously used by the Independent ScientificCommittee on Drugs (ISCD) to rank the harms of drugsused in the UK, a working group of international nicotineexperts convened by the ISCD considered the potential
Polosa
et al. Harm Reduction Journal 
2013,
10
:19 Page 2 of 11http://www.harmreductionjournal.com/content/10/1/19
 
harms of a wide range of nicotine containing productsbased on sixteen parameters of harm to individuals andharm to others. Not only conventional cigarettes were judged to be by far the most harmful form of nicotinecontaining product, but e-cigarettes were ranked assimilar in harm to nicotine patches [33]. By and large,nicotine
per se
does not cause much risk when separatedfrom inhaling smoke.
Current tobacco harm reduction products
Pharmaceutical nicotine products have been used aspotential long-term cigarette substitutes. It has beenreported that about 20 percent of smokers who quitwith nicotine gum used it for more than one year,even though it was available only by prescription [34].None of the currently available products deliver nicotine tothe brain at a dose and rate similar to smoking. But thisinadequacy is due to a philosophical aversion to nicotineaddiction, not to technical inefficacy; a 1995 study foundthat high-dose transdermal nicotine was safe and effectivefor heavy smokers [35,36]. To be realistic alternatives, con- temporary nicotine products need to be as readily availableas cigarettes, competitively priced, socially acceptable andapproved for regular long-term recreational use rather thanas short-term cessation aids [22]. But these products wouldalso be addictive.A convincing example of a successful THR strategy isthat of Swedish snus. Snus is a type of finely groundmoist snuff that delivers significant levels of nicotine(Figure1). Snus does not produce any of the toxiccombustion products and it is manufactured in a way that produces low levels of carcinogenic tobacco-specificnitrosamines (TSNAs) [37,38]. In Sweden, where snus has progressively replaced cigarette smoking over the past20 years [35], substantial reductions in smoking preva-lence have been reported [39]. Although Sweden
s tobaccocontrol policies have undoubtedly contributed to thisdecline, the popularity of snus has played a major role.The much steeper decline in smoking prevalence observedamong males than females is likely to be due to greatersnus use in males [40]. Snus prevalence in Swedish malesrose from 10% in 1976 to 23% in 2002 [41]. From theperiod 1990
1995 to the period 2002
2007, smokingprevalence decreased from 26 to 10% among men [42]Interestingly, the Swedish population prevalence of tobacco use has remained relatively steady at around40%, but with 58% of daily tobacco users now takingsnus instead of smoking cigarettes [43]. As a resultof this, tobacco-related mortality in Sweden is amongthe lowest in the Western world [44]. Studies providequantitative evidence that health risks of using snusis lower than smoking for lung, oral, and gastriccancers, for cardiovascular disease, and for all-causemortality [45].The Swedish experience has been replicated in Norway,which shares a border with Sweden and is culturallsimilar [46]. The 2005 California Tobacco Survey showsthat smokers in that state are not receptive to using oralsmokeless tobacco as a substitute for cigarette smoking[47]. One possible explanation for this phenomenon isthat U.S. smoker
s perceptions of smokeless products areincorrect; indeed they are sceptical of the idea that snus issafer than cigarettes [48]. Misleading information dissemi-nated by government agencies and non-profit health orga-nizations has made American consumers [49,50] and health professionals [51] believe that smokeless tobacco isas harmful as, if not even more harmful than, smoking.Providing complete and truthful information could makeU.S. smokers more receptive to switching to this muchless harmful alternative.The issue of abuse liability has been recently usedby opponents of THR to warn about potential risksof smokeless tobacco products. Hatsukami et al. [52]concluded that smokeless tobacco appears to haveslightly lower abuse liability, with possibly lower severity of addiction or dependence compared with smoking andgreater ease of cessation. They also concluded that it may be possible that switching from cigarettes to smokelesstobacco would increase the potential for cessation from alltobacco products. Fagerström and Eissenberg came tosimilar conclusions in a recent comparison of dependenceamong smokers, smokeless tobacco users and users of medicinal nicotine [53]. Many former smokers in Swedenhave quit through using snus, suggesting it may be a more
Figure 1
Snus smoke
-
free tobacco.
Snus is an oral tobaccoproduct that comes in a pouch of some sort, designed to be placedbetween the gums and upper lip. Snus is not chewed and requiresno spitting. The standard pouch holds 1 gram of finely groundtobacco. Snus is regulated as a food in Sweden, and thus held tostrict quality standards. Swedish snus was developed to greatlyreduce TSNA content, and research shows that snus does notincrease the risks of cancer of any type.
Polosa
et al. Harm Reduction Journal 
2013,
10
:19 Page 3 of 11http://www.harmreductionjournal.com/content/10/1/19

You're Reading a Free Preview

Download
scribd
/*********** DO NOT ALTER ANYTHING BELOW THIS LINE ! ************/ var s_code=s.t();if(s_code)document.write(s_code)//-->