Skip to main content

Correction: Improving on estimates of the potential relative harm to health from using modern ENDS (vaping) compared to tobacco smoking

The Original Article was published on 08 November 2021

Correction: BMC Public Health 21, 2038 (2021).

https://doi.org/10.1186/s12889-021-12103-x

The corrected Abstract of this article [1] should read as follows:

This corrected Abstract replaces the previous one. The original work attempted to quantify the relative harm to health from electronic nicotine delivery systems (ENDS) compared to smoked tobacco. As such it used various biomarker studies and previously modelled estimates of smoking-related health loss. However, we now consider that the data limitations with the selected studies and the assumptions involved in our method, are too problematic to allow for a valid quantitative assessment. The original manuscript text remains below to show the approach taken, but interested readers are directed to the correction file that explains the specific limitations with the studies and limitations with the analysis. This correction file also details some potential ways in which future studies can help advance knowledge of this topic. Our revised conclusion is therefore that despite our previous analysis, given the data and methods limitations in the biomarker studies we identified, it seems premature to develop quantitative estimates of the relative harm to health from using modern ENDS (vaping) compared to tobacco smoking.

At the request of the Editor, we now outline our reasoning for this more cautious conclusion below.

1) The identified studies did not address potentially major toxicants involved in vaping (e.g., fine particulates and formaldehyde) and only included biomarker measurements for a small proportion of the likely total number of toxicants.

As an example, neither of two key toxicants (i.e., fine particulates and formaldehyde [2]) were considered in the five studies we used in the analysis. Another gap of note (due to the lack of data in the five studies) was the lack of inclusion of biomarkers of exposure to potentially toxic metals/metalloids such as cadmium, lead and arsenic. This is despite a systematic review [3], which reported that: “Most metal/metalloid levels found in biosamples of e-cigarette users were similar or higher than levels found in biosamples of conventional cigarette users, and even higher than those found in biosamples of cigar users.”

The biomarkers we used from the five selected studies only included a total of seven biomarkers (3-HPMA, CEMA, HMPMA, NNAL, PheT and COHb/eCO). Yet, tobacco smoke contains over 7000 chemicals, hundreds of which are toxic and around 70 of which are known to cause cancer [4]. Although much fewer than the number present in tobacco smoke, the best estimate we identified was of “over 80” chemicals in vaping/ENDS aerosol [5]. However, this latter figure does not capture the thousands of different vaping product flavourings, some of which may have unique lung-damaging effects [6].

The limited selection of biomarkers available for our analysis, therefore, warrants more caution than we initially expressed in the estimated potential relative health impact of vaping vs smoking.

2) Incomplete compliance with being an “exclusive vaper” (i.e., no smoking) creating the risk that estimates of toxicant levels and risks of relative harm were too high for this group.

This was a likely problem with all of the five studies except the confinement study [7], and even that study provided no details of measures taken to completely rule out access to illicit smoking. After the publication of our analysis, one study team (Hatsukami et al. [8]) kindly provided us with additional data on verified non-smoking status that allowed us to explore the issue further. However, drawing on these data markedly reduced the sample size to only 10 subjects who were biochemically verified as not smoking, thus rendering the sample too small to support robust conclusions.

3) Selected studies were likely to be confounded by extraneous sources of toxicants (e.g., air pollution, secondhand smoke and dietary sources).

Only one of the five selected studies was a confinement study [7], that included an abstinence comparison group. Whilst subjects were randomised in this confinement study, data on the balance between subjects in important confounders such as acrolein in the diet were not presented. For the other relevant studies, the background exposures of toxicants (e.g., from secondhand smoke, other air pollution or diet) and whether this varied between comparison groups were not documented, and hence it was not possible to assess the degree to which biomarker levels in the smoker and ENDs groups were likely to be due to extraneous sources. We attempted to adjust for background levels of acrolein; however, the study we used as the basis for this adjustment [9], reported data from a time when background air pollution levels and secondhand smoke exposure levels would have been higher than is currently the case, so may have over-estimated exposure among the study participants that was due to extraneous sources. We could not identify robust background exposure data from air pollution and diet for the other six toxicants considered in the five studies. Similarly, the studies measuring carboxyhaemoglobin (COHb) and our analysis did not adjust for endogenous production of COHb in the body [10].

4) Only two of the five identified studies were randomised controlled trials (i.e., of preferable methodological quality).

Our study included only two randomised controlled trials (RCTs) [7, 8]; the three other studies were observational and therefore of lower methodological quality. It is feasible, for example, that the ENDS and smoker groups in the observational studies differed systematically in their extraneous exposure to toxicants in diet or air pollution, creating bias in the comparison of biomarker levels between the groups. Post-publication, we explored conducting further analyses using only the two RCTs (along with the additional unpublished data provided to us post-publication by Hatsukami et al). However, this approach resulted in findings based on a single industry-funded study [7] and only n = 10 subjects (i.e., for biochemically-verified exclusive vapers) from the non-industry funded trial [8]. Furthermore, authors of one of the trials [7] noted some anomalous results for the biomarker NNN that concerned them. Taking into account the other limitations noted, we concluded that using only these two RCTs would not enable us to adequately estimate relative levels of biomarkers and harm in vapers and smokers.

The three observational studies all have the potential problem of confounding from unmeasured and unknown confounders, and the problems of potential non-exclusive vaping (as detailed above). But below we detail some of the more specific potential problems with these studies:

  • The study by Boykan et al. [11] involved a narrow age range of subjects (aged 12 to 21 years old), involved a mix of vaping devices, and was a convenience sample of three outpatient clinics (Stony Brook, New York State, USA). The low cotinine levels in exclusive vapers suggested low intensity of ENDS use that might be atypical relative to typical (i.e., more intensive) ENDS use. Hence the biomarker levels for ENDS users in this study may underestimate the true risk.

  • Nga et al. [12] drew on a convenience sample (i.e., of staff, supporting staff or patients visiting the Oral Health Center, International Medical University Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia). Participants selected the mix of products studied (ENDS or a heated tobacco product) and the only biomarker data was for eCO, which was collected only hours after participants used the new product.

  • Oliveri et al. [13] used a mix of vaping devices (tank-based and cartridge); the study was industry-funded and seems to have had some problems with non-exclusive vaping e.g., “the observed levels of >5% saturation suggests that a select group of AEVP were not exclusive users and may have been smoking cigarettes.”

5) Some included studies were very short-term.

Usage patterns among short-term users of ENDS may have differed from those exhibited by more experienced ENDS users, which may have affected their biomarker measurements. This was potentially relevant to the RCT involving only five days of ENDS use [7], or the observational study involving just hours of use [12]. Another problem with such short-term studies is the inadequate washout period for some biomarkers (e.g., for the biomarker NNAL, the half-life in the human body is 10 to 18 days [14]).

6) Two of the five studies were industry-funded.

Two of the five selected studies [7, 13] were industry-funded (by JUUL and Altria). Given the evidence that industry-funded studies are more likely to find industry-favourable results (e.g., for ENDS [15] and for the pharmaceutical industry [16]), these arrangements are potentially problematic. We could have excluded these two studies, but doing so would have left only one RCT and two lower quality observational studies.

7) Vaping device heterogeneity and modernity – impacting external validity.

Only two of the included studies exclusively involved the more modern cartridge-based ENDS devices [7, 8]. With the growing international market dominance of these cartridge-based products, the relevance of the other studies is diminished.

8) Potentially different trajectories between smoking and vaping – impacting external validity (especially relevant given the long time courses of diseases such as cancers).

The five selected studies all represented points in time in the long-term trajectory of ENDS use by individuals and within populations, and include diverse brands and product types (of both ENDS products and comparative tobacco brands). Trajectories of ENDS use and smoking may diverge further in the future. For example, smoked tobacco products have changed little over many decades and it seems likely that many people who smoke will continue smoking long-term at approximately the same intensity and exhibit similar levels of biomarkers, and experience similar levels of harm. However, this outcome seems less certain for ENDS use. ENDS users/vapers may be more or less likely to continue ENDS use long-term compared to people who smoke. There may also be future changes to ENDS technology and usage patterns that affect exposure levels among ENDS users (e.g., based on changes in relative nicotine levels, or potential delineation of smokefree and vapefree areas, or if public tolerance of ENDS increases relative to smoking, or if the design of ENDS products evolves further). This may mean that the biomarker levels observed in ENDS users in the five studies may not represent longer term biomarker levels with continued ENDS use and hence the approach we used to estimating relative harm may be inaccurate.

9) Various other study limitations.

In the Discussion Section of the published article, we considered additional limitations. These include the limited number of disease categories selected (only four main groupings), the lack of weighting of the different biomarkers within the linked disease categories (due to lack of adequate data), and the likelihood that toxicant exposure and subsequent risk of cardiovascular disease is non-linear. We considered using data on the latter relationship [17], but given the other limitations with the analysis, this additional analytic refinement did not seem justified at the time.

Potential next steps for progressing the science on estimating the relative harm of vaping vs smoking.

High quality long-term cohort studies with health outcome measurements should ultimately provide important information on the relative harm of vaping vs smoking. Such studies may also provide earlier provisional information by using biomarkers and physiological measures.

But perhaps the best short-term way to explore this topic is to conduct additional and larger confinement studies where these involve:

  1. (i)

    a greater number of biomarkers and physiological measures that cover a wider range of toxicant types (as discussed above);

  2. (ii)

    three randomised study arms (people who switch from smoking to exclusive vaping, people who stay smoking, and people who switch from smoking to neither vaping or smoking);

  3. (iii)

    adequate time periods to allow for stability in ENDS use behaviours and for adequate wash-out periods for all the key toxicants so that stable levels are achieved;

  4. (iv)

    verification methods to ensure no dual use (ENDS and smoking) and assessment of other toxicant exposures (air pollution; diet). Although the latter can be largely addressed with the randomisation process, such data may inform interpretation and generalisability (e.g., if the study was performed in a setting with air pollution and where the population consumed food with relatively high acrolein levels);

  5. (v)

    funding that is fully independent from industry.

Additional information can also come from theoretical studies (e.g., as per: [2]) or “in silico” modelling studies (e.g., as per one on cannabis vaping: [18]).

All such information is urgently required as policy-makers around the world are having to make decisions on vaping and smoking regulation to get the optimal balance between: (i) facilitating access to vaping to assist smokers to quit or reduce harm from ongoing nicotine dependence; and (ii) minimising youth uptake of both vaping and smoking.

References

  1. Wilson N, Summers JA, Ait Ouakrim D, Hoek J, Edwards R, Blakely T. Improving on estimates of the potential relative harm to health from using modern ENDS (vaping) compared to tobacco smoking. BMC Public Health. 2021;21(1):2038.

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Grondin CJ, Davis AP, Wiegers JA, Wiegers TC, Sciaky D, Johnson RJ, et al. Predicting molecular mechanisms, pathways, and health outcomes induced by Juul e-cigarette aerosol chemicals using the comparative Toxicogenomics database. Curr Res Toxicol. 2021;2:272–81.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Zhao D, Aravindakshan A, Hilpert M, Olmedo P, Rule AM, Navas-Acien A, et al. Metal/metalloid levels in electronic cigarette liquids, aerosols, and human biosamples: a systematic review. Environ Health Perspect. 2020;128(3):36001.

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Chemicals in Tobacco Smoke. (Reviewed 21 March 2011). https://www.cdc.gov/tobacco/data_statistics/sgr/2010/consumer_booklet/chemicals_smoke/index.htm.

  5. Thirion-Romero I, Perez-Padilla R, Zabert G, Barrientos-Gutierrez I. Respiratory impact of electronic cigarettes and "low-risk" tobacco. Rev Investig Clin. 2019;71(1):17–27.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  6. Holden VK, Hines SE. Update on flavoring-induced lung disease. Curr Opin Pulm Med. 2016;22(2):158–64.

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Jay J, Pfaunmiller EL, Huang NJ, Cohen G, Graff DW. Five-day changes in biomarkers of exposure among adult smokers after completely switching from combustible cigarettes to a nicotine-salt pod system. Nicotine Tob Res. 2020;22(8):1285–93.

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Hatsukami DK, Meier E, Lindgren BR, Anderson A, Reisinger SA, Norton KJ, et al. A randomized clinical trial examining the effects of instructions for electronic cigarette use on smoking-related behaviors and biomarkers of exposure. Nicotine Tob Res. 2020;22(9):1524–32.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Alwis KU, de Castro BR, Morrow JC, Blount BC. Acrolein exposure in U.S. tobacco smokers and non-tobacco users: NHANES 2005-2006. Environ Health Perspect. 2015;123(12):1302–8.

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Hopper CP, Zambrana PN, Goebel U, Wollborn J. A brief history of carbon monoxide and its therapeutic origins. Nitric Oxide. 2021;111:45–63.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Boykan R, Messina CR, Chateau G, Eliscu A, Tolentino J, Goniewicz ML. Self-reported use of tobacco, E-cigarettes, and marijuana versus urinary biomarkers. Pediatrics. 2019;143(5).

  12. Nga JDL, Hakim SL, Bilal S. Comparison of end tidal carbon monoxide levels between conventional cigarette, electronic cigarette and heated tobacco product among Asiatic smokers. Subst Use Misuse. 2020;55(12):1943–8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Oliveri D, Liang Q, Sarkar M. Real-world evidence of differences in biomarkers of exposure to select harmful and potentially harmful constituents and biomarkers of potential harm between adult E-vapor users and adult cigarette smokers. Nicotine Tob Res. 2020;22(7):1114–22.

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Goniewicz ML, Havel CM, Peng MW, Jacob P 3rd, Dempsey D, Yu L, et al. Elimination kinetics of the tobacco-specific biomarker and lung carcinogen 4-(methylnitrosamino)-1-(3-pyridyl)-1-butanol. Cancer Epidemiol Biomark Prev. 2009;18(12):3421–5.

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Pisinger C, Godtfredsen N, Bender AM. A conflict of interest is strongly associated with tobacco industry-favourable results, indicating no harm of e-cigarettes. Prev Med. 2019;119:124–31.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Goldacre B. Bad Pharma: how medicine is broken, and how we can fix it. London: Fourth Estate; 2013.

    Google Scholar 

  17. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. The health consequences of smoking—50 years of Progress: a report of the surgeon General. Atlanta: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, National Center for Chronic Disease Prevention and Health Promotion, Office on Smoking and Health, 2014.

  18. Kuga K, Ito K, Chen W, Wang P, Fowles J, Kumagai K. Secondary indoor air pollution and passive smoking associated with cannabis smoking using electric cigarette device–demonstrative in silico study. PLoS Comput Bio. 2021;17(5):e1009004.

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Nick Wilson.

Rights and permissions

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data.

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Wilson, N., Summers, J.A., Ouakrim, D.A. et al. Correction: Improving on estimates of the potential relative harm to health from using modern ENDS (vaping) compared to tobacco smoking. BMC Public Health 22, 1788 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1186/s12889-022-13983-3

Download citation

  • Published:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s12889-022-13983-3