Abstract: Electronic cigarettes (ECs) are being increasingly used as an attractive long-term alternative nicotine source to conventional tobacco cigarettes. This substitution is likely to improve health in regular EC users, and more and more respiratory patients using or intending to use ECs will be seeking professional medical advice. Unfortunately, the public's view of ECs is far from being clear with a great deal of ambiguity around the product and its intended use. Moreover, health-care professionals themselves do not seem to use an evidence-based approach when it comes to informing respiratory patients about ECs and many advise against their use. Evidence-based advice about ECs is provided here with the goal of improving counseling between physicians and their respiratory patients using or intending to use ECs. Regular EC use is unlikely to raise significant health concerns and can lead to health improvement in the respiratory patient who makes the switch from tobacco smoking.

Introduction

Cigarette smoke contains a mixture of over 7,000 chemicals, many of which harm the human body causing a broad range of diseases (USDHHS, 2014). Smoking is the leading cause of preventable premature mortality in the world; total tobacco attributable deaths are projected to increase from approximately 5 million per year today to over 8 million annually by 2030 (WHO, 2008). Death is mainly caused by ischemic heart disease, stroke, lung cancer and the catastrophic complications of advanced stage chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) (USDHHS, 2014; WHO, 2008; Doll et al., 2004). Besides lung cancer and COPD, inhalation of tobacco smoke has also been recognized to play a negative role in other pulmonary conditions, including asthma (Polosa and Thomson, 2013) and interstitial lung disease (ILD) (Travis et al., 2013).

Quitting is known to reduce the risk of lung cancer, ischemic heart disease, COPD, stroke, and other cancers (USDHHS, 2014; WHO, 2008; Doll et al., 2004). Moreover, abstaining from smoking may produce significant health gains also in the COPD, (Tønnesen, 2013), asthma (Polosa et al., 2012) and ILD (Caponnetto et al., 2012) patients who smoke. Irrespective of their specific respiratory condition, most smokers want to quit and many make attempts to do so, but the majority of these attempts fail largely because of the powerful addictive qualities of nicotine and non-nicotine sensory and behavioral cues (Buchhalter et al., 2005; Hughes et al., 2004). For those willing to quit, combination of pharmacotherapy and intensive behavioral intervention for smoking cessation can support quit attempts and can double or triple quit rates (Polosa and Benowitz, 2011; Stead and Lancaster, 2012). However, outside the context of rigorous randomized controlled trials, reported efficacy rates are disappointingly low (Alpert et al., 2013; Pierce et al., 2012; Zhu et al., 2012).

Electronic cigarettes (ECs) are electrically driven consumer products consisting of the battery part and a heating element (atomizer) that vaporizes a liquid (mainly consisting of propylene glycol, vegetable glycerin, distilled water, flavorings) that may or may not contain liquid nicotine. Vaporization allows for inhalation of vapor (referred to as vaping) and produces an aerosol similar in appearance but substantially different in substance to conventional cigarette smoke. Electronic cigarettes (ECs) are an attractive long-term alternative nicotine source to conventional cigarettes because of their many similarities with smoking behavior (Caponnetto et al., 2013a; Caponnetto et al., 2015). ECs come in a large variety of designs, shapes and sizes (Figure 1). Some resemble tobacco cigarettes (so-called cigalikes ECs) with a mouthpiece resembling a cigarette filter combining the e-liquid containing tank and the vaporizing system, a low-capacity disposable or re-chargeable battery and a LED that glows when the user inhales on the device. Others often resembling a pen (so-called penlike ECs) are equipped with high-capacity lithium batteries, a more efficient vaporizing system with a tank that can be refilled with a wide selection of e-liquid flavors and nicotine levels for a more fulfilling vaping experience. Most experienced users prefer more advanced devices (so-called MODs) that bear little visual resemblance to cigarettes, use larger-capacity batteries with adjustable and programmable power delivery, and allow replacement of heating coils and wicks in their vaporizing system. The growing popularity of ECs appears to be driven by a variety of factors: they can be used to reduce cigarette consumption or quit smoking; they are perceived as a much less harmful smoking alternative; their prices are competitive compared to conventional cigarettes; and they allow to continue having a “smoking experience without smoking” (Siegel et al., 2011; Farsalinos et al., 2014; Biener and Hargraves, 2015).

Confusion and concern is being generated by misreporting or misrepresentation or misinterpretation of scientific findings about EC safety and efficacy, and more and more respiratory patients using or intending to use ECs will be seeking professional medical advice about these products. Unfortunately, health professionals themselves do not seem to use an evidence-based approach when it comes to informing respiratory patients about ECs. This is not surprising given that healthcare professionals’ personal beliefs often conflict with the evidence-based research results and are more likely to influence practice (Michie et al., 2005). For example, previous research shows that healthcare professionals hold erroneous views about nicotine containing products and harm reduction generally, and that these beliefs are associated with the advice offered to smokers (Graham, 1996). By and large, similar erroneous views about ECs are being adopted and many may advise against their use (Borrelli and Novak, 2007; Patwardhan and Murphy, 2013).

The goal of this article is to provide healthcare professionals with appropriate interpretation of common safety concerns and with the emerging findings about potential benefits deriving from the regular use of ECs. This concise evidence-based guide is likely to improve counseling between physicians and their respiratory patients using or intending to use ECs.

Addressing Safety Concerns

Alarmist and deeply misleading stories about potential harm of these products have been increasingly fueled by irresponsible science, careless publishing, and credulous journalism. Although ECs are by and large perceived as a much less harmful smoking alternative (Caponnetto et al., 2015; Siegel et al., 2011; Farsalinos et al., 2014), these stories are now spreading fear and confusion by adversely changing the perceptions of the relative risks of smoking and vaping. Therefore, it is likely that more and more respiratory patients using or intending to use ECs will be seeking professional medical advice.

First of all, what about the nicotine? The damage done by conventional cigarettes comes not mainly from the nicotine, but from the process of burning tobacco and inhaling the smoke. Smoking-related diseases are pathophysiologically attributed to oxidative stress, activation of inflammatory pathways and direct toxic effect of thousands of chemicals and carcinogens present in tobacco smoke (EPA, 1992). All of these chemicals are emitted mostly during the combustion process, which is absent in ECs. Nicotine does not contribute to smoking-related diseases and it is not classified as a carcinogen by the International Agency for Research on Cancer (WHO-IARC, 2004). Up to 5 years of nicotine gum use in the Lung Health Study was unrelated to cardiovascular diseases or other serious side effects (Murray et al., 1996). A meta-analysis of 35 clinical trials found no evidence of cardiovascular or other life-threatening adverse effects caused by nicotine intake (Greenland et al., 1998). Even in patients with established cardiovascular disease, nicotine use in the form of nicotine replacement therapies (NRTs) does not increase cardiovascular risk (Benowitz and Gourlay, 1997; Woolf et al., 2012). The latest U.S. surgeon general’s report took a look at what harm nicotine itself can do and concluded that, although it may adversely affect fetuses and adolescents’ brain development, it does not contribute to smoking-related diseases (USDHHS, 2014). The delivery of nicotine without combustion is anticipated to significantly lower the risk associated with conventional cigarette consumption. Therefore, ECs have a large theoretical advantage in terms of health risks compared with conventional cigarettes due to the absence of toxic chemicals that are generated in vast quantities by combustion. Furthermore, nicotine delivery by ECs is unlikely to represent a significant safety issue, particularly when considering they are intended to replace conventional cigarettes, the most efficient and widely available nicotine delivery product. Nicotine is a powerful psychoactive substance and there is concern about the potential for ECs to lead non-smoking young people to develop an addictive behavior. However, first and second generation ECs seem to reduce conventional measures of dependence (Etter and Eissenberg, 2015; Foulds et al., 2015). Of note, it is a common trend among EC users to reduce the nicotine strength of their e-liquid over time (Dawkins et al., 2013; Farsalinos et al., 2013; Polosa et al., 2015). This is indication for decrease of nicotine dependence over time with regular EC use. Nonetheless, ECs should never be utilized in context of fetal or adolescent nicotine exposure.

What about heavy metals? Given that ECs have several metal parts in direct contact with the e-liquid, it is not unusual to detect some contamination with metals in the vapor generated by these products, particularly under experimental conditions that bear little relevance to their normal use. Goniewicz and colleagues examined samples for the presence of 12 metals and found trace levels of nickel, cadmium and lead emitted (few nanograms per 150 puffs) (Goniewicz et al., 2014). Williams et al. in 2013 tested poor quality first-generation cartomisers and found several metals emitted in the aerosol of the EC, specifying that in some cases the levels were higher compared with conventional cigarettes. However, it is unlikely that such small amounts pose a serious threat to users’ health. Even if all the aerosol was absorbed by the consumer an average user would be exposed to 4-40 times lower amounts for most metals than the maximum daily dose allowance from impurities in medicinal products (U.S. Pharmacopeia, 2013).

What about thermal degradation of propylene glycol and vegetable glycerin? Propylene glycol and vegetable glycerin are considered GRAS (Generally Recognized As Safe) by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). There are limited data on the chronic exposure of these chemicals to humans, although the emerging evidence from cytotoxicity and toxicological animal studies is reassuring (reviewed in Farsalinos and Polosa, 2014). However, concern about thermal degradation of propylene glycol and vegetable glycerin is legitimate, because toxic aldehydes (including formaldehyde, acetaldehyde, acrolein) can be generated when vaping. Studies evaluating cigalike ECs found that formaldehyde, acetaldehyde and acrolein are found at much lower levels compared to cigarette smoke (Bekki et al., 2014; Goniewicz et al., 2014). Nevertheless, more recent studies examining aerosol generated from more advanced products at high power levels reported that the levels of aldehydes could approach or even exceed the levels found in cigarette smoke (Kosmider et al., 2014; Jensen et al., 2015). These latter studies generated concerns that EC use at high power levels is associated with significant exposure to harmful toxic chemicals. However, elevated aldehyde levels are known to be generated during overheating of these devices in the course of certain standardized experimental protocols that bear little relevance to normal use. Moreover, under these extreme conditions, the excess in aldehyde release is associated with the perception of a strong unpleasant taste by the user (so-called “dry puff phenomenon”) (Farsalinos et al., 2015). At dry puff conditions, EC users are not expected to be exposed to such high levels of aldehydes, because in practice it is impossible to tolerate such unpleasant aerosol. In any case, at normal vaping conditions, the levels of aldehyde emissions are by far lower than the levels of cigarette smoke.

Informing About Potential Benefits

Abstaining from smoking produces significant health gains in the respiratory patients with COPD asthma and ILD patients who smoke. ECs are increasingly being used also by smokers/ex-smokers with respiratory conditions (Farsalinos et al., 2014). Although these products have been shown to be effective conventional cigarette substitutes in clinical trials of healthy smokers (Caponnetto et al., 2013b; Bullen et al., 2013; Polosa et al., 2014a), only limited data is available regarding health effects of EC use among patients with preexisting respiratory diseases. Moreover, it is unknown if regular EC use could result in improved or worsened respiratory-related outcomes. The very few studies on respiratory health outcomes in EC users have shown minor acute effects on lung function (Vardavas et al., 2012; Flouris et al., 2013). The results of these small acute studies are consistent with the notion that a prompt defensive response against irritants from e-vapor inhalation may cause immediate physiologic changes detected with highly sensitive respiratory functional tests. The question of whether such an irritation could translate into clinically meaningful lung disease remains unanswered, and there certainly is no evidence to date to suggest that there are any clinically significant adverse lung effects, at least acutely. Long-term improvement has been described in a large group of ‘healthy’ smokers who were invited to quit or reduce their tobacco consumption by switching to a first generation EC. Significant early positive changes from baseline of a sensitive measure of obstruction in the more peripheral airways (i.e., forced expiratory flow measured between 25% and 75% of FVC) were already detected at 3 months after switching in those who completely gave up tobacco smoking, with steady progressive improvements being observed also at 6 and 12 months (Polosa R., unpublished observation).

As mentioned earlier, only limited data is available regarding health effects of EC use among users with preexisting pulmonary diseases. The only clinical study conducted to ascertain efficacy and safety of EC use in asthma failed to detect deterioration in respiratory physiology and subjective asthma outcomes (Polosa et al., 2014b). On the contrary, significant improvement in Juniper’s Asthma Control Questionnaire (ACQ), forced expiratory flow in 1 second (FEV1), forced vital capacity (FVC), forced expiratory flow at the middle half of the FVC (FEF25-75) and airways hyperresponsiveness (AHR) to inhaled methacholine was observed. Exposure to e-vapor in this vulnerable population did not trigger any asthma attacks. Likewise no formal efficacy and safety assessment of EC use has been conducted in patients with COPD or ILD. There is only evidence from a case series of three inveterate smokers with COPD, who eventually quit tobacco smoking on their own by switching to an EC (Caponnetto et al., 2011). Significant improvement in quality of life and reduction in the number of disease exacerbations were also noted. Findings from an internet survey of approximately 2,500 regular EC users diagnosed with asthma and COPD indicate clear clinical benefits (Farsalinos et al., 2014). An improvement in respiratory symptoms of asthma and COPD after switching was reported in 65.4% and 75.7% of the respondents, respectively. Of note, after switching, use of respiratory drugs was stopped in 460/2,498 (18.4%) respondents with asthma and COPD. Worsening after switching was only reported in 1.1% of the asthmatics and in 0.8% of the COPD respondents. Although only large prospective studies will provide a definite answer regarding the long-term impact on lung health, the current evidence is generally supportive of a beneficial effect of EC use in respiratory patients.

Concluding Remarks

Smoking cessation is the most important and cost-effective therapeutic option for smokers with respiratory conditions (Rigotti, 2013). Therefore, smoking cessation should be strongly encouraged in respiratory patients who smoke, and they should be offered effective personalized strategies. Besides pharmacotherapy and behavioral support, other options should be made available to manage smokers who frequently relapse, and for those who are unable or unwilling to quit. A realistic alternative is to encourage these smokers to switch to ECs, a much less harmful source of nicotine (Polosa et al., 2013).

Healthcare professionals need to recognize that it is not nicotine per se that causes the harm but tobacco combustion. While there is a trend to classify all nicotine containing products as being equally harmful, the reality is that there are major differences in their risk and relative risk, from the deadly tobacco cigarette to nicotine replacement therapy products. In between, we have a plethora of products including ECs (Figure 2). Compared to combustible cigarettes, e-vapor products are at least 96% less harmful and may substantially reduce individual risk and population harm (Nutt et al., 2014). Most importantly, product innovation will further reduce these residual risks from EC use to as low as possible by adopting new technologies and applying ad hoc product standards for safety and quality. Fast innovation in the e-vapor category is likely not only to further minimize residual health risks, but also to maximize health benefits in regular EC users. For example, by exploring diversities and similarities among different product designs, we are now beginning to learn that the extent of smoking abstinence is intimately connected with their role as smoking sensation products, where smoking cessation is the main “collateral benefit” for many smokers switching to regular EC use (Caponnetto et al., 2015).

The notion that under normal vaping conditions, EC toxicology is by far less problematic than tobacco cigarette toxicology and that there are beneficial effects associated with regular EC use, particularly in respiratory patients, will improve information exchange between physicians and their respiratory patients using or intending to use ECs. Physicians should accurately inform that regular EC use is unlikely to warrant significant health concerns and in fact may reap substantial health benefits for the respiratory patient who makes the switch. Of note, healthcare professionals dealing with smokers who frequently relapse, or facing smokers unable or unwilling to quit, may wish to recommend that they try several types of ECs to see if they can find one meeting their needs. Last but not least, patients should be reminded that the EC may also be used as a transitional tool to complete smoking/vaping cessation. In the ECLAT study, about 70% of participants who quit smoking by week 52 also quit EC use (Caponnetto et al., 2013b). It is possible that for these individuals, the EC may have facilitated a lingering need for a change in behavior as it might have been stimulated subconsciously the progression through the stages of change (from pre-contemplation to contemplation to determination to action, i.e., quitting).

Physicians should recommend the most effective ways for smokers to reduce their risk rapidly. While smoking cessation may be the most desirable final outcome from a health point of view, it may be the wrong goal if it leads to failure or relapse. The respiratory physician should consider all the pathways available to a smoking patient and select the ones that give the greatest probability of eliminating exposure to tobacco smoking. For some smokers, the best outcome may be a long-term switch to vaping — tolerating the small residual risk in return for a higher likelihood of success.

Acknowledgments

The authors wish to thank LIAF, Lega Italiana Anti Fumo (Italian acronym for Italian Anti Smoking League) for supporting our research in tobacco harm reduction.

Disclosure

R.P. received project grants from Pfizer and Boehringer Ingelheim; speaker fees from Novartis, GlaxoSmithKline, SFATA (Smoke-Free Alternatives Trade Association), and ECITA (Electronic Cigarette Industry Trade Association). He has served as a consultant for: Cancer Research UK; Italian Ministry of Health’s Technical Committee on electronic cigarette; UK All Party Parliamentary Group; Global Health Alliance for treatment of tobacco dependence, Arbi Group Srl (an Italian e-cigarette distributor), and ECITA (Electronic Cigarette Industry Trade Association). He serves as a Scientific Advisor for the Italian Antismoking League (LIAF) on a voluntary basis. His salary is entirely supported by University of Catania.

D.C. and P.C. have nothing to disclose.

Corresponding Author

Riccardo Polosa, M.D., Ph.D., Professor, UOC di Medicina Interna e d’Urgenza, Edificio 4, Piano 3, AOU ”Policlinico-V. Emanuele”, Universita’ di Catania, Via S. Sofia 78, 95123 Catania, Italy.

References

Alpert HR, Connolly GN, Biener L. A prospective cohort study challenging the effectiveness of population-based medical intervention for smoking cessation. Tob Control 22(1):32-37, 2013.

Bekki K, Uchiyama S, Ohta K, Inaba Y, Nakagome H, Kunugita N. Carbonyl compounds generated from electronic cigarettes. Int J Environ Res Public Health 11:11192-11200, 2014.

Benowitz N, Gourlay S. Cardiovascular toxicity of nicotine: implications for nicotine replacement therapy. J Am Coll Cardiol 29:1422-1431, 1997.

Biener L, Hargraves JL. A longitudinal study of electronic cigarette use among a population-based sample of adult smokers: association with smoking cessation and motivation to quit. Nicotine Tob Res 17:127-133, 2015.

Borrelli B, Novak SP. Nurses’ knowledge about the risk of light cigarettes and other tobacco ‘harm reduction’ strategies. Nicotine Tob Res 9:653-661, 2007.

Buchhalter AR, Acosta MC, Evans SE, Breland AB, Eissenberg T. Tobacco abstinence symptom suppression: the role played by the smoking-related stimuli that are delivered by denicotinized cigarettes. Addiction 100(4):550-559, 2005.

Bullen C, Howe C, Laugesen M, McRobbie H, Parag V, Williman J, Walker N. Electronic cigarettes for smoking cessation: A randomised controlled trial. Lancet 382:1629-1637, 2013.

Caponnetto P, Polosa R, Russo C, Leotta C, Campagna D. Successful smoking cessation with electronic cigarettes in smokers with a documented history of recurring relapses: a case series. J Med Case Rep 5:585, 2011.

Caponnetto P, Russo C, Auditore R, Polosa R. The smoker with interstitial lung disease and interventions for successful smoking cessation. Rev Port Pneumol 18(6):285-288, 2012.

Caponnetto P, Russo C, Bruno CM, Alamo A, Amaradio MD, Polosa R. Electronic cigarette: a possible substitute for cigarette dependence. Monaldi Arch Chest Dis 79(1):12-19, 2013a.

Caponnetto P, Campagna D, Cibella F, Morjaria JB, Caruso M, Russo C, Polosa R. EffiCiency and Safety of an eLectronic cigAreTte (ECLAT) as tobacco cigarettes substitute: A prospective 12-month randomized control design study. PLoS One 8(6):e66317, 2013b.

Caponnetto P, Maglia M, Polosa R. Electronic cigarettes - from smoking cessation to smoking sensation and back. Addiction 110(4):678-679, 2015.

Dawkins L, Turner J, Roberts A, Soar K. ‘Vaping’ profiles and preferences: an online survey of electronic cigarette users. Addiction 108(6):1115-1125, 2013.

Doll R, Peto R, Boreham J, Sutherland I. Mortality in relation to smoking: 50 years’ observations on male British doctors. BMJ 328:1519-1528, 2004.

Environmental Protection Agency. EPA Report/600/6-90/006F. Respiratory health effects of passive smoking: lung cancer and other disorders. 1992. Washington, DC. Available at: //oaspub.epa.gov/eims/eimscomm.getfile?p_download_id=36793

Etter JF, Eissenberg T. Dependence levels in users of electronic cigarettes, nicotine gums and tobacco cigarettes. Drug Alcohol Depend 147:68-75, 2015.

Farsalinos KE, Romagna G, Tsiapras D, Kyrzopoulos S, Voudris V. Evaluating nicotine levels selection and patterns of electronic cigarette use in a group of “vapers” who had achieved complete substitution of smoking. Subst Abuse 7:139-146, 2013.

Farsalinos KE, Polosa R. Safety evaluation and risk assessment of electronic cigarettes as tobacco cigarette substitutes: a systematic review. Ther Adv Drug Saf 5(2):67-86, 2014.

Farsalinos KE, Romagna G, Tsiapras D, Kyrzopoulos S, Voudris V. Characteristics, perceived side effects and benefits of electronic cigarette use: a worldwide survey of more than 19,000 consumers. Int J Environ Res Public Health 11(4):4356-4373, 2014.

Farsalinos KE, Voudris V, Poulas K. E-cigarettes generate high levels of aldehydes only in “dry puff” conditions. Addiction 110(8):1352-1356, 2015.

Flouris A, Chorti M, Poulianiti K, Jamurtas A, Kostikas K, Tzatzarakis M, Wallace Hayes A, Tsatsakis AM, Koutedakis Y. Acute impact of active and passive electronic cigarette smoking on serum cotinine and lung function. Inhal Toxicol 25:91-101, 2013.

Foulds J, Veldheer S, Yingst J, Hrabovsky S, Wilson SJ, Nichols TT, Eissenberg T. Development of a questionnaire for assessing dependence on electronic cigarettes among a large sample of ex-smoking e-cigarette users. Nicotine Tob Res 17(2):186-192, 2015.

Goniewicz ML, Knysak J, Gawron M, Kosmider L, Sobczak A, Kurek J, Prokopowicz A, Jablonska-Czapla M, Rosik-Dulewska C, Havel C, Jacob P 3rd, Benowitz N. Levels of selected carcinogens and toxicants in vapour from electronic cigarettes. Tob Control 23(2):133-139, 2014a.

Goniewicz ML, Knysak J, Gawron M, Kosmider L, Sobczak A, Kurek J, Prokopowicz A, Jablonska-Czapla M, Rosik-Dulewska C, Havel C, Jacob P 3rd, Benowitz N. Levels of selected carcinogens and toxicants in vapour from electronic cigarettes. Tob Control 23:133-139, 2014b.

Graham I. I believe therefore I practise. Lancet 347:4-5, 1996.

Greenland S, Satterfield M, Lanes S. A meta-analysis to assess the incidence of adverse effects associated with the transdermal nicotine patch. Drug Safety 18:297-308, 1998.

Hughes JR, Keely J, Naud S. Shape of the relapse curve and long-term abstinence among untreated smokers. Addiction 99(1):29-38, 2004.

Jensen RP, Luo W, Pankow JF, Strongin RM, Peyton DH. Hidden formaldehyde in e-cigarette aerosols. N Engl J Med 372:392-394, 2015.

Kosmider L, Sobczak A, Fik M, Knysak J, Zaciera M, Kurek J, Goniewicz ML. Carbonyl compounds in electronic cigarette vapors: effects of nicotine solvent and battery output voltage. Nicotine Tob Res 16:1319-1326, 2014.

Michie S, Johnston M, Abraham C, Lawton R, Parker D, Walker A. Making psychological theory useful for implementing evidence based practice: a consensus approach. Qual Saf Health Care 14:26-33, 2005.

Murray RP, Bailey WC, Daniels K, Bjornson WM, Kurnow K, Connett JE, Nides MA, Kiley JP. Safety of nicotine polacrilex gum used by 3,094 participants in the Lung Health Study. Lung Health Study Research Group. Chest 109:438-445, 1996.

Nutt DJ, Phillips LD, Balfour D, Curran HV, Dockrell M, Foulds J, Fagerstrom K, Letlape K, Milton A, Polosa R, Ramsey J, Sweanor D. Estimating the harms of nicotine-containing products using the MCDA approach. Eur Addict Res 20:218-25, 2014.

Patwardhan SR, Murphy MA. Survey of GPs’ understanding of tobacco and nicotine products. Drugs Alcohol Today 13(2):119-150, 2013.

Pierce JP, Cummins SE, White MM, Humphrey A, Messer K. Quitlines and nicotine replacement for smoking cessation: do we need to change policy? Annu Rev Public Health 33:341-356, 2012.

Polosa R, Benowitz NL. Treatment of nicotine addiction: present therapeutic options and pipeline developments. Trends Pharmacol Sci 32(5):281-289, 2011.

Polosa R, Caponnetto P, Sands MF. Caring for the smoking asthmatic patient. J Allergy Clin Immunol 130(5):1221-1224, 2012.

Polosa R, Rodu B, Caponnetto P, Maglia M, Raciti C. A fresh look at tobacco harm reduction: the case for the electronic cigarette. Harm Reduct J 10:19, 2013.

Polosa R, Thomson NC. Smoking and asthma: dangerous liaisons. Eur Respir J 41(3):716-726, 2013.

Polosa R, Caponnetto P, Maglia M, Morjaria JB, Russo C. Success rates with nicotine personal vaporizers: a prospective 6-month pilot study of smokers not intending to quit. BMC Public Health 14:1159, 2014a.

Polosa R, Morjaria JB, Caponnetto P, Caruso M, Strano S, Battaglia E, Russo C. Effect of smoking abstinence and reduction in asthmatic smokers switching to electronic cigarettes: evidence for harm reversal. Int J Environ Res Public Health 11:4965-4977, 2014b.

Polosa R, Caponnetto P, Cibella F, Le-Houezec J. Quit and smoking reduction rates in vape shop consumers: a prospective 12-month survey. Int J Environ Res Public Health 12(4):3428-3438, 2015.

Rigotti NA. Smoking cessation in patients with respiratory disease: existing treatments and future directions. Lancet Respir Med 1(3):241-250, 2013.

Siegel MB, Tanwar KL, Wood KS. Electronic cigarettes as a smoking-cessation tool: results from an online survey. Am J Prev Med 40(4):472-475, 2011.

Stead LF, Lancaster T. Combined pharmacotherapy and behavioural interventions for smoking cessation. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 10:CD008286, 2012.

Tønnesen P. Smoking cessation and COPD. Eur Respir Rev 22(127):37-43, 2013.

Travis WD, Costabel U, Hansell DM, King TE Jr, Lynch DA, Nicholson AG, Ryerson CJ, Ryu JH, Selman M, Wells AU, Behr J, Bouros D, Brown KK, Colby TV, Collard HR, Cordeiro CR, Cottin V, Crestani B, Drent M, Dudden RF, et al. An official American Thoracic Society/European Respiratory Society statement: Update of the international multidisciplinary classification of the idiopathic interstitial pneumonias. Am J Respir Crit Care Med 188:733-748, 2013.

U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. The Health Consequences of Smoking: 50 Years of Progress: a Report of the Surgeon General. Atlanta, GA: US 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.

U.S. Pharmacopeia. Elemental impurities limits. 2013. Available at: //www.usp.org/sites/default/files/usp_pdf/EN/USPNF/key-issues/c232_final.pdf

Vardavas C, Anagnostopoulos N, Kougias M, Evangelopoulou V, Connolly G, Behrakis P. Short-term pulmonary effects of using an electronic cigarette: impact on respiratory flow resistance, impedance, and exhaled nitric oxide. Chest 141:1400-1406, 2012.

WHO-IARC. IARC monographs on the evaluation of carcinogenic risks to humans. Volume 83, Tobacco smoke and involuntary smoking. 2004. Available at: //monographs.iarc.fr/ENG/Monographs/vol83/mono83.pdf

Williams M, Villarreal A, Bozhilov K, Lin S, Talbot P. Metal and silicate particles including nanoparticles are present in electronic cigarette cartomizer fluid and aerosol. PLoS One 8:e57987, 2013.

Woolf K, Zabad M, Post J, McNitt S, Williams G, Bisognano J. Effect of nicotine replacement therapy on cardiovascular outcomes after acute coronary syndromes. Am J Cardiol 110:968-970, 2012.

World Health Organization. WHO Report on the Global Tobacco Epidemic, 2008 - The MPOWER package. Geneva: World Health Organization. 2008.

Zhu SH, Lee M, Zhuang YL, Gamst A, Wolfson T. Interventions to increase smoking cessation at the population level: how much progress has been made in the last two decades? Tob Control 21(2):110-118, 2012.

[Discovery Medicine; ISSN: 1539-6509; Discov Med 20(109):155-161, September 2015. Copyright © Discovery Medicine. All rights reserved.]