Evidence update on e-cigarette dependence: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

Anasua Kundu, Sherald Sanchez, Siddharth Seth, Anna Feore, Megan Sutton, Kyran Sachdeva, Nada Abu-Zarour, Michael Chaiton, Robert Schwartz
{"title":"Evidence update on e-cigarette dependence: A systematic review and meta-analysis.","authors":"Anasua Kundu, Sherald Sanchez, Siddharth Seth, Anna Feore, Megan Sutton, Kyran Sachdeva, Nada Abu-Zarour, Michael Chaiton, Robert Schwartz","doi":"10.1016/j.addbeh.2024.108243","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Introduction: </strong>We conducted this review to examine the risk of e-cigarette dependence in different populations by updating the review on this topic by the National Academies of Science, Engineering, and Medicine.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Six academic databases were searched for studies published between September 2017 and December 2023. We included peer-reviewed human, animal, cell/in vitro original studies examining associations of e-cigarette use and dependence but excluded qualitative studies. Three types of e-cigarette exposure were examined: acute, short-to-medium term, and long-term. Meta-analysis were conducted when possible. Different risk of bias tools were used for assessing quality of the included human studies.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>We included 107 studies, of which 34 studies were included in the subgroup analysis. Meta-analyses showed that non-smoker current vapers had no statistically significant difference in level or prevalence of dependence compared to non-vaper current smokers and dual users. However, never smoker current vapers had a lower level of dependence (SMD -0.723, p < 0.01) compared to dual users, which was also supported by ANOVA test. Narrative review findings suggest that nicotine vapers had higher level of dependence than non-nicotine vapers and e-cigarette dependence is positively associated with nicotine concentration, frequency, and duration of use. No strong relationship was found between dependence and product types or features. Socio-demographic factor-based subgroup findings were inconclusive.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>The level and prevalence of e-cigarette dependence is similar to cigarette dependence. There was high variability in the definitions and methods used for defining populations and assessing dependence. Further research and monitoring are crucial.</p>","PeriodicalId":93857,"journal":{"name":"Addictive behaviors","volume":"163 ","pages":"108243"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2025-01-16","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Addictive behaviors","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1016/j.addbeh.2024.108243","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Introduction: We conducted this review to examine the risk of e-cigarette dependence in different populations by updating the review on this topic by the National Academies of Science, Engineering, and Medicine.

Methods: Six academic databases were searched for studies published between September 2017 and December 2023. We included peer-reviewed human, animal, cell/in vitro original studies examining associations of e-cigarette use and dependence but excluded qualitative studies. Three types of e-cigarette exposure were examined: acute, short-to-medium term, and long-term. Meta-analysis were conducted when possible. Different risk of bias tools were used for assessing quality of the included human studies.

Results: We included 107 studies, of which 34 studies were included in the subgroup analysis. Meta-analyses showed that non-smoker current vapers had no statistically significant difference in level or prevalence of dependence compared to non-vaper current smokers and dual users. However, never smoker current vapers had a lower level of dependence (SMD -0.723, p < 0.01) compared to dual users, which was also supported by ANOVA test. Narrative review findings suggest that nicotine vapers had higher level of dependence than non-nicotine vapers and e-cigarette dependence is positively associated with nicotine concentration, frequency, and duration of use. No strong relationship was found between dependence and product types or features. Socio-demographic factor-based subgroup findings were inconclusive.

Conclusions: The level and prevalence of e-cigarette dependence is similar to cigarette dependence. There was high variability in the definitions and methods used for defining populations and assessing dependence. Further research and monitoring are crucial.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
电子烟依赖的最新证据:系统回顾和荟萃分析。
引言:我们通过更新美国国家科学院、工程院和医学院关于这一主题的综述,进行了本综述,以检查不同人群对电子烟依赖的风险。方法:检索6个学术数据库,检索2017年9月至2023年12月发表的研究。我们纳入了同行评议的人类、动物、细胞/体外原始研究,研究了电子烟使用和依赖之间的关系,但排除了定性研究。研究人员检查了三种类型的电子烟暴露:急性、中短期和长期。尽可能进行meta分析。使用不同的偏倚风险工具来评估纳入的人类研究的质量。结果:我们纳入107项研究,其中34项研究纳入亚组分析。荟萃分析显示,目前不吸烟的电子烟使用者与目前不吸烟的电子烟使用者和双重使用者相比,在依赖程度或流行程度上没有统计学上的显著差异。然而,从不吸烟的吸烟者的依赖水平较低(SMD -0.723, p)。结论:电子烟依赖的水平和流行程度与香烟依赖相似。在定义种群和评估依赖性所使用的定义和方法方面存在很大的可变性。进一步的研究和监测至关重要。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Browsing problematic social media use in autism spectrum disorder: The role of social anxiety. Does cannabis substitute or complement alcohol after recreational cannabis legalization in the Washington State? A three-level mixed-effects modeling. Dose-dependent effects of alcohol consumption on pressure pain threshold. Event-level effects of alcohol, cannabis, and simultaneous alcohol and cannabis use on bystander intentions in response to hypothetical situations among college women. Effects of narrative versus non-narrative pictorial warning labels on visual attention and alcohol-related cancer risk perceptions: An eye-tracking study.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1