I’ve popped these notes up for anyone interested in the e-cig summit but was unable to attend.
This year saw a hectic pace, with more
speakers and more content in the same amount of time. Konstantinos alone
had over 50 slides in a (theoretical!) 20 minutes.
So this time round, I’ve chosen just to highlight key points, quotes and data. If you need more, do monitor the E-Cig Summit website – slides and videos should be up soon.
For a downloadable, printable PDF of this post, click here.
Prof Robert West: Trends in E-Cigarette Usage
Professor Robert West runs monthly surveys
to track smoking, e-cig and cessation trends. He found that E-Cig usage
still growing but has slowed down.
There might be a reason for this –
probably because of negative media reports, only a minority of
smokers believe e-cigs are safer than cigarettes. However, around one
third of smokers are using another nicotine product (most likely
e-cigs).
The use of other licensed nicotine
products is decreasing. However, this trend started before e-cigs took
off. E-cigs are the most popular aid to cessation at the moment, and are
significantly more effective than over the counter NRT aids.
Good news for those worried about a
gateway effect – only 0.2% of never smokers have used a nicotine
products, and even this tiny number could be down to error.
Since 2011 smokers have been more
successful at quitting smoking, although there has been a recent dip in
quit smoking attempts – this could be a blip.
You can find more data on the Smoking in England website.
Andrea Crossfield: E-Cigarettes: Practitioners Beliefs, Experiences and Concerns
Andrea ran a workshop for stop smoking
practitioners. She found that many were confused, took much of their
knowledge from the media and were unsure about the safety of
e-cigarettes. Her workshop went a long way towards educating
practitioners about the benefits.
E-Cig Use in Enclosed Public Spaces: How can research inform regulation?
Prof Marcus Manafo
Manafo looked at patterns in carcinogens
following smoking and vaping. Smoking is followed by a spike in
formaldehyde. While vapers exhale formaldehyde, there is no spike,
suggesting that the formaldehyde present is created by internal
metabolism.
(Later in the summit, it was noted that
formaldehyde levels in smoking are so low they are not likely to be the
cause of smoking diseases.)
Marcus also pointed out that that we are
able to detect carcinogens at extremely low levels. Just because we
detect them doesn’t mean they have an effect. What we need to think
about is the relative exposure compared to cigarette smoke and then work
out whether they have a biological effect.
The constituents in e-cigs are completely
dwarfed by those in tobacco cigarettes. Marcus argued he probably
inhaled more carcinogens walking to the conference from the tube than he
would from second-hand vapour, and that’s there’s enough data from
various sources to calculate that e-cigarettes are consistently orders
of magnitude safer than tobacco cigarettes.
Linda Bauld
Linda pointed out that particulate matter
in a vaping environment is similar to that in a non-vaper environment.
She’s also yet to see any evidence that e-cigs are leading to a
renormalisation of smoking, and argued that if we banned e-cigs on the
basis of their emissions, we would also have to ban scented candles and
air-fresheners.
Deborah Arnott (Action on Smoking and Health): E-Cigs and Children: What does the evidence show us?
Deborah said we are not seeing a gateway
effect in the UK. Surveys throughout the UK are basically showing some
experimentation but almost no regular use (even when regular usage is
measured at once monthly). 3 month usage among never smokers is zero.
There are very similar patterns worldwide
with exception of Poland. Deborah pointed out that many studies poorly
reported – what they say they say and what they actually say is very
different. She also highlighted that from 2011 -2014 it is very clear
that cigarette use has gone down as e-cigarette use has increased.
E-Cig regulations may lead to unintended
consequences – according to one study, youth smoking rates in US
increased after e-cig bans were introduced. This is not conclusive but
we do need to be careful.
Jim McManus: E-Cigarettes and the Challenge for Local Public Health Systems
This was the first time I have heard Jim speak. He gave an excellent presentation – funny, compassionate and wise.
Jim said that a lot of bad science is
being done. There is a suspicious attitude from researchers who don’t
like e-cigs because because of a fear of re-normalisation (of smoking).
But if we are not going to do science properly, how are we going to make
good decisions on policies? Jim went on to say:
We are supposed to be an evidence based profession, so let’s put aside our misconceptions and start with the evidence . E-cig users are tax payers and have a right to expect a proper and unbiased service
Jim also said he hadn’t seen a single shred of evidence that e-cigs renormalise smoking, that’s a “scientific boogie man”.
Some more key quotes:
“We seem to want evidence that e-cigs are
zero risk before we work with them, but how many of us fly on holiday.
Life is not zero risk. We don’t have randomised controls for bridges but
on the whole they stay up.”
“The tobacco lobby debating ecigs feels like the Church of England debating homesexuality.”
“The careful position taken by Public
Health England convinces me more than increasingly shrill comments from
some of those opposed to e-cigs.”
Charlotta Psinger: An Up-dated Systematic Review of the Health Effects of E-Cigarettes
Charlotta Psinger is interesting as her research has been used by many of those opposed to e-cigs.
As she commented AE Smokes at one point: “I’m one of the bad guys here.”
However, she deserves credit for turning
up and debating the issues – I wish more people opposed to e-cigs would
do the same. She also said that she would be very happy to change her
views on e-cigs if she was persuaded by the evidence.
Charlotta highlighted that e-cig studies are problematic because:
- there is a conflict of interest, more than a third of studies have been conducted by tobacco industry
- a difference in brands used
- over heating has place in some studies
- animal studies have seen very high dosages given to animals
- methodology is often suspect
Charlotta raced through a huge number of
studies (nicotine on puffer fish sticks in my mind for some reason!)
Some points from her presentation included
- harmful substances have been identified
- included carcinogenic compounds, sometimes traces, sometimes low concentrations, sometimes high concentrations
- particle counts and size also varied
- results very conflicting and makes it difficult to draw strong conclusions
She is worried about e-cigs being a
gateway to smoking, and that e-cigs are adding to overall nicotine usage
rather than reducing it. She cited an example from Denmark which
contradicts the UK experience, saying that Danish vapers had not
decreased the amount they smoke, and that meant overall use of nicotine
products had increased.
Liam from Totally Wicked pointed out later
that this could well be because nicotine liquids are banned in Denmark,
so vapers need to smoke to get their nicotine fix.
Here conclusion was that e-cigs are
probably safer than tobacco cigarettes but definitely not a safe
product. She was criticised by Clive Bates for not providing a framework
and context for the studies.
John Britton: The Theoretical Health Risks Associated with E-Cigarettes
John Britton’s presentation covered the theoretical risks of e-cigs.
The crux of his talk was that that e-cigs
are a safer product – not a safe product. There are some carcinogens,
albeit at a much lower level than in cigarettes.
E-Cigs are being used by smokers who have
often been smoking for decades, and these smokers have a high residual
risk of cancer from smoking. As e-cigs are not 100% safe, some
ex-smokers will blame e-cigs for the disease they occur. This will lead
to lawsuits in the future. He emphasised that e-cig companies must be
able to show they have done everything they can to ensure their products
are as safe as possible.
Peter Hajek: E-Cigarettes Provide Smokers with Nicotine – Is This A Problem?
Peter believes the “renormalisation of smoking is clearly a bogus concept.”
He believes the anti-tobacco lobby have three aims.
- To eliminate use of nicotine.
- To destroy the tobacco industry.
- To reduce harm and disease.
The third goal is important but not as important as the first too, and this explains their attitude towards e-cigarettes.
Professor Hajek also discussed addiction.
Cigarettes are highly addictive, but nicotine on its own does not seem
to be very addictive. That’s why experimentation with e-cigarettes by
never smokers is not leading to regular use.
Professor Polosa: Electronic Cigarettes and Harm Reversal
With long term evidence on e-cigs still at least a decade away, how can we evaluate the benefits of e-cigs now.
One way is to look at the effects of
e-cigs on smokers affordable vape online who have switched to e-cigs. And studies are already
showing enourmous benefits, especially in people with pre-existing
diseases. One example included blood pressure. Smokers with high blood
pressure who switched to e-cigs went on to experience major improvements
in blood pressure levels.
(For more info, see our post on e-cig side effects.)
Addison & Morrison: Advertising Rules & Marketing After the TPD
Almost every form of advertising is
banned. That includes social media, email marketing, radio and tv.
Non-paid for blogs and tweets will be allowed, as will outside posters
and trade advertising.
While the government is trying to be as
liberal as possible, there is little room for movement on this as it is
clearly defined by the TPD.
This could potentially have a devastating impact on blogs and forums.
TPD Updates (Various Speakers)
The worst thing here is confirmation that
there will be a maximum limit of 2ml in tanks. Previously, the
consultation from the government seemed to imply that refillable tanks
would be allowed at more than 2ml. This was due to poor drafting.
Otherwise, there was nothing really new for people who have been following the TPD closely.
The e-cig summit went on to look at what
was wrong with the TPD. (Answer: almost everything, but at least it’s
not the FDA!) I would have preferred to focus on how we can comply (or
get round the TPD.) Unless the Totally Wicked lawsuit succeeds, the TPD
is law, we are stuck with it and there’s no point in looking back
wishing things had been done differently.
Beryl Keely: What is MHRA’s remit?
Regulating e-cigs is a strange job for the
MHRA, as it falls outside their mission and their regular remit.
However, Beryl says the MHRA is aiming for light touch regulation. They
do not expect to read all data submitted, all they will be looking at
some of it.
E-cig retailers will be charged for the
work the MHRA does. How much? Beryl couldn’t answer, but it will be
nothing like as expensive as medicinal regulation.
There will also be a yellow card portal
where consumers can report issues with e-cigs. This is more likely to be
exploding batteries, and this could lead to devices being withdrawn.
Roseanna O’Conner (PHE): Building Evidence Based Consensus on E-Cigs
Roseanna spoke on behalf of the PHE, which
recently announced that e-cigs are 95% safer than tobacco cigarettes.
PHE have been recently attacked for having (very tenuous) connections
with big tobacco.
For me, the most interesting part of the
presentation was the point that those most opposed to e-cigs had been
invited to join in the consultation – and had refused. So they had the
chance to contribute, but instead chose not to get involved, and then
attack not on the evidence base but on alleged conflicting interests.
Also see: The Vape Debate: Who Pays Who?
Konstantinos Farsalinos: Common Research Misconceptions
Excellent presentation as usual, and
despite the time constraints Konstantinos actually spoke slowly enough
that I could follow what he was saying. (That’s still pretty fast!)
One key theme of his presentation was
that most researchers don’t understand what they are researching.
There’s even a failure to understand the difference between simple
concepts such as voltage and wattage.
Animal studies are useless, and use
ridiculous levels of nicotine to make a point. For example, to study the
effect of vaping on mice, researchers used 50% of the lethal dose for
mice. This bears no relation to vaping.
A number of the studies mentioned by Psinger were, well, destroyed.
Shirley Cramer: Can E-Cigarettes Be Part of the End Game For Cigarettes
As I mentioned in our pre-summit post, Shirley Cramer is all about the ‘end game’ in cigarettes.
She carried out an experiment where
smokers given de-nicotinised e-cigs. This lead to a fall of 80% in
cigarettes smoked and increase in number of e-cigs vaped. So
denicotonising cigarettes and forcing every shop to carry e-cigs would
hasten the end of smoking.
She got a lot of stick for this but I
wasn’t sure whether she was serious about this or whether it was a bit
of a thought experiment.
There were a couple of good criticisms of
this. One person said this was the opposite of harm reduction, removing
the pleasurable part (nicotine) and keep what is harmful (combustion).
In the panel discussion, Lorien argued that e-cigs have been successful
because they offer choice and empowerment. Trying to force smokers to
use e-cigs would be a massive disadvantage.
Professor David Abrams: What the science says about minimising harm and developing a consensus on methodology?
David gave an excellent presentation and it would be well worth viewing his presentation when it’s up.
His main driving point was that the debate
has been clouded by ideology. Remove the ideology and use models to
calculate the benefits. By calculating risk and efficacy using 3D models
it becomes obvious that e-cigs represent a major benefit.
Some Final Thoughts
I feel very uneasy about the role tobacco control is trying to take in e-cigs.
E-cigs are a consumer led phenomenon that
has been successful despite the lack of support in e-cigs. Now that they
are clearly a huge success in the UK, elements of the tobacco
control lobby are trying to jump on the bandwagon and control the
direction e-cigs are going in. Personally, I don’t think that’s
necessary.
If consumers and companies are left to get
on with the job (with some light touch regulation to ensure harmful
compounds are minimised) vaping will continue to be successful.
Unfortunately, tobacco control can’t resist its urge to interfere and
control.
(However, I love the work the scientists and Public Health England have done!)
A Big Thank You…
At the end of the presentation Ann Mc Neil
reminded us that many of the professionals speaking on behalf of e-cigs
have put their careers and livelihoods on the line, and we owe them a
big thank you. (Note: It is often difficult to get funding if you have
supported e-cigs.)
Reference: http://www.ecigarettedirect.co.uk/ashtray-blog/2015/11/e-cig-summit-round-up-the-vape-debate-continues.html
No comments:
Post a Comment