Federica Mescolo
Giuliana Ferrante
Stefania La Grutta- 1Department of Health Promotion, Mother and Child Care, Internal Medicine and Medical Specialties, University of Palermo, Palermo, Italy
- 2Institute for Biomedical Research and Innovation, National Research Council, Palermo, Italy
In the last decade, widespread use of E-cigarettes (EC) has occurred all over the world. Whereas, a large amount of evidence on harm to children from conventional cigarette exposure is available, data on health effects in this population throughout different vulnerability windows are still a matter of concern. Exposure to EC during pregnancy may compromise placental function, resulting in fetal structural abnormalities. Specifically, this may cause physio-pathologic changes in the developing lung, which in turn may impair respiratory health later in life. Furthermore, there is evidence that using EC can cause both short- and long-term respiratory problems in the pediatric population and there is great concern for future young people with nicotine addiction. The low parental perception of the risks connected to EC exposure for children increases their susceptibility to harmful effects from passive vaping. This minireview aims to summarize the current evidence focusing on: (i) prenatal effects of EC passive exposure; (ii) post-natal respiratory effects of EC exposure in youth; (iii) parental attitudes toward EC use and perception of children's health risks connected to EC exposure; and (iv) addressing gaps in our current evidence.
Introduction
In the last decade, widespread use of E-cigarettes (EC) has occurred all over the world. EC are electronic nicotine delivery systems (ENDS) composed of a battery-powered heating element that aerosolizes a liquid solution comprising nicotine, propylene glycol (PG), and vegetable glycerin (VG) as the main components. PG, VG, glycerol, and a variety of flavors (1) are the principal components of vaping fluids. The heterogeneity of vaping fluid composition results in a large variety of nicotine concentrations in liquids in different brands and in the choices made by users (2).
After the initial models similar to tobacco cigarettes in size and shape, EC manufacturers have developed various devices with refilling reservoirs and different heating power, which allow the user to mix e-liquids and choose the temperature of the vapor (3). However, the possibility of making up e-liquids using variable concentrations of nicotine, other non-nicotinic components, and different flavors, associated with the absence of standardization for EC content by manufacturers, results in inconsistent quality control processes (4).
The use of flavors may have made EC more popular, especially among pregnant women and adolescents (5). The attraction of flavored products for pregnant women is likely due to alterations in taste, cravings, nausea and high sensitivity to bitter tastes which commonly occur during pregnancy. Moreover, flavorings increase the appeal to youths who increasingly have started smoking EC, serving as a gateway to cigarette smoking (5). In addition, the fact that EC functioning is not based on combustion and virtually does not produce a side-stream aerosol has led to their widespread use in homes, cars, and other indoor settings (6). Indeed, parents living in socio-economically disadvantaged circumstances especially tend to consider EC as potentially helpful to protect their children from passive smoke exposure in the home (7).
To date, a large amount of evidence on harm to children from conventional cigarette exposure is available (8), whilst data on health effects in this population throughout different vulnerability windows remain a matter of concern. There is growing evidence that exposure of pregnant women to EC may impair placental function and may result in fetal structural abnormalities. Furthermore, it appears that using EC can cause both short- and long-term respiratory problems in the pediatric population and there are fears that a future generation of youth may be addicted to nicotine (Figure 1).
Figure 1. Effects related to EC exposure throughout different vulnerability windows.
This minireview aims to summarize the current evidence focusing on: (i) prenatal effects of EC passive exposure; (ii) post-natal respiratory effects of EC exposure in youth; (iii) parental attitudes toward EC use and perception of children's health risks connected to EC exposure; and (iv) addressing gaps in our current evidence.
Prenatal Effects of EC Passive Exposure
The majority of negative effects of EC exposure in prenatal life have been studied using in vitro and animal models, with limited data obtained from studies conducted in humans. Emerging evidence suggests that prenatal EC exposure may determine placental compromise and consequent dangerous effects for the fetus. Nicotine is known to be responsible for most of the effects, but vaping aerosol contains many harmful chemicals other than nicotine. Nicotine has a para-sympathomimetic stimulant effect. Its ability to cross the placental barrier is responsible for the high concentration in fetal serum and amniotic fluid (9).
The risks of smoking EC during pregnancy are still largely unknown. However, evidence suggests that even nicotine-free EC aerosols may cause harm to the fetus. The HTR8/SVneo cells derived from transfected cells of human chorionic villi have been used to study the function of placental cells exposed to flavorless EC without nicotine, showing a significant reduction in trophoblast impairment and angiogenesis functions, which are vital for placental circulation (10). These results suggest that placental cells may be vulnerable to exposure to EC aerosols, even in the absence of nicotine, but these findings require further studies.
A negative effect of EC has been demonstrated in cardiac differentiation of human embryonic stem cells in vitro (11). Moreover, when gravid mice were exposed to e-vapors containing nicotine, there was an increase in pro-inflammatory cytokines, namely TNF-a, in the lungs of their offspring, whereas IL-1b was suppressed. This occurred both with nicotine-free e-vapors and nicotine-containing ones; therefore, these effects are probably not explained by nicotine but rather by by-products (12). Indeed, e-vapors also contains toxins along with heavy metals and carcinogenic nitrosamines. Moreover, compounds used for flavoring can themselves be toxic or break down into compounds which may cause toxicity, inflammation, and oxidative stress in the pregnant woman and can built up in the fetus, with consequences for intrauterine development. Murine models have also demonstrated that maternal e-vapor exposure during pregnancy can affect respiratory and neurological functions (13). With regard to neurodevelopmental consequences of maternal EC use, adverse behavioral outcomes have been observed in mice adult offspring. Even without nicotine, being exposed daily to PG/VG all through the gestation period may disrupt learning and memory performance and cause a rise in neuro-inflammation (14). Previously, Nguyen et al. identified changes in the behavior of the offspring of mice exposed to EC vapor with and without nicotine during pregnancy: mice showed a higher rate of short-term memory deficits, learning disabilities, and increased anxious behavior, were more hyperactive and tended to explore the environment in risky ways compared to non-exposed ones. In addition, global DNA methylation was increased and it was found that 13 key genes were identified to be significantly altered in the brains of EC exposed offspring mice compared to the non-exposed ones (15). A risk of renal impairment, including increased kidney markers of oxidative stress, renal inflammation, and fibrosis along with reduction of kidney volumes and function in the adult offspring was associated with EC use in pregnancy, and these effects were found to be independent of the presence of nicotine in the aerosols (16).
Harmful effects due to EC exposure in pregnancy have also been reported in humans. Cardenas et al. evaluated tobacco use in a cohort of 248 pregnant women, finding that those who used ENDS had significantly lower gestational age-specific birth weights than ones that did not smoke. The relative risk (RR) of small-for-gestational-age (SGA) newborns was five times higher than for women that did not smoke at all (17). Clemens et al. compared birth outcomes among 76 women who smoked both EC and tobacco cigarettes and women who did not smoke at all. They found that women who smoked both EC and tobacco cigarettes had a 7.8 times higher risk for SGA newborns than women that did not smoke at all (18). However, it should be pointed out that in both the studies population was limited in size; therefore, findings may not be generalizable. Moreover, most of the enrolled women were dual users and analyses were not adjusted for cotinine level in order to evaluate differential impact of tobacco exposure vs. nicotine exposure on SGA. Consequently, the reported results should be interpreted with caution, given that tobacco smoking is associated with SGA. In a more recent survey on 1,594 pregnant women, most of them dual users, estimated adjusted RR for SGA for dual users was slightly higher with respect to cigarette-only smokers [1.8 (95% CI: 1.0, 3.4) vs. 1.7 (95% CI: 1.1, 2.7)]. These RR estimates increased after correcting for tobacco use misclassification. Dual users who continued using ENDS but stopped smoking cigarettes had an increased risk for SGA compared with non-tobacco users [3.2 (95% CI: 1.5, 6.6)] (19). Furthermore, data from 55,251 pregnant women who participated in the Phase 8 survey of the Pregnancy Risk Assessment Monitoring System between 2016 and 2018 confirmed that EC use cannot be considered a safer alternative to conventional cigarette (CC) smoking during pregnancy, as EC and CC users showed not significantly different risk on SGA, low birth weight and preterm birth (20). Lastly, with regard to the effects of the chemical components of e-vapors, they have not been thoroughly defined in human studies so far, but it has been suggested that certain populations, including pregnant women, could process PG differently to the general population, being prone to PG accumulation (21).
Overall, both in animal and human studies evidence of harmful effects related to EC exposure during prenatal life has been provided.
Post-Natal Respiratory Effects of EC Exposure in Childhood
To date, little information is available regarding the effect of EC exposure on children's respiratory health. The available data on pulmonary symptoms are inconsistent. A survey conducted on 3,488 schoolchildren aged 6–17 years in Switzerland investigated the association between active smoking of CC, EC and shishas and current respiratory symptoms, and found that dyspnea and wheeze were more widespread among frequent smokers, i.e., those who smoked at least once/week (30 and 12%, respectively), and occasional smokers (22 and 13%) than in never smokers [19 and 8%, p < 0.05; (22)]. Similarly, a survey conducted on 44,662 Chinese students (mean age 14.6 years), reported that EC use was significantly associated with respiratory symptoms, e.g., cough or phlegm for 3 consecutive months in the past 12 months [adjusted OR (AOR), 1.28; 95% CI, 1.06–1.56)] (23). Likewise, in a recent study on 2,086 adolescents aged 16–18 years who took part in the Southern California Children's Health Study, self-reported wheeze in the last 12 months was associated with current (OR [95% CI] = 1.86 [1.28–2.71]) but not past use of EC. In the same study, chronic bronchitis symptoms during the previous year were associated with both past (OR, 1.85; 95% CI, 1.37–2.49) and present use of EC (OR [95% CI] = 2.02 [1.42–2.88]). The risk of bronchitis symptoms was directly proportional to the number of days of EC use in the past month (OR [95% CI] = 1.66 [1.02–2.68] for 1–2 days and OR [95% CI] = 2.52 [1.56–4.08] for >3 days), compared with non-EC users (p for trend = 0.001) (24). More recently, in a cohort study of 7,049 adolescents, the association of EC use alone with wheezing in the past 12 months proved not to be significant (25). Overall, it should be pointed out that data from the aforementioned studies are self-reported and may be subjected to recall bias. Moreover, symptoms may have been interpreted in an inaccurate way, especially by young children. Therefore, higher standards for future studies are essential in order to obtain more robust results in this field of research.
By contrast, with regard to associations between EC use, especially when combined with smoking of other products, and asthma risk in adolescents, more evidence has been reported. A cross-sectional study investigating the effects of active, passive, and EC smoking in Korean adolescents, including 4,890 with asthma in the last 12 months, reported significant associations between active and passive smoking and asthma (respectively: adjusted (A) OR [95% CI] of smoking ≥20 days/month = 1.57 [1.38–1.77], p < 0.001; AOR [95% CI] of smoking ≥5 days/week = 1.40 [1.28–1.53], p < 0.001). In addition, the authors found that asthma was significantly more frequent in the EC group (AOR [95% CI] = 1.13 [1.01–1.26], p = 0.027). Nonetheless, EC smoking in the last month proved not to be significantly associated with lifetime asthma after adjusting for active and passive smoking, which thus appeared to be more influential in previous asthma history than recent EC smoking (26). In another cross-sectional study on a large sample of 35,904 high school students (mean age 16.4 years) in South Korea, the authors found that EC users had an increased association with asthma diagnosis (AOR [95% CI] = 2.74 [1.30–5.78], p < 0.01) in comparison with non-EC users, suggesting that EC use may be a risk factor for asthma. Of note, current EC users had the highest risk for severe asthma, defined as the number of days (≥4) absent from school in the past year due to asthma symptoms, compared to non-EC users [AOR [95% CI] = 15.42 [5.11–46.57], p < 0.001; (27)]. Similarly, in a survey on 6089 adolescents (mean age 15.8 years) in Hawaii, the authors reported that current use of EC showed a significant association with current asthma (AOR [95% CI] = 1.48 [1.26–1.74]) and a marginal one with asthma at any time (AOR [95% CI] = 1.22 [1.07–1.40]) (28). A recent study on 21,532 U.S. adolescents (age range: 14–18 years), in which use of an e-vapor product was associated with asthma, showed an additional harmful effect on asthma of the combined use of vapor products with marijuana and cigarette smoking: use of an e-vapor product was associated with asthma, and this association was even more evident when its use was coupled with marijuana, particularly when cigarette smoking was also involved. When adjusting for frequent cigarette smoking and marijuana use, frequent use of an electronic vapor product (≥10 days/month) was significantly associated with asthma [AOR [95% CI] = 1.31 [1.11–1.54], p < 0.01; (29)]. Overall, it should be taken into account that the lack of cross-validation by physician diagnosis of asthma may limit these findings. Because all the aforementioned studies were based on self-reported questionnaires, undiagnosed, or misclassified asthma was likely. Hence, the reported findings should be corroborated with medical records, clinical assessment measures, or examination by physicians, and this should be considered for interpretation of the results.
Asthma exacerbations were found to be associated to both active and passive EC smoking. Data from the 2012 Florida Youth Tobacco Survey, involving 36,085 high school students, reported that prevalence of ever having used EC and having used them in the past 30 days among those who reported asthma was 10.4 and 5.3% respectively, and this was significantly higher than in those without asthma (ever use = 7.2% and past 30-day use = 2.5%; p < 0.01). Interestingly, among students with asthma, use of EC in the past 30 days was positively associated with an asthma attack in the past 12 months (AOR [95% CI] = 1.78 [1.20–2.64]) (30). Similarly, the 2016 Florida Youth Tobacco survey showed that among students with a self-reported diagnosis of asthma (n = 11,830), secondhand ENDS aerosol exposure was associated with higher risk of asthma attacks in the past 12 months (AOR [95% CI] = 1.27 [1.11–1.47]) (31). It should be acknowledged that both these studies did not provide details about the variable “asthma attack/exacerbation” and this should be considered when interpreting the reported findings.
In the last few years EC use has been associated with an emergent condition known as “EC vaping associated lung injury” (EVALI). A retrospective case series of six patients with a median age of 17 years with confirmed or probable EVALI and admitted to pediatric intensive care described the implications of vaping on respiratory morbidity among adolescents, raising the concern that patients with EVALI may have lasting lung impairment (32). Indeed, it has been previously demonstrated that a history of respiratory illness and/or a respiratory diagnosis in childhood identified a group of cigarette smokers particularly vulnerable to the harmful effects of smoking (33). Such effect has not been reported so far with regard to EC use in youth. In the study by Reddy et al., half of the patients had a pre-existing diagnosis of asthma, two were positive for Rhinovirus infection, and four had mental health comorbidities. In addition, all patients reported both nicotine and THC use. Though the clinical and radiological findings were similar to those described in confirmed cases of adult EVALI, the study cohort was too small to draw firm conclusions about an association with EC use. Moreover, pulmonary function tests at discharge were compromised only in one patient with pre-existing diagnosis of asthma. Therefore, due to such limitations, these results cannot be generalized and should be prudently evaluated. Indeed, further investigation is required to clarify to what extent EC use contributes to severe acute lung injury in patients smoking multiple agents and whether asthmatics could be more susceptible to potential harmful effects of EC use (32). Overall, though the evidence is limited, it suggests that use of ENDS can cause both short-term respiratory morbidity (i.e., cough, chest pain, shortness of breath) and long-term abnormal spirometry (most commonly obstructive pattern) in the pediatric population (34). According to a very recent systematic review, pediatric EVALI has been found in patients as young as 13 years of age and often included respiratory symptoms. Typical findings were the presence of ground-glass opacities on computed-tomography and leukocytosis. Treatment mainly involved the use of corticosteroids, antibiotics, and ventilatory support, and extracorporeal membrane oxygenation, both when respiratory failure occurred; outcomes ranged from complete or near complete recovery of lung function to death (35). With regard to lung function, in 15 adolescents hospitalized with EVALI, Carroll et al. found that, before discharge, just over half of patients had abnormal spirometry values with a restrictive pattern being twice as frequent as obstruction. Sixty percent of those who underwent diffusion studies showed decreased capacity to diffuse carbon monoxide (DLCO). About 4.5 weeks after discharge in the majority of patients' spirometry continued to be abnormal (most frequently an obstructive pattern) (36). In addition, in 13 hospitalized adolescents with EVALI, Rao et al. showed that corticosteroids produced an improvement in spirometry and DLCO (37). Detection of toxicants in bronchoalveolar lavage (BAL) fluid from patients with EVALI can provide direct information on exposure within the lung. Recently, data from Blount et al. linking the offending agent in EC showed that Vitamin E acetate was associated with EVALI in a convenience sample of 51 patients including adolescents aged 16 years. The findings of the concentrations of vitamin E acetate in BAL fluid from EVALI patients and the absence of vitamin E acetate in BAL from healthy controls, and also the absence of other toxicants in nearly all BAL fluid samples from EVALI patients suggest that Vitamin E acetate may play a role in EVALI. Further studies are requested to support a cause-effect relationship between exposure to vitamin E acetate and the lung injury observed in patients with EVALI (38). Similarly, a recent study on adults found vitamin E acetate in all BAL specimens of a convenience sample of 29 EVALI patients; however, more studies are needed, since it is possible that more than one compound in EC could contribute to lung injury, and evidence is still not robust to rule out contribution of other toxicants to EVALI (39). Another study linked offending agent in EC to EVALI, in contrast to other types of smoking. In particular, Navon et al. reported that among adults reporting use of THC-containing EC or vaping products, EVALI patients had higher risk of reporting exclusive and frequent use of THC-containing products which were mainly obtained from informal sources. This reinforces current recommendations not to use EC or vaping products containing THC, especially when acquired from informal sources such as off the street, from a dealer, or from a friend (40).
Overall, the available evidence suggests that both active and passive EC smoking put children's and adolescents' respiratory health at risk (Table 1). This is a real concern mainly for those who start smoking EC early in life. Moreover, the long-term impact of EC smoking on respiratory symptoms and pulmonary function needs to be further elucidated, especially in patients with EC-associated lung injury.
Table 1. Respiratory effects of EC exposure in childhood.
Biological Evidence of Harmful Effect of EC on the Airways
Despite the lack of standard in vitro/ex-vivo and in vivo models, data from available studies support the harmful effect of EC on airway biology. In Table 2 the most recent evidence has been summarized.
Table 2. Biological evidence of EC on the airways.
Differential effects in airway epithelial cells from non-smokers and smokers were observed in a recent study comparing mucin response to EC generated aerosols from PG and glycerol (GLY). In details, the aerosol from the GLY exposure increased MUC5AC levels in human nasal epithelial cells (hNECs) from non-smokers. In addition, the PG:GLY with freebase nicotine exposure increased MUC5AC and MUC5B levels in hNECs from non-smokers (41). Of note, e-vapor exposure resulted harmful as tobacco smoking in inducing morphologic differences in secretory function and eliciting acute decline of ciliary beat frequency in airway epithelial cultures of non-smokers (42). In line with these findings, short-term exposure to PG/VG was found to decrease glucose transport in human airway epithelial cells, suggesting that these EC constituents may alter defensive properties of the respiratory epithelium (43). Conversely, Herr et al., when comparing EC-vapor and traditional cigarettes exposure, reported an overall less acute effect of EC on airway-epithelial cell biology, although data in vitro did not allow definitive conclusions about EC long-term safety (44).
The comprehensive harmful effect of EC constituents, including E-liquid flavors, nicotine, VG and PG, has been also investigated by Ween et al., showing increased bronchial epithelial apoptosis and macrophage efferocytosis dysfunction in bronchial epithelial cells. Interestingly, the authors found that EC can alter bronchial epithelial cell cytokine secretion pathways in a flavor-dependent manner (45). In a more recent study, the flavoring profile of E-liquids has been found to cause bronchial epithelial cell apoptosis, alveolar macrophage phagocytic dysfunction, and to alter airway cytokines, pointing out the issue of regulating flavored E-liquids and the need of more rigorous studies providing clear data on the health impacts of flavored ECs (46). With particular regard to E-liquids mediated effects, two recent studies reported inappropriate activation Ca2+ signaling pathways which in turn can have a detrimental impact on cell function and survival resulting in a loss of airway epithelial cell viability, and also in inducing pro-inflammatory responses and apoptosis (47, 48).
In vivo models confirmed that vaping exerts marked biological effects on the lung, as demonstrated by proteomic investigation that opened new research questions to be further explored about the health impact of EC exposure (49). Inhalation of EC aerosols has been found to dysregulate lung homeostasis even in healthy naïve individuals (50). Overall, the available evidence suggests that EC cannot be considered less dangerous than cigarette smoking and that more studies are required to determine which components of EC aerosol and patterns of use contribute to the damage to airway biology.
Parental Attitudes Toward EC Use and Perception of Children's Health Risks Connected to EC Exposure
The rapid growth in EC use is linked to advertising and promotion marketing campaigns (51, 52) which have likely contributed to increasing favorable perceptions, even among pregnant women. Indeed, EC are thought to be a safer alternative to conventional cigarettes and to help women quit smoking in pregnancy (53), although it has not been demonstrated that using them is effective with regard to the latter (54). Women may be attracted to the flavorings due to alterations in taste that they generally experience during pregnancy (55). Hence, flavors may increase the appeal of EC in this population. In a study conducted by Dobbs et al. on a sample of 219 pregnant women between 18 and 45 years, participants perceived that vaping during pregnancy was significantly less risky than smoking conventional cigarettes (56). A cross-sectional study on 176 pregnant smokers (38% dual users), reported that, among dual users, 41% used their EC daily. Overall, whereas the majority of participants perceived EC use among women as acceptable, far fewer reported this behavior as acceptable during pregnancy. Of note, 56% perceived EC as harmful to women and 53% believed that EC risk harming the fetus (57). Data from the Population Assessment of Tobacco and Health (PATH) study showed that 4.9% of pregnant respondents currently used EC, and most of them concurrently used CC (58, 59). In a more recent study on 69,508 pregnant women from 38 states in the U.S., the weighted prevalence of EC use during the last 3 months of pregnancy was 1.1%. Among women who smoked EC before being pregnant, 24.4% continued to use EC during pregnancy. Among those who smoked EC during pregnancy, 62.3% were dual users. Comparing smokers with non-smokers before pregnancy the AOR was 6.7 (95% CI 4.4–10.3) for EC use during pregnancy (60).
A study on parents in socio-economically disadvantaged circumstances reported that several of them who had tried, currently used, or were planning to use EC considered these products as potentially helpful to protect their children from SHS exposure in the home (7). Notably, some differences in smoke-free habits between parents who vape and parents who smoke tobacco cigarettes have been noticed by Drehmer et al. (61). Smoking parents are more likely to have stricter smoke-free habits in cars and home than EC users or double smokers, who more often allow others to vape when a child is present. Moreover, limited knowledge about the harm of chemical components of e-liquids often leads parents to refill their device in the presence of their children without the necessary safety precautions (61).
It should also be pointed out that parents actively shape adolescent behavior with regard to EC use (62). Social factors including peer or familial attitudes have a great influence on susceptibility to becoming smokers or vapers. Youth with vaping parents are significantly more likely to start vaping than others (63). The determinants of this association may be emulation of parental habits and low awareness of parental disapproval among children and adolescents. Generally, a higher frequency of EC use has been described among fathers, but the role of maternal use in inducing adolescent vaping seems to be more influential (1). Parents who smoke or vape, especially mothers, are more tolerant toward their children vaping than non-smoking/vaper mothers. A positive association between maternal and adolescence vaping was shown by Sabbagh et al. (1). Patel et al. demonstrated that a significant percentage of parents of middle- and high-school children have poor knowledge about the commercial ENDS variety and significantly underestimates their own children's vaping risk. The likelihood of their intervention in preventing or stopping vaping-risk behaviors is dramatically low (64).
Overall, these findings suggest a low parental perception of children's health risks connected to EC exposure during both prenatal and post-natal life.
A pediatric-office based intervention may be a successful strategy to advise parents about the risk connected to EC exposure for their children's health. A recently published policy statement of the American Academy of Pediatrics recommends that pediatricians screen for EC use and exposure in clinical practice; provide counseling that homes, cars, and places where children live should have comprehensive tobacco-free bans that include EC; do not recommend EC as a tool for smoking cessation (65). Based on the established relationship of trust with parents, pediatricians could have a vital role in prevention of EC use. Indeed, the pediatric visit may be an opportunity for pediatricians to offer smoking-cessation treatment to parents and caregivers because parents generally see their children's pediatrician more often than their own healthcare provider. Pediatricians can identify children exposed to passive smoke and help parents and caregivers to quit, connecting them to state quit-lines or to local cessation services, or prescribing them with nicotine replacement therapy (NRT) (66). Even brief advice can increase smoking cessation rates (67). The Clinical Effort Against Secondhand Smoke Exposure (CEASE) is a program for addressing parental tobacco dependence that can be easily implemented in the pediatrician's office. CEASE focuses on the principles of ask, assist, and refer. In a 2-year randomized clinical trial, implementing this program within pediatric offices resulted in significantly higher rates of tobacco treatment delivery, like prescription of NRT or quit line enrollment, and a decline in parental smoking rates in comparison with usual care (2.7 vs. 1.1%, respectively). This latter finding was objectively confirmed by measurements of salivary cotinine in parents, which demonstrated that smoking cessation can be achieved, if pediatricians routinely screen parents for tobacco use and offer smoking cessation treatment (68). In spite of this evidence, pediatricians reported poor self-efficacy about smoking cessation screening and counseling of parents and youth. Overall, they were more confident about counseling youth than parents (p < 0.01) and they identified pregnancy as the preferred time window for their intervention. Moreover, though 93% considered EC as dangerous as CC, 34% never counseled youth about the hazards of vaping (69). This finding provides evidence that an adequate level of awareness is required among pediatricians to improve communicative skills and strategies that could change the parental approach to vaping.
Objective measurements of EC exposure in children might help pediatricians to increase parental perception of children's health risks connected to EC exposure. Preliminary findings of a study conducted on cigarette-exclusive, EC-exclusive, and non-users and their children showed that caregivers using EC perceived them as less harmful, and reported using them more frequently at home and in the car, even when their children were present, compared to cigarette users. Indeed, no significant difference in levels of urinary cotinine was found between children from the cigarette user group and those from the EC user group, that appeared to be exposed to nicotine at levels similar to children living with cigarette users (70). These findings are in accordance with previous results obtained in adults (71) and underline the need for targeted educational interventions for caregivers around the potential harms of EC exposure in children. Similar interventions should also involve adolescents, as a recent study reported significantly greater toxicant exposure in EC users compared with non-using peers. In particular, EC–only users had up to 3 times urinary levels of 5 Volatile Organic Compounds (VOCs). Since many of the VOCs were carcinogenic, and they were present whether the product contained nicotine or flavorings, EC users must be aware of the potential risk from being exposed to carcinogenic compounds generated by these products (72).
In summary, the involvement of pediatricians, nurses, and other pediatric health care professionals is highly valuable. Given the high prevalence of mental health problems in smokers, EC users and drug users, pediatricians, and pediatric health care professionals should carefully address all smoking and vaping related health and mental health issues concurrently. These issues often cannot be separated or addressed in isolation without working on all the others in order to deliverer effective patient care.
EC Use and Exposure During the COVID-19 Pandemic
With the implementation of social distancing due to Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, isolation from the school environment, loneliness, stress, and poor social support could contribute to an increased EC use, particularly in adolescents with pre-existing mental health conditions (73). In addition, social media platforms for EC marketing, commonly frequented by adolescents, have spread several unfounded health claims about a protective role of EC against COVID-19 (74). Therefore, it is not surprising that concerns have been recently raised about the association of vaping, and its related effects, with COVID-19, mainly in youth (75). Indeed, exposure to toxicant compounds in EC suppresses immune function, increasing susceptibility to infections (76). This explains why EC and dual users show a higher risk of COVID-19 diagnosis in comparison with non-users. Moreover, similar to smokers, it is plausible that vapers could experience worse health outcomes with respect to non-smokers. In particular, COVID-19 may cause acute respiratory failure and ground glass opacities on chest imaging, that may overlap with clinical manifestations and radiologic findings of EVALI. As a further complication, the psychological consequences of the COVID-19 pandemic may contribute to increased cases of EVALI, given that EVALI patients reported vaping more to cope with pandemic associated stressors and anxiety (75–77). Moreover, EVALI and COVID-19 may co-exist in some cases. Indeed, a significant number of EVALI patients reported sharing the same device with friends and family members, increasing their risk for SARS-CoV-2 infection (78). Both EVALI and COVID-19 share some clinical features like fever, cough, respiratory distress and non-specific gastrointestinal symptoms. An elevation of inflammatory markers is observed in both conditions, as well as radiological findings like bilateral multifocal ground glass opacities, with or without consolidation on chest CT imaging. However, EVALI remains an exclusion diagnosis. Therefore, eliciting any vaping history in adolescents with unexplained respiratory distress is crucial in making the diagnosis, along with testing for SARS-coV-2 infection. Indeed, treatment of EVALI differs from COVID-19, and early initiation of steroids can be lifesaving and may reduce the length of hospitalization (79).
Further studies addressing the relationship between EC use and exposure and COVID-19 are required. Though youth are generally considered at lower risk of developing COVID-19 than older individuals, efforts should be made in order to reduce youth vaping and identify those susceptible to severe disease outcomes (80). Longitudinal data are needed to explore whether the detrimental interplay between EC use and COVID-19 might exacerbate lung injury in children affected by underlying conditions, such as asthma. Further studies are also required to investigate the long-term impact of SARS-CoV-2 infection on respiratory health of children with or without underlying lung diseases exposed to EC.
Conclusions
The widespread use of EC is an emerging threat to children's health. Studies have provided evidence about the health risks of EC passive exposure, which are, in some respects, comparable to those associated with passive tobacco exposure. However, some research gaps should be addressed. First of all, the risks of smoking EC during pregnancy need to be thoroughly elucidated; in particular, further studies are needed to evaluate the placental vulnerability to EC exposure. Secondly, prenatal effects of the chemical components of e-vapors have not been thoroughly defined in human studies so far. Research gaps also include lack of generalizability and adjustment for confounders like tobacco use, given that most of the subjects enrolled in the aforementioned studies are dual users.
Little information is available regarding the effect of EC exposure on children's respiratory health. Available data are mainly self-reported and may be subjected to recall bias. Therefore, findings should be corroborated with medical records, clinical assessment measures, or examination by physicians. Moreover, the long-term impact of EC smoking on respiratory symptoms and pulmonary function needs to be further elucidated, especially in patients with EC-associated lung injury. Last but not least, more studies are required to determine which components of EC aerosol and patterns of use contribute to the damage to airway biology.
In the context of the current COVID-19 pandemic, longitudinal data would be helpful to explore whether the detrimental interplay between EC use and COVID-19 might exacerbate lung injury in children affected by underlying conditions, such as asthma. Further studies are also required to investigate the long-term impact of SARS-CoV-2 infection on respiratory health of children with or without underlying lung diseases exposed to EC.
The low parental perception of the risks connected to EC exposure for children throughout different vulnerability windows increases their susceptibility to harmful effects from passive vaping, including prenatal damage and post-natal respiratory effects, and increases the risk of vaping among adolescents. Since the child's home is the primary source of exposure to tobacco smoke, addressing the issue of parental perception of the harmful effects of EC exposure in children is essential for promoting health, especially in more vulnerable children such as those with respiratory chronic diseases like asthma.
Pediatricians could play a crucial role in increasing parental perception of children's health risks connected to EC use and exposure; at this purpose, they would benefit from receiving ad-hoc training courses for promoting smoking cessation in parents and adolescents (81). In this context, further studies should explore the involvement of pediatricians in smoking cessation programs for parents and adolescents.
Author Contributions
FM and SL: conceptualization. FM and GF: writing original draft. GF and SL: review and editing. All the authors read and approved the final version of the manuscript.
Conflict of Interest
The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.
Publisher's Note
All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article, or claim that may be made by its manufacturer, is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.
Abbreviations
AOR, adjusted odd ratio; DLCO, diffusion capacity of carbon monoxide; EC, E-Cigarettes; ENDS, electronic nicotine delivery system; EVALI, EC vaping associated lung injury; GLY, glycerol; RR, relative risk; PG, propylene glycol; SGA, small-for-gestational-age; SHS, second-hand smoking; VG, vegetable glycerin.
References
1. Sabbagh HJ, Khogeer LN, Hassan MHA, Allaf HK. Parental knowledge and attitude regarding E-cigarette use in Saudi Arabia and the effect of parental smoking: a cross-sectional study. Risk Manag Healthc Policy. (2020) 13:1195–205. doi: 10.2147/RMHP.S253749
2. Larcombe AN. Early-life exposure to electronic cigarettes: cause for concern. Lancet Respir Med. (2019) 7:985–92. doi: 10.1016/S2213-2600(19)30189-4
3. Marcham CL, Springston JP. Electronic cigarettes in the indoor environment. Rev Environ Health. (2019) 34:105–24. doi: 10.1515/reveh-2019-0012
4. Ferkol TW, Farber HJ, La Grutta S, Leone FT, Marshall HM, Neptune E, et al. Electronic cigarette use in youths: a position statement of the forum of international respiratory societies. Eur Respir J. (2018) 51:1800278. doi: 10.1183/13993003.00278-2018
5. Stroud LR, Papandonatos GD, Borba K, Kehoe T, Scott-Sheldon LAJ. Flavored electronic cigarette use, preferences, and perceptions in pregnant mothers: a correspondence analysis approach. Addict Behav. (2019) 91:21–29. doi: 10.1016/j.addbeh.2018.10.043
6. Wilson N, Hoek J, Thomson G, Edwards R. Should E-cigarette use be included in indoor smoking bans? Bull World Health Organ. (2017) 95:540–1. doi: 10.2471/BLT.16.186536
7. Rowa-Dewar N, Rooke C, Amos A. Using E-cigarettes in the home to reduce smoking and secondhand smoke: disadvantaged parents' accounts. Health Educ Res. (2017) 32:12–21. doi: 10.1093/her/cyw052
8. Ferrante G, Antona R, Malizia V, Montalbano L, Corsello G, La Grutta S. Smoke exposure as a risk factor for asthma in childhood: a review of current evidence. Allergy Asthma Proc. (2014) 35:454–61. doi: 10.2500/aap.2014.35.3789
9. Luck W, Nau H, Hansen R, Steldinger R. Extent of nicotine and cotinine transfer to the human fetus, placenta and amniotic fluid of smoking mothers. Dev Pharmacol Ther. (1985) 8:384–95. doi: 10.1159/000457063
10. Raez-Villanueva S, Ma C, Kleiboer S, Holloway AC. The effects of electronic cigarette vapor on placental trophoblast cell function. Reprod Toxicol. (2018) 81:115–21. doi: 10.1016/j.reprotox.2018.07.084
11. Palpant NJ, Hofsteen P, Pabon L, Reinecke H, Murry CE. Cardiac development in zebrafish and human embryonic stem cells is inhibited by exposure to tobacco cigarettes and E-cigarettes. PLoS ONE. (2015) 10:e0126259. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0126259
12. Chen H, Li G, Chan YL, Nguyen T, van Reyk D, Saad S, et al. Maternal E-cigarette exposure in mice alters DNA methylation and lung cytokine expression in offspring. Am J Respir Cell Mol Biol. (2018) 58:366–77. doi: 10.1165/rcmb.2017-0206RC
13. Li G, Saad S, Oliver BG, Chen H. Heat or burn? Impacts of intrauterine tobacco smoke and E-cigarette vapor exposure on the offspring's health outcome. Toxics. (2018) 6:43. doi: 10.3390/toxics6030043
14. Church JS, Chace-Donahue F, Blum JL, Ratner JR, Zelikoff JT, Schwartzer JJ. Neuroinflammatory and behavioral outcomes measured in adult offspring of mice exposed prenatally to E-cigarette aerosols. Environ Health Perspect. (2020) 128:47006. doi: 10.1289/EHP6067
15. Nguyen T, Li GE, Chen H, Cranfield CG, McGrath KC, Gorrie CA. Maternal E-cigarette exposure results in cognitive and epigenetic alterations in offspring in a mouse model. Chem Res Toxicol. (2018) 31:601–11. doi: 10.1021/acs.chemrestox.8b00084
16. Li G, Chan YL, Nguyen LT, Mak C, Zaky A, Anwer AG, et al. Impact of maternal E-cigarette vapor exposure on renal health in the offspring. Ann N Y Acad Sci. (2019) 1452:65–77. doi: 10.1111/nyas.14174
17. Cardenas VM, Cen R, Clemens MM, Moody HL, Ekanem US, Policherla A, et al. Use of Electronic Nicotine Delivery Systems (ENDS) by pregnant women I: risk of small-for-gestational-age birth. Tob Induc Dis. (2019) 17:44. doi: 10.18332/tid/106089
18. Clemens MM, Cardenas VM, Fischbach LA, Cen R, Siegel ER, Eswaran H, et al. Use of electronic nicotine delivery systems by pregnant women II: hair biomarkers for exposures to nicotine and tobacco-specific nitrosamines. Tob Induc Dis. (2019) 17:50. doi: 10.18332/tid/105387
19. Cardenas VM, Ali MM, Fischbach LA, Nembhard WN. Dual use of cigarettes and electronic nicotine delivery systems during pregnancy and the risk of small for gestational age neonates. Ann Epidemiol. (2020) 52:86–92.e2. doi: 10.1016/j.annepidem.2020.08.002
20. Kim S, Oancea SC. Electronic cigarettes may not be a “safer alternative” of conventional cigarettes during pregnancy: evidence from the nationally representative PRAMS data. BMC Pregnancy Childbirth. (2020) 20:557. doi: 10.1186/s12884-020-03247-6
21. Nath S, Geraghty P. Should we worry about children's exposure to third-hand by-products generated from electronic nicotine delivery systems? ERJ Open Res. (2020) 6:00194–2020. doi: 10.1183/23120541.00194-2020
22. Mozun R, Ardura-Garcia C, de Jong CCM, Goutaki M, Usemann J, Singer F, et al. Cigarette, shisha, and electronic smoking and respiratory symptoms in Swiss children: the LUIS study. Pediatr Pulmonol. (2020) 55:2806–15. doi: 10.1002/ppul.24985
23. Wang MP, Ho SY, Leung LT, Lam TH. Electronic cigarette use and respiratory symptoms in Chinese adolescents in Hong Kong. JAMA Pediatr. (2016) 170:89–91. doi: 10.1001/jamapediatrics.2015.3024
24. McConnell R, Barrington-Trimis JL, Wang K, Urman R, Hong H, Unger J, et al. Electronic cigarette use and respiratory symptoms in adolescents. Am J Respir Crit Care Med. (2017) 195:1043–9. doi: 10.1164/rccm.201604-0804OC
25. Tackett AP, Keller-Hamilton B, Smith CE, Hébert ET, Metcalf JP, Queimado L, et al. Evaluation of respiratory symptoms among youth E-cigarette users. JAMA Netw Open. (2020) 3:e2020671. doi: 10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2020.20671
26. Kim SY, Sim S, Choi HG. Active, passive, and electronic cigarette smoking is associated with asthma in adolescents. Sci Rep. (2017) 7:17789. doi: 10.1038/s41598-017-17958-y
27. Cho JH, Paik SY. Association between electronic cigarette use and asthma among high school students in South Korea. PLoS ONE. (2016) 11:e0151022. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0151022
28. Schweitzer RJ, Wills TA, Tam E, Pagano I, Choi K. E-cigarette use and asthma in a multiethnic sample of adolescents. Prev Med. (2017) 105:226–31. doi: 10.1016/j.ypmed.2017.09.023
29. Han YY, Rosser F, Forno E, Celedón JC. Electronic vapor products, marijuana use, smoking, and asthma in US adolescents. J Allergy Clin Immunol. (2020) 145:1025–8.e6. doi: 10.1016/j.jaci.2019.12.001
30. Choi K, Bernat D. E-cigarette use among Florida youth with and without asthma. Am J Prev Med. (2016) 51:446–53. doi: 10.1016/j.amepre.2016.03.010
31. Bayly JE, Bernat D, Porter L, Choi K. Secondhand exposure to aerosols from electronic nicotine delivery systems and asthma exacerbations among youth with asthma. Chest. (2019) 155:88–93. doi: 10.1016/j.chest.2018.10.005
32. Reddy A, Jenssen BP, Chidambaram A, Yehya N, Lindell RB. Characterizing E-cigarette vaping-associated lung injury in the pediatric intensive care unit. Pediatr Pulmonol. (2021) 56:162–70. doi: 10.1002/ppul.25086
33. Kohansal R, Martinez-Camblor P, Agustí A, Buist AS, Mannino DM, Soriano JB. The natural history of chronic airflow obstruction revisited: an analysis of the Framingham offspring cohort. Am J Respir Crit Care Med. (2009) 180:3–10. doi: 10.1164/rccm.200901-0047OC
34. Kaslow JA, Rosas-Salazar C, Moore PE. E-cigarette and vaping product use-associated lung injury in the pediatric population: a critical review of the current literature. Pediatr Pulmonol. (2021) 56: 1857–67. doi: 10.1002/ppul.25384
35. Gonsalves CL, Zhu JW, Kam AJ. Diagnosis and acute management of E-cigarette or vaping product use-associated lung injury in the pediatric population: a systematic review. J Pediatr. (2021) 228:260–70. doi: 10.1016/j.jpeds.2020.09.040
36. Carroll BJ, Kim M, Hemyari A, Thakrar P, Kump TE, Wade T, et al. Impaired lung function following E-cigarette or vaping product use associated lung injury in the first cohort of hospitalized adolescents. Pediatr Pulmonol. (2020) 55:1712–8. doi: 10.1002/ppul.24787
37. Rao DR, Maple KL, Dettori A, Afolabi F, Francis JKR, Artunduaga M, et al. Clinical features of E-cigarette, or vaping, product use-associated lung injury in teenagers. Pediatrics. (2020) 146:e20194104. doi: 10.1542/peds.2019-4104
38. Blount BC, Karwowski MP, Shields PG, Morel-Espinosa M, Valentin-Blasini L, Gardner M, et al. Vitamin E acetate in bronchoalveolar-lavage fluid associated with EVALI. N Engl J Med. (2020) 382:697–705. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa1916433
39. Blount BC, Karwowski MP, Morel-Espinosa M, Rees J, Sosnoff C, Cowan E, et al. Evaluation of bronchoalveolar lavage fluid from patients in an outbreak of E-cigarette, or vaping, product use-associated lung injury - 10 states, August-October 2019. MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep. (2019) 68:1040–1. doi: 10.15585/mmwr.mm6845e2
40. Navon L, Jones CM, Ghinai I, King BA, Briss PA, Hacker KA, et al. Risk factors for E-cigarette, or vaping, product use-associated lung injury (EVALI) among adults who use E-cigarette, or vaping, products - Illinois, July-October 2019. MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep. (2019) 68:1034–9. doi: 10.15585/mmwr.mm6845e1
41. Escobar YH, Morrison CB, Chen Y, Hickman E, Love CA, Rebuli ME, et al. Differential responses to EC generated aerosols from humectants and different forms of nicotine in epithelial cells from nonsmokers and smokers. Am J Physiol Lung Cell Mol Physiol. (2021) 320:L1064–73. doi: 10.1152/ajplung.00525.2020
42. Carson JL, Zhou L, Brighton L, Mills KH, Zhou H, Jaspers I, et al. Temporal structure/function variation in cultured differentiated human nasal epithelium associated with acute single exposure to tobacco smoke or E-cigarette vapor. Inhal Toxicol. (2017) 29:137–44. doi: 10.1080/08958378.2017.1318985
43. Woodall M, Jacob J, Kalsi KK, Schroeder V, Davis E, Kenyon B, et al. E-cigarette constituents propylene glycol and vegetable glycerin decrease glucose uptake and its metabolism in airway epithelial cells in vitro. Am J Physiol Lung Cell Mol Physiol. (2020) 319:L957–67. doi: 10.1152/ajplung.00123.2020
44. Herr C, Tsitouras K, Niederstraßer J, Backes C, Beisswenger C, Dong L, et al. Cigarette smoke and electronic cigarettes differentially activate bronchial epithelial cells. Respir Res. (2020) 21:67. doi: 10.1186/s12931-020-1317-2
45. Ween MP, Hamon R, Macowan MG, Thredgold L, Reynolds PN, Hodge SJ. Effects of E-cigarette E-liquid components on bronchial epithelial cells: demonstration of dysfunctional efferocytosis. Respirology. (2020) 25:620–8. doi: 10.1111/resp.13696
46. Ween MP, Moshensky A, Thredgold L, Bastian NA, Hamon R, Badiei A, et al. E-cigarettes and health risks: more to the flavor than just the name. Am J Physiol Lung Cell Mol Physiol. (2021) 320:L600–14. doi: 10.1152/ajplung.00370.2020
47. Zhang R, Jones MM, Dornsife RE, Wu T, Sivaraman V, Tarran R, et al. JUUL e-liquid exposure elicits cytoplasmic Ca2+ responses and leads to cytotoxicity in cultured airway epithelial cells. Toxicol Lett. (2021) 337:46–56. doi: 10.1016/j.toxlet.2020.11.017
48. Rowell TR, Keating JE, Zorn BT, Glish GL, Shears SB, Tarran R. Flavored e-liquids increase cytoplasmic Ca2+ levels in airway epithelia. Am J Physiol Lung Cell Mol Physiol. (2020) 318:L226–41. doi: 10.1152/ajplung.00123.2019
49. Ghosh A, Coakley RC, Mascenik T, Rowell TR, Davis ES, Rogers K, et al. Chronic E-cigarette exposure alters the human bronchial epithelial proteome. Am J Respir Crit Care Med. (2018) 198:67–76. doi: 10.1164/rccm.201710-2033OC
50. Staudt MR, Salit J, Kaner RJ, Hollmann C, Crystal RG. Altered lung biology of healthy never smokers following acute inhalation of E-cigarettes. Respir Res. (2018) 19:78. doi: 10.1186/s12931-018-0778-z
51. Kornfield R, Huang J, Vera L, Emery SL Rapidly increasing promotional expenditures for e-cigarettes. Tob Control. (2015) 24:110–1. doi: 10.1136/tobaccocontrol-2014-051580
52. Huang J, Duan Z, Kwok J, Binns S, Vera LE, Kim Y, et al. Vaping versus JUULing: how the extraordinary growth and marketing of JUUL transformed the US retail e-cigarette market. Tob Control. (2019) 28:146–51. doi: 10.1136/tobaccocontrol-2018-054382
53. McCubbin A, Fallin-Bennett A, Barnett J, Ashford K. Perceptions and use of electronic cigarettes in pregnancy. Health Educ Res. (2017) 32:22–32. doi: 10.1093/her/cyw059
54. Siu AL; U.S. preventive services task force. Behavioral and pharmacotherapy interventions for tobacco smoking cessation in adults, including pregnant women: U.S. preventive services task force recommendation statement. Ann Intern Med. (2015) 163:622–34. doi: 10.7326/M15-2023
55. Faas MM, Melgert BN, de Vos P. A brief review on how pregnancy and sex hormones interfere with taste and food intake. Chemosens Percept. (2010) 3:51–6. doi: 10.1007/s12078-009-9061-5
56. Dobbs PD, Lu Y, Maness S, Coleman L, Johnson A, Metz S, et al. Gestational women's perceptions about the harms of cigarette and E-cigarette use during pregnancy. Matern Child Health J. (2020) 25:1209–20. doi: 10.1007/s10995-020-03085-0
57. McCubbin A, Wiggins A, Barnett J, Ashford K. Perceptions, characteristics, and behaviors of cigarette and electronic cigarette use among pregnant smokers. Womens Health Issues. (2020) 30:221–9. doi: 10.1016/j.whi.2020.03.006
58. Kurti AN, Redner R, Lopez AA, Keith DR, Villanti AC, Stanton CA, et al. Tobacco and nicotine delivery product use in a national sample of pregnant women. Prev Med. (2017) 104:50–6. doi: 10.1016/j.ypmed.2017.07.030
59. Lopez AA, Redner R, Kurti AN, Keith DR, Villanti AC, Stanton CA, et al. Tobacco and nicotine delivery product use in a U.S. national sample of women of reproductive age. Prev Med. (2018) 117:61–8. doi: 10.1016/j.ypmed.2018.03.001
60. Liu B, Du Y, Wu Y, Sun Y, Santillan MK, Santillan DA, et al. Prevalence and distribution of electronic cigarette use before and during pregnancy among women in 38 states of the United States. Nicotine Tob Res. (2021) ntab041. doi: 10.1093/ntr/ntab041. [Epub ahead of print].
61. Drehmer JE, Nabi-Burza E, Walters BH, Ossip DJ, Levy DE, Rigotti NA, et al. Parental smoking and e-cigarette use in homes and cars. Pediatrics. (2019) 143:e20183249. doi: 10.1542/peds.2018-3249
62. Hymowitz N, Pyle SA, Haddock CK, Schwab JV. The pediatric residency training on tobacco project: four-year parent outcome findings. Prev Med. (2008) 47:221–4. doi: 10.1016/j.ypmed.2008.05.011
63. Leung LT, Ho SY, Chen J, Wang MP, Lam TH. Favourable perceptions of electronic cigarettes relative to cigarettes and the associations with susceptibility to electronic cigarette use in Hong Kong Chinese adolescents. Int J Environ Res Public Health. (2018) 15:54. doi: 10.3390/ijerph15010054
64. Patel M, Czaplicki L, Perks SN, Cuccia AF, Liu M, Hair EC, et al. Parents' awareness and perceptions of JUUL and other E-cigarettes. Am J Prev Med. (2019) 57:695–9. doi: 10.1016/j.amepre.2019.06.012
65. Jenssen BP, Walley SC, Section on Tobacco Control. E-cigarettes and similar devices. Pediatrics. (2019) 143:e20183652. doi: 10.1542/peds.2018-3652
66. Marbin J, Balk SJ, Gribben V, Groner J, Section on Tobacco Control. Health disparities in tobacco use and exposure: a structural competency approach. Pediatrics. (2021) 147:e2020040253. doi: 10.1542/peds.2020-040253
67. Stead LF, Buitrago D, Preciado N, Sanchez G, Hartmann-Boyce J, Lancaster T. Physician advice for smoking cessation. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. (2013) 5:CD000165. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD000165.pub4
68. Nabi-Burza E, Drehmer JE, Hipple Walters B, Rigotti NA, Ossip DJ, Levy DE, et al. Treating parents for tobacco use in the pediatric setting: the clinical effort against secondhand smoke exposure cluster randomized clinical trial. JAMA Pediatr. (2019) 173:931–9. doi: 10.1001/jamapediatrics.2019.2639
69. Simoneau T, Hollenbach JP, Langton CR, Kuo CL, Cloutier MM. Smoking cessation and counseling: a mixed methods study of pediatricians and parents. PLoS ONE. (2021) 16:e0246231. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0246231
70. Tackett AP, Wallace SW, Smith CE, Turner E, Fedele DA, Stepanov I, et al. Harm perceptions of tobacco/nicotine products and child exposure: differences between non-users, cigarette-exclusive, and electronic cigarette-exclusive users. Tob Use Insights. (2021) 14:1179173X21998362. doi: 10.1177/1179173X21998362
71. Ballbè M, Martínez-Sánchez JM, Sureda X, Fu M, Pérez-Ortuño R, Pascual JA, et al. Cigarettes vs. E-cigarettes: passive exposure at home measured by means of airborne marker and biomarkers. Environ Res. (2014) 135:76–80. doi: 10.1016/j.envres.2014.09.005
72. Rubinstein ML, Delucchi K, Benowitz NL, Ramo DE. Adolescent exposure to toxic volatile organic chemicals from E-cigarettes. Pediatrics. (2018) 141:e20173557. doi: 10.1542/peds.2017-3557
73. Zuckermann AME, Williams GC, Battista K, Jiang Y, de Groh M, Leatherdale ST. Prevalence and correlates of youth poly-substance use in the COMPASS study. Addict Behav. (2020) 107:106400. doi: 10.1016/j.addbeh.2020.106400
74. Majmundar A, Allem J, Cruz T, Unger J. Public health concerns and unsubstantiated claims at the intersection of vaping and COVID-19. Nicotine Tob Res. (2020) 22:1667–8. doi: 10.1093/ntr/ntaa064
75. Gaiha S, Cheng J, Halpern-Felsher B. Association between youth smoking, electronic cigarette use, and coronavirus disease 2019. J Adolesc Health. (2020) 67:519–23. doi: 10.1016/j.jadohealth.2020.07.002
76. Kaur G, Lungarella G, Rahman I. SARS-CoV-2 COVID-19 susceptibility and lung inflammatory storm by smoking and vaping. J Inflamm. (2020) 17:21. doi: 10.1186/s12950-020-00250-8
77. Cruz-Vidal DA, Mull ES, Taveras J, Shell R, Hunt GW, Fowler B, et al. EVALI versus MIS-C, one more overlapping diagnosis to consider. Pediatr Pulmonol. (2021). doi: 10.1002/ppul.25558. [Epub ahead of print].
78. Callahan SJ, Harris D, Collingridge DS, Guidry DW, Dean NC, Lanspa MJ, et al. Diagnosing EVALI in the time of COVID-19. Chest. (2020) 158:2034–7. doi: 10.1016/j.chest.2020.06.029
79. Darmawan DO, Gwal K, Goudy BD, Jhawar S, Nandalike K. Vaping in today's pandemic: E-cigarette, or vaping, product use-associated lung injury mimicking COVID-19 in teenagers presenting with respiratory distress. SAGE Open Med Case Rep. (2020) 8:2050313X20969590. doi: 10.1177/2050313X20969590
80. McAlinden KD, Eapen MS, Lu W, Chia C, Haug G, Sohal SS. COVID-19 and vaping: risk for increased susceptibility to SARS-CoV-2 infection? Eur Respir J. (2020) 56:2001645. doi: 10.1183/13993003.01645-2020
Keywords: E-Cigarettes, EVALI, parental perception, passive exposure, respiratory health
Citation: Mescolo F, Ferrante G and La Grutta S (2021) Effects of E-Cigarette Exposure on Prenatal Life and Childhood Respiratory Health: A Review of Current Evidence. Front. Pediatr. 9:711573. doi: 10.3389/fped.2021.711573
Received: 18 May 2021; Accepted: 30 July 2021;
Published: 20 August 2021.
Edited by:
Mario Barreto, Sapienza University of Rome, ItalyReviewed by:
Manuel Sanchez-Solis, University of Murcia, SpainJackson Y. W. Wong, Peak Pulmonary Specialty Clinic, Canada
Copyright © 2021 Mescolo, Ferrante and La Grutta. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY). The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) and the copyright owner(s) are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.
*Correspondence: Giuliana Ferrante, giuliana.ferrante@unipa.it