Suppr超能文献

欧盟健康、环境和新出现风险科学委员会(SCHEER)对电子烟初步意见的批判性评估。

Critical appraisal of the European Union Scientific Committee on Health, Environmental and Emerging Risks (SCHEER) Preliminary Opinion on electronic cigarettes.

机构信息

Center of Excellence for the Acceleration of Harm Reduction, Via S. Sofia, 89, 95123, Catania, Italy.

, Catania, Italy.

出版信息

Harm Reduct J. 2021 Mar 10;18(1):31. doi: 10.1186/s12954-021-00476-6.

Abstract

BACKGROUND

In preparation for the 2021 revision of the European Union Tobacco Products Directive, the Scientific Committee on Health, Environmental and Emerging Risks (SCHEER) has posted its Preliminary Opinion on Electronic Cigarettes. They concluded that e-cigarettes only achieve a sub-optimal level of protection of human health. In this paper, we provide evidence that the Opinion's conclusions are not adequately backed up by scientific evidence and did not discuss the potential health benefits of using alternative combustion-free nicotine-containing products as substitute for tobacco cigarettes.

METHODS

Searches for articles were conducted in PubMed and by citation chasing in Google Scholar. Articles were also retrieved with a review of references in major publications. Primary data from World Health Organization surveys, the conclusions of reviews, and peer-reviewed non-industry studies were cited to address errors and omissions identified in the Opinion.

RESULTS

The Opinion omitted reporting on the individual and population health benefits of the substitution of e-cigarettes (ENDS) for cigarette smoking. Alternative hypotheses to the gateway theory were not evaluated. Its assessment of cardiovascular risk is contradicted by numerous reviews. It cites ever-use data that do not represent current patterns of use. It did not report non-nicotine use. It presented erroneous statements on trends in ENDS prevalence. It over-emphasized the role of flavours in youth ENDS initiation. It did not discuss cessation in sufficient length.

CONCLUSIONS

For the delivery of a robust and comprehensive final report, the members of the Working Group of the Scientific Committee on Health, Environmental and Emerging Risks will need to consider (1) the potential health benefits of ENDS substitution for cigarette smoking, (2) alternative hypotheses and contradictory studies on the gateway effect, (3) its assessment of cardiovascular risk, (4) the measurements of frequency of use, (5) non-nicotine use, (6) the role of flavours, and (7) a fulsome discussion of cessation.

摘要

背景

为了准备 2021 年修订的《欧盟烟草制品指令》,健康、环境和新出现风险科学委员会(SCHEER)发布了其关于电子烟的初步意见。他们得出的结论是,电子烟只能实现对人类健康的次优保护水平。在本文中,我们提供的证据表明,意见的结论没有得到充分的科学证据支持,也没有讨论使用替代燃烧型含尼古丁产品作为替代烟草卷烟的潜在健康益处。

方法

在 PubMed 中进行了文章搜索,并通过在 Google Scholar 中进行引文追踪进行了搜索。还通过查阅主要出版物的参考文献检索了文章。引用了世界卫生组织调查的原始数据、综述的结论和同行评议的非行业研究,以解决意见中发现的错误和遗漏。

结果

该意见省略了电子烟(ENDS)替代吸烟对个人和人群健康益处的报告。替代门户理论的假说未得到评估。其对心血管风险的评估与众多综述相矛盾。它引用了不能代表当前使用模式的使用数据。它没有报告非尼古丁使用情况。它对 ENDS 流行趋势的陈述有误。它过分强调了口味在青少年使用 ENDS 中的作用。它没有充分讨论戒烟问题。

结论

为了提交一份有力且全面的最终报告,健康、环境和新出现风险科学委员会工作组的成员需要考虑(1)ENDS 替代吸烟对健康的潜在益处,(2)关于门户效应的替代假说和矛盾研究,(3)对心血管风险的评估,(4)使用频率的测量,(5)非尼古丁使用,(6)口味的作用,以及(7)全面讨论戒烟问题。

相似文献

7
Public Health Policies on E-Cigarettes.电子烟公共卫生政策。
Curr Cardiol Rep. 2019 Aug 28;21(10):111. doi: 10.1007/s11886-019-1204-y.

引用本文的文献

10
Is "less than 5 by 35" still achievable?“小于5乘35”还能实现吗?
Health Promot Chronic Dis Prev Can. 2021 Oct;41(10):288-291. doi: 10.24095/hpcdp.41.10.03.

本文引用的文献

2
Electronic cigarettes for smoking cessation.用于戒烟的电子烟。
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2020 Oct 14;10(10):CD010216. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD010216.pub4.

文献检索

告别复杂PubMed语法,用中文像聊天一样搜索,搜遍4000万医学文献。AI智能推荐,让科研检索更轻松。

立即免费搜索

文件翻译

保留排版,准确专业,支持PDF/Word/PPT等文件格式,支持 12+语言互译。

免费翻译文档

深度研究

AI帮你快速写综述,25分钟生成高质量综述,智能提取关键信息,辅助科研写作。

立即免费体验