Preliminary results from Dr. Eissenberg's study (Yep, e-cigs deliver nicotine)

[Vocalek]

There will be a lot of variables to be considered I think. I did find it interesting though that my blood pressure and heart rate were higher after not vaping for 12 hrs compared to after my free vape period and my heart rate pretty much remained between 70 and 80 bpm throughout the test.

I have been trying to tell people that for years! Nicotine appears to have a protective effect against hypertension. Yes, nicotine raises heart rate and blood pressure --temporarily. Both return to normal within 20 minutes. What else causes that effect? Caffeine and exercise.

But temporarily elevated BP is not the disease "hypertension". A high percentage of former smokers develop hypertension within the next year or so if they become abstinent from nicotine. Quite a few studies have noted this.

 

[deusXmchna]

sorry if I missed it- who's funding this study?

 

[Valsacar]

I have been trying to tell people that for years! Nicotine appears to have a protective effect against hypertension. Yes, nicotine raises heart rate and blood pressure --temporarily. Both return to normal within 20 minutes. What else causes that effect? Caffeine and exercise.

But temporarily elevated BP is not the disease "hypertension". A high percentage of former smokers develop hypertension within the next year or so if they become abstinent from nicotine. Quite a few studies have noted this.

I have hypertension, switching from analogs to vaping has had no effect on my blood pressure at all. I also have sleep apnea, which is the most likely cause for the hypertension.

 

[Vocalek]

I have hypertension, switching from analogs to vaping has had no effect on my blood pressure at all. I also have sleep apnea, which is the most likely cause for the hypertension.

Absolutely, sleep loss over a period of time definitly impacts blood pressure, among other things.

I was speaking about the statistical probability of developing hypertensions when you stop using nicotine, versus continued use. Here is one study published about 10 years ago right in the Amerian Heart Association's journal. Effects of Smoking Cessation on Changes in Blood Pressure and Incidence of Hypertension : A 4-Year Follow-Up Study -- Lee et al. 37 (2): 194 -- Hypertension

The adjusted relative risks of hypertension in those who had quit smoking for <1, 1 to 3, and 3 years were 0.6 (95% CI 0.2 to 1.9), 1.5 (95% CI 0.8 to 2.8), and 3.5 (95% CI 1.7 to 7.4), respectively, compared with current smokers. The trends for increased risk of hypertension for longer periods of smoking cessation were observed in subgroups of those who maintained weight as well as those who gained weight after smoking cessation. The adjusted increments in both systolic and diastolic blood pressure were higher in those who had quit for 1 year than in current smokers. These trends among weight losers, as well as gainers and maintainers, were similar. We observed progressive increases in blood pressure with the prolongation of cessation in men, although at this time the mechanism remains unknown and must be clarified. This study implies that the cessation of smoking may result in increases in blood pressure, hypertension, or both.

Notice that during the first year after cessation, the odds of developing hypertension are low. They go up dramatically as time goes on. With quitters developing hypertension at a rate 3.5 times higher than continuing smokers. They saw the same thing happen in the Multiple Risk Factors Intervention Trial (MRFIT). In that study, they were using interventions such as weight loss and/or smoking cessation to see whether that protects people who are at risk of diabetes from developing the disease. Imagine the surprise of the researchers when they discoverd that those who succeeded in quitting smoking developed weight gain, followed by hypertension, followed by diabetes at a much higher rate than continuing smokers.

Everyone I know in my age bracket developed hypertension about a year after they stopped smoking. That's not scientific evidence, but it's interesting. My husband has a twin sister who stopped smoking about a decade ago and then had to go on blood pressure medication. My husband continued smoking for another 7 years without developing hypertension. About a year after he stopped smoking, he was on the pills as well.

I think it's the nicotine in smoke that provides the protection, which might explain why I don't have hypertension even though I quit smoking nearly two years ago.

 

[Vocalek]

P.S. - Once you have developed hypertension while still smoking, I don't know what effect smoking cessation has on it. Haven't seen any research on that.

 

[MoonRose]

Elaine, I was put on 2 different blood pressure meds in March of 2010 when my blood pressure suddenly went out of control and I suffered a probable mild heart attack, about a year after all our cigarettes became the "fire safe" cigarettes. 4 months after I started using e-cigs my doctor took me off of both the blood pressure meds as my blood pressure had returned to the normal range without their use. I have now been medication free for almost 4 months now without any further problems with my blood pressure.

 

[ctourtelot]

bump they still need participants

 

[D103]

Despite Dr. Eissenberg's past position on e-cigs he continues to investigate. The information regarding blood press., heart rates and oxygen levels while vaping and post-vaping are valuable irrespective of the position he takes in his conclusions, especially if these measurements remain consistent as have been reported. I would hope that everyone is aware that whatever the "findings" end up being the antis will twist, pervert, mischaracterize and otherwise outright lie about them. I just feel the more ammunition we have in our favor the better. What we see as "positives" about ANY study results, the opposition will denounce, minimize and quite literally turn on its head to make it look damning in some way or other. Rest assured that if we ever get the IVAQ study done - I don't care how positive it may be for us, you have to know, this too will be painted black, perverted and used to scare the livin' crap out of people.....for their own good of course. We still need the information and we still need to persist.

 

[deusXmchna]

sorry if I missed it- who's funding this study?

sorry to bump my own question... but who is funding the study?
thnx

 

[rolygate]

Dr E says this is just part of regular work / courses at his establishment. His work is partly funded by the National Institutes of Health (specifically, National Cancer Institute and National Institute on Drug Abuse). This particular project has no specific funder.

 

[Bill Godshall]

Last week Andrea Vansickle (who works with Tom Eissenberg at VCU and coauthored his "no nicotine" study last year) gave the following presentation (after my presentation on tobacco harm reduction products and policies) at the Virginia tobacco control conference.
http://www.preventionconnections.org/conferenceslides/Tobacco_Harm_Reduction.pdf

Study 1 is their "no nicotine" study published last year, which found that 16/18 mg/ml NJOY and Crown7 e-cigs delivered very little nicotine (less than 2.5 ng/ml) to the plasma of first time e-cig users (i.e. smokers) who took a 10 puff bout of vapor, but satisfied some cravings.

Study 2 (still ongoing) has found that 18 mg/ml VaporKing e-cigs delivered more than 6 ng/ml plasma nicotine to first time e-cig users (i.e. smokers) who took six 10 puff bouts of vapor during a half hour, and satisfied cravings more than in Study 1.

Study 3 (still ongoing) using experienced vapers who vape ad lib (i.e. as much as they want) has found that a 9mg/ml
Silver Bullet delivered 10 ng/ml plasma nicotine, that a 18 mg/ml Super T Precise delivered 30 ng/ml plasma nicotine, and that a 24 mg/ml Chuck delivered 40 ng/ml plasma nicotine. This study also found that ad lib vaping satisfied cravings of experienced vapers far more than controlled vaping by first time vapers (i.e. Study 1 and Study 2).

I don't think that either Eissenberg or Vansickel will ever again claim that e-cigarettes don't emit nicotine, but Vansickel (like Eissenberg in the past) did state last week during her presentation that e-cigarettes should be regulated by the FDA (but she didn't provide any details of what regulations she considers warranted or desired)

But other than Vansickel's brief mention of FDA regulation and a sarcastic comment implying that flavored smokeless tobacco, dissolvables and e-cigs appeal to children (without providing any evidence), our tag team presentation on tobacco harm reduction products and policies was very good. I covered product risks, usage and policies, while Andrea focussed exclusively on her product research. Unfortunately, I don't have a power point of my presentation (as I used an overhead projector instead) since I still don't know how to do power point.

One woman (in the audience of about 50) began heckling during my presentation (about smokeless products being marketed to smokers as alternatives) by claiming that all smokeless products are being target marketed to addict children and that harm reduction is a conspiracy by the evil tobacco industry to keep smokers addicted and to addict more children. It was funny because the heckler's outburst prompted other folks in the audience to speak up in support of harm reduction products for smokers.

 

[Mister]

That's wonderful news Bill. Thanks very much for telling us about it. Some of the preliminary information from Dr. Eissenberg's studies 2 and 3 is very useful, confirming what many of us thought must be the case with some hard evidence. When these studies are complete they may well have data which we can use to refine the guesses we've made in the past about absorption rates.

 

[JollyRogers]

"... that a 18 mg/ml Super T Precise delivered 30 ng/ml plasma nicotine" That was me!!!

 

[DC2]

"... that a 18 mg/ml Super T Precise delivered 30 ng/ml plasma nicotine" That was me!!!

Awesome, and thanks for participating, I only wish I could.

Now I want to know who was cranking it up with the Chuck.
And I wonder if they were doing 3.7 volts or 6 volts.

 

[rolygate]

JollyRogers -- "... that a 18 mg/ml Super T Precise delivered 30 ng/ml plasma nicotine". That was me!

Now look what you've done - you've ruined our argument that as they don't work, there is no need to regulate them.



[edit]
j/k!

 

[JollyRogers]

Roly - yes I do see your point.

 

[vapeguy123]

There isn't much difference between the e-cig and a nicorette inhaler which is approved for nicotine delivery, so the e-cig must deliver nicotine.

 

[Placebo Effect]

Dr. Eissenberg travels to Beirut to talk about e-cigarette dangers

American University of Beirut - News - US public health expert highlights potential harm from e-cigarettes

For the record, all CASAA members are willing and ready to fly to Beirut to make a risk / benefit analysis presentation on e-cigarettes vs. smoking.

 

[JollyRogers]

Quote from the article: “Until we know more, continued e-cigarette marketing constitutes an uncontrolled experiment whose outcomes are unknown,” said Eissenberg.
In the absence of studies, it is not known whether propylene glycol is dangerous when inhaled or whether these smoking devices could attract non-smokers to the habit, potentially turning them into real smokers."

Hmm, hasn't there been studies on propylene glycol already? Aren't there inhalers and other medicines that use PG as a carrier that also happen to be FDA approved? I am starting to have a somewhat negative opinion of Dr. Eissenberg. It seems to me there is also a desire to fuel his studies for self preservation. I would say that drugs like chantix have proven to be more of an uncontrolled experiment then e-cigarettes. My only wish is to know that what is in the liquid is what is in fact in it, if that makes sense.

 

[JW50]

Let us know if you get an answer please.

This comment made it seem as though the highest concentration of 30 ng/ml was comparable with cigarette smoking.
But it is possible that I read it wrong or misunderstood which of "these levels" were being referred to with that last statement.

There is a table in the NAP, Institute of Medicine book titled "Clearing the Smoke: Assessing the Science Base
for Tobacco Harm Reduction" (at page 251 of the online pdf) that blood plasma levels of nicotine are in the 30
ng/ml range for "unrestricted smoking". That level is shown to occur in the 2 PM to 10PM time frame, building
to that level from 15ng/ml at 8AM. I could not find a definition of "unrestricted smoking" so that may or may
not mean chain smoking. In that sampling, the results were obtained from only 8 smokers and the "SE" of the
sample (not sure I know what SE is here) took the level to as has high as about 35 ng/ml. But it does suggest
that vaping and smoking can produce similar levels in humans. But, I think there would remain the question of
how the nicotine got to the blood. That is, was in absorbed in the mouth and throat or in the lungs - the
apparent major pathway for smoking. There is another table in the mentioned IOM book (at page 247) that shows
nicotine plasma levels very comparable between cigarette smoking, oral snuff and nicotine gum (although peaking
slower with the latter two). There seems to be pretty decent scientific evidence that oral stuff is less
harmful than tobacco smoking. Beyond the thousands of other chemicals that cigarette smoke contains it might be
that the how and where the nicotine is absorbed has something to do with the final effect that the nicotine
produces on humans. The location of the IOM book is Clearing the Smoke: Assessing the Science Base for Tobacco Harm Reduction. With a
caveat or two concerning the need for regulation my interpretation of the results of this study by IOM where
effectively very favorable toward e-cigs. E-cigs were not around when the study was completed. But the
development of e-cigs almost suggests that they were developed in response to the IOM recommendations. Harm reduction is the tone - not necessarily complete safety.