The paradox of the safer cigarette: understanding the pulmonary effects of electronic cigarettes.

Electronic cigarette (e-cigarette) use continues to rise globally. E-cigarettes have been presented as safer alternatives to combustion cigarettes that can mitigate the harm associated with tobacco products; however, the degree to which e-cigarette use itself can lead to morbidity and mortality is not fully defined. Herein we describe how e-cigarettes function; discuss the current knowledge of the effects of e-cigarette aerosol on lung cell cytotoxicity, inflammation, antipathogen immune response, mucociliary clearance, oxidative stress, DNA damage, carcinogenesis, matrix remodelling and airway hyperresponsiveness; and summarise the impact on lung diseases, including COPD, respiratory infection, lung cancer and asthma. We highlight how the inclusion of nicotine or flavouring compounds in e-liquids can impact lung toxicity. Finally, we consider the paradox of the safer cigarette: the toxicities of e-cigarettes that can mitigate their potential to serve as a harm reduction tool in the fight against traditional cigarettes, and we summarise the research needed in this underinvestigated area.

Through the Looking Glass: Revisiting Smoking and Health.

January 11, 2024, marked the 60th anniversary of the initial U.S. Surgeon General report "Smoking and Health," which definitively linked cigarette smoking and lung cancer.1 Similar to the old Virginia Slims slogan "you've come a long way, baby," smoking rates have diminished greatly since the release of that report.2 However, smoking still represents the leading cause of preventable deaths.3 Numerous countries have enacted policies aimed at decreasing conventional cigarette use, such as including warning labels on tobacco products, limiting advertising, and imposing bans on particular products. Such measures have contributed to significant reductions in cigarette use.

E-cigarette Vapor Extract Alters Human Eosinophil Gene Expression in an Effect Mediated by Propylene glycol, Glycerin, and Nicotine.

E-cigarette use has become widespread, and its effects on airway inflammation and disease are not fully delineated. E-cigarette vapor extract (EVE) profoundly affects neutrophil function. We hypothesized that EVE also alters eosinophil function and thus could impact allergic airways disease. We employed RNA-sequencing to measure the ex vivo effect of EVE components on human eosinophil transcription. Blood eosinophils from 9 non-vaping subjects without asthma were isolated by negative selection. Cells were incubated for 48 hours with EVE consisting of glycerin, propylene glycol and nicotine (EVE+), EVE without nicotine ("EVE-"), air-exposed media termed Extract Buffer (EB), or untreated media. Bulk RNA-sequencing was performed. Transcriptomic analysis revealed that the EB, EVE-, and EVE+ conditions showed highly variable gene expression with respect to No Treatment and each other. Differential gene expression analysis comparing a combination of EVE+, EVE-, and EB revealed 3,030 differentially expressed genes (DEG) with adjusted p value < 0.05 and log2 fold change >0.5 or <0.5. There were 645 DEG between EB and EVE-, 1,713 between EB and EVE+, and 404 between EVE- and EVE+. Gene set enrichment analysis demonstrated that DEG between both EVE+ and EVE- and the EB control were positively enriched for heme metabolism and apoptosis and negatively enriched TNFα signaling, IFNγ signaling, and inflammatory response. Thus, EVE significantly alters eosinophil metabolic and inflammatory pathways, mediated by propylene glycol and glycerin with both enhancing and unique effects of nicotine. This study motivates further research into the pathogenic effects of vaping on airway eosinophils and allergic airways disease.

Implementing Holistic Review Practices in a Pulmonary and Critical Care Fellowship.

Background: Medical schools have used holistic review in admissions to increase mission-aligned enrollment of students from backgrounds underrepresented in medicine. Graduate medical education programs have increasingly followed suit. However, there is a paucity of literature regarding holistic review at the fellowship level. Objective: Here, we share our experience implementing the Association of American Medical Colleges core principles of holistic review during the 2021 recruitment cycle. Methods: We used a partially asynchronous and online learning strategy to train division members on the principles of holistic review. Following the match, we conducted a survey of faculty members and fellows to understand their opinions on our holistic review training and implementation. Results: Although few of our colleagues clearly understood holistic review before the training, they were able to identify broad-based criteria that aligned with our division's mission and balanced applicants' experiences, attributes, competencies, and metrics. These were viewed as better selection criteria than traditional measures and were incorporated into the individualized consideration of applicants. Our survey had a 41.5% response rate, with 10 of 22 fellows and 24 of 60 faculty members responding. Most faculty members and fellows agreed that holistic review decreases socioeconomic disparities in fellowship recruitment (79.2% and 80.0%, respectively) and promotes inclusion and diversity (83.3% and 90.0%, respectively). Faculty members appeared more confident than fellows that our training efforts had influenced recruitment. All respondents agreed that it would be critical for such training to be repeated yearly. Conclusion: Although this was a single-institution experience, implementing holistic review was feasible and well received by faculty and fellows.