E-cigarette, or Vaping, Product Use-Associated Lung Injury: Looking Back, Moving Forward.

Implications In this commentary, we describe the evidence-based approach used to identify the primary cause of EVALI and to curb the 2019 outbreak. We also discuss future research opportunities and public health practice considerations to prevent a resurgence of EVALI.

Pathological findings in suspected cases of e-cigarette, or vaping, product use-associated lung injury (EVALI): a case series.

BACKGROUND: Since August, 2019, US public health officials have been investigating a national outbreak of e-cigarette, or vaping, product use-associated lung injury (EVALI). A spectrum of histological patterns consistent with acute to subacute lung injury has been seen in biopsies; however, autopsy findings have not been systematically characterised. We describe the pathological findings in autopsy and biopsy tissues submitted to the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) for the evaluation of suspected EVALI. METHODS: Between Aug 1, 2019, and Nov 30, 2019, we examined lung biopsy (n=10 individuals) and autopsy (n=13 individuals) tissue samples received by the CDC, submitted by 16 US states, from individuals with: a history of e-cigarette, or vaping, product use; respiratory, gastrointestinal, or constitutional symptoms; and either pulmonary infiltrates or opacities on chest imaging, or sudden death from an undetermined cause. We also reviewed medical records, evaluated histopathology, and performed infectious disease testing when indicated by histopathology and clinical history. FINDINGS: 21 cases met surveillance case definitions for EVALI, with a further two cases of clinically suspected EVALI evaluated. All ten lung biopsies showed histological evidence of acute to subacute lung injury, including diffuse alveolar damage or organising pneumonia. These patterns were also seen in nine of 13 (69%) autopsy cases, most frequently diffuse alveolar damage (eight autopsies), but also acute and organising fibrinous pneumonia (one autopsy). Additional pulmonary pathology not necessarily consistent with EVALI was seen in the remaining autopsies, including bronchopneumonia, bronchoaspiration, and chronic interstitial lung disease. Three of the five autopsy cases with no evidence of, or a plausible alternative cause for acute lung injury, had been classified as confirmed or probable EVALI according to surveillance case definitions. INTERPRETATION: Acute to subacute lung injury patterns were seen in all ten biopsies and most autopsy lung tissues from individuals with suspected EVALI. Acute to subacute lung injury can have numerous causes; however, if it is identified in an individual with a history of e-cigarette, or vaping, product use, and no alternative cause is apparent, a diagnosis of EVALI should be strongly considered. A review of autopsy tissue pathology in suspected EVALI deaths can also identify alternative diagnoses, which can enhance the specificity of public health surveillance efforts. FUNDING: US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

Potential Indirect Effects of the COVID-19 Pandemic on Use of Emergency Departments for Acute Life-Threatening Conditions - United States, January-May 2020.

On March 13, 2020, the United States declared a national emergency in response to the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic. Subsequently, states enacted stay-at-home orders to slow the spread of SARS-CoV-2, the virus that causes COVID-19, and reduce the burden on the U.S. health care system. CDC* and the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS)† recommended that health care systems prioritize urgent visits and delay elective care to mitigate the spread of COVID-19 in health care settings. By May 2020, national syndromic surveillance data found that emergency department (ED) visits had declined 42% during the early months of the pandemic (1). This report describes trends in ED visits for three acute life-threatening health conditions (myocardial infarction [MI, also known as heart attack], stroke, and hyperglycemic crisis), immediately before and after declaration of the COVID-19 pandemic as a national emergency. These conditions represent acute events that always necessitate immediate emergency care, even during a public health emergency such as the COVID-19 pandemic. In the 10 weeks following the emergency declaration (March 15-May 23, 2020), ED visits declined 23% for MI, 20% for stroke, and 10% for hyperglycemic crisis, compared with the preceding 10-week period (January 5-March 14, 2020). EDs play a critical role in diagnosing and treating life-threatening conditions that might result in serious disability or death. Persons experiencing signs or symptoms of serious illness, such as severe chest pain, sudden or partial loss of motor function, altered mental state, signs of extreme hyperglycemia, or other life-threatening issues, should seek immediate emergency care, regardless of the pandemic. Clear, frequent, highly visible communication from public health and health care professionals is needed to reinforce the importance of timely care for medical emergencies and to assure the public that EDs are implementing infection prevention and control guidelines that help ensure the safety of their patients and health care personnel.

Update: Characteristics of Patients in a National Outbreak of E-cigarette, or Vaping, Product Use-Associated Lung Injuries - United States, October 2019.

CDC, the Food and Drug Administration, state and local health departments, and other public health and clinical stakeholders are investigating a national outbreak of electronic-cigarette (e-cigarette), or vaping, product use-associated lung injury (EVALI) (1). As of October 22, 2019, 49 states, the District of Columbia (DC), and the U.S. Virgin Islands have reported 1,604 cases of EVALI to CDC, including 34 (2.1%) EVALI-associated deaths in 24 states. Based on data collected as of October 15, 2019, this report updates data on patient characteristics and substances used in e-cigarette, or vaping, products (2) and describes characteristics of EVALI-associated deaths. The median age of EVALI patients who survived was 23 years, and the median age of EVALI patients who died was 45 years. Among 867 (54%) EVALI patients with available data on use of specific e-cigarette, or vaping, products in the 3 months preceding symptom onset, 86% reported any use of tetrahydrocannabinol (THC)-containing products, 64% reported any use of nicotine-containing products, and 52% reported use of both. Exclusive use of THC-containing products was reported by 34% of patients and exclusive use of nicotine-containing products by 11%, and for 2% of patients, no use of either THC- or nicotine-containing products was reported. Among 19 EVALI patients who died and for whom substance use data were available, 84% reported any use of THC-containing products, including 63% who reported exclusive use of THC-containing products; 37% reported any use of nicotine-containing products, including 16% who reported exclusive use of nicotine-containing products. To date, no single compound or ingredient used in e-cigarette, or vaping, products has emerged as the cause of EVALI, and there might be more than one cause. Because most patients reported using THC-containing products before symptom onset, CDC recommends that persons should not use e-cigarette, or vaping, products that contain THC. In addition, because the specific compound or ingredient causing lung injury is not yet known, and while the investigation continues, persons should consider refraining from the use of all e-cigarette, or vaping, products.

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.

The United States is experiencing an unprecedented outbreak of e-cigarette, or vaping, product use-associated lung injury (EVALI) (1). All EVALI patients have used e-cigarette, or vaping, products, and most (≥85%) have reported using products containing tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) (2,3), the principal psychoactive component of cannabis. To examine whether e-cigarette, or vaping, product use behaviors differed between adult EVALI patients and adults who use these products but have not developed lung injury, the Illinois Department of Public Health (IDPH) conducted an online public survey during September-October 2019 targeting e-cigarette, or vaping, product users in Illinois. Among 4,631 survey respondents, 94% reported using any nicotine-containing e-cigarette, or vaping, products in the past 3 months; 21% used any THC-containing products; and 11% used both THC-containing products and nicotine-containing products. Prevalence of THC-containing product use was highest among survey respondents aged 18-24 years (36%) and decreased with increasing age. E-cigarette, or vaping, product use behaviors of 66 EVALI patients aged 18-44 years who were interviewed as part of the ongoing outbreak investigation were compared with a subset of 519 survey respondents aged 18-44 years who reported use of THC-containing e-cigarette, or vaping, products. Compared with these survey respondents, EVALI patients had higher odds of reporting exclusive use of THC-containing products (adjusted odds ratio [aOR] = 2.0, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 1.1-3.6); frequent use (more than five times per day) of these products (aOR = 3.1, 95% CI = 1.6-6.0), and obtaining these products from informal sources, such as a dealer, off the street, or from a friend (aOR = 9.2, 95% CI = 2.2-39.4). The odds of using Dank Vapes, a class of largely counterfeit THC-containing products, was also higher among EVALI patients (aOR = 8.5, 95% CI = 3.8-19.0). These findings reinforce current recommendations not to use e-cigarette, or vaping, products that contain THC and not to use any e-cigarette, or vaping, products obtained from informal sources. In addition, because the specific compound or ingredient causing lung injury is not yet known, CDC continues to recommend that persons consider refraining from use of all e-cigarette, or vaping, products while the outbreak investigation continues (1).

Characteristics of a Multistate Outbreak of Lung Injury Associated with E-cigarette Use, or Vaping - United States, 2019.

Electronic cigarettes (e-cigarettes), also called vapes, e-hookas, vape pens, tank systems, mods, and electronic nicotine delivery systems (ENDS), are electronic devices that produce an aerosol by heating a liquid typically containing nicotine, flavorings, and other additives; users inhale this aerosol into their lungs (1). E-cigarettes also can be used to deliver tetrahydrocannabinol (THC), the principal psychoactive component of cannabis (1). Use of e-cigarettes is commonly called vaping. Lung injury associated with e-cigarette use, or vaping, has recently been reported in most states (2-4). CDC, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), state and local health departments, and others are investigating this outbreak. This report provides data on patterns of the outbreak and characteristics of patients, including sex, age, and selected substances used in e-cigarette, or vaping, products reported to CDC as part of this ongoing multistate investigation. As of September 24, 2019, 46 state health departments and one territorial health department had reported 805 patients with cases of lung injury associated with use of e-cigarette, or vaping, products to CDC. Sixty-nine percent of patients were males, and the median age was 23 years (range = 13-72 years). To date, 12 deaths have been confirmed in 10 states. Among 514 patients with information on substances used in e-cigarettes, or vaping products, in the 30 days preceding symptom onset, 76.9% reported using THC-containing products, and 56.8% reported using nicotine-containing products; 36.0% reported exclusive use of THC-containing products, and 16.0% reported exclusive use of nicotine-containing products. The specific chemical exposure(s) causing the outbreak is currently unknown. While this investigation is ongoing, CDC recommends that persons consider refraining from using e-cigarette, or vaping, products, particularly those containing THC. CDC will continue to work in collaboration with FDA and state and local partners to investigate cases and advise and alert the public on the investigation as additional information becomes available.

Severe Pulmonary Disease Associated with Electronic-Cigarette-Product Use - Interim Guidance.

On September 6, 2019, this report was posted as an MMWR Early Release on the MMWR website (https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr). As of August 27, 2019, 215 possible cases of severe pulmonary disease associated with the use of electronic cigarette (e-cigarette) products (e.g., devices, liquids, refill pods, and cartridges) had been reported to CDC by 25 state health departments. E-cigarettes are devices that produce an aerosol by heating a liquid containing various chemicals, including nicotine, flavorings, and other additives (e.g., propellants, solvents, and oils). Users inhale the aerosol, including any additives, into their lungs. Aerosols produced by e-cigarettes can contain harmful or potentially harmful substances, including heavy metals such as lead, volatile organic compounds, ultrafine particles, cancer-causing chemicals, or other agents such as chemicals used for cleaning the device (1). E-cigarettes also can be used to deliver tetrahydrocannabinol (THC), the principal psychoactive component of cannabis, or other drugs; for example, "dabbing" involves superheating substances that contain high concentrations of THC and other plant compounds (e.g., cannabidiol) with the intent of inhaling the aerosol. E-cigarette users could potentially add other substances to the devices. This report summarizes available information and provides interim case definitions and guidance for reporting possible cases of severe pulmonary disease. The guidance in this report reflects data available as of September 6, 2019; guidance will be updated as additional information becomes available.

Report of the Office of Population Affairs' expert work group meeting on short birth spacing and adverse pregnancy outcomes: Methodological quality of existing studies and future directions for research.

BACKGROUND: The World Health Organization (WHO) recommends that women wait at least 24 months after a livebirth before attempting a subsequent pregnancy to reduce the risk of adverse maternal, perinatal, and infant health outcomes. However, the applicability of the WHO recommendations for women in the United States is unclear, as breast feeding, nutrition, maternal age at first birth, and total fertility rate differs substantially between the United States and the low- and middle-resource countries upon which most of the evidence is based. METHODS: To inform guideline development for birth spacing specific to women in the United States, the Office of Population Affairs (OPA) convened an expert work group meeting in Washington, DC, on 14-15 September 2017 among reproductive, perinatal, paediatric, social, and public health epidemiologists; obstetrician-gynaecologists; biostatisticians; and experts in evidence synthesis related to women's health. RESULTS: Presentations and discussion topics included the methodological quality of existing studies, evaluation of the evidence for causal effects of short interpregnancy intervals on adverse perinatal and maternal health outcomes, good practices for future research, and identification of research gaps and priorities for future work. CONCLUSIONS: This report provides an overview of the presentations, discussions, and conclusions from the expert work group meeting.

Good practices for the design, analysis, and interpretation of observational studies on birth spacing and perinatal health outcomes.

BACKGROUND: Meta-analyses of observational studies have shown that women with a shorter interpregnancy interval (the time from delivery to start of a subsequent pregnancy) are more likely to experience adverse pregnancy outcomes, such as preterm delivery or small for gestational age birth, than women who space their births further apart. However, the studies used to inform these estimates have methodological shortcomings. METHODS: In this commentary, we summarise the discussions of an expert workgroup describing good practices for the design, analysis, and interpretation of observational studies of interpregnancy interval and adverse perinatal health outcomes. RESULTS: We argue that inferences drawn from research in this field will be improved by careful attention to elements such as: (a) refining the research question to clarify whether the goal is to estimate a causal effect vs describe patterns of association; (b) using directed acyclic graphs to represent potential causal networks and guide the analytic plan of studies seeking to estimate causal effects; (c) assessing how miscarriages and pregnancy terminations may have influenced interpregnancy interval classifications; (d) specifying how key factors such as previous pregnancy loss, pregnancy intention, and maternal socio-economic position will be considered; and (e) examining if the association between interpregnancy interval and perinatal outcome differs by factors such as maternal age. CONCLUSION: This commentary outlines the discussions of this recent expert workgroup, and describes several suggested principles for study design and analysis that could mitigate many potential sources of bias.

Implementation Research to Address the United States Health Disadvantage: Report of a National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute Workshop.

Four decades ago, U.S. life expectancy was within the same range as other high-income peer countries. However, during the past decades, the United States has fared worse in many key health domains resulting in shorter life expectancy and poorer health-a health disadvantage. The National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute convened a panel of national and international health experts and stakeholders for a Think Tank meeting to explore the U.S. health disadvantage and to seek specific recommendations for implementation research opportunities for heart, lung, blood, and sleep disorders. Recommendations for National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute consideration were made in several areas including understanding the drivers of the disadvantage, identifying potential solutions, creating strategic partnerships with common goals, and finally enhancing and fostering a research workforce for implementation research. Key recommendations included exploring why the United States is doing better for health indicators in a few areas compared with peer countries; targeting populations across the entire socioeconomic spectrum with interventions at all levels in order to prevent missing a substantial proportion of the disadvantage; assuring partnership have high-level goals that can create systemic change through collective impact; and finally, increasing opportunities for implementation research training to meet the current needs. Connecting with the research community at large and building on ongoing research efforts will be an important strategy. Broad partnerships and collaboration across the social, political, economic, and private sectors and all civil society will be critical-not only for implementation research but also for implementing the findings to have the desired population impact. Developing the relevant knowledge to tackle the U.S. health disadvantage is the necessary first step to improve U.S. health outcomes.