Coronary artery calcium as a marker of healthy and unhealthy aging in adults aged 75 and older: The Atherosclerosis Risk in Communities (ARIC) study.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Coronary artery calcium (CAC) is validated for risk prediction among middle-aged adults, but there is limited research exploring implications of CAC among older adults. We used data from the Atherosclerosis Risk in Communities (ARIC) study to evaluate the association of CAC with domains of healthy and unhealthy aging in adults aged ≥75 years. METHODS: We included 2,290 participants aged ≥75 years free of known coronary heart disease who underwent CAC scoring at study visit 7. We examined the cross-sectional association of CAC = 0, 1-999 (reference), and ≥1000 with seven domains of aging: cognitive function, hearing, ankle-brachial index (ABI), pulse-wave velocity (PWV), forced vital capacity (FVC), physical functioning, and grip strength. RESULTS: The mean age was 80.5 ± 4.3 years, 38.6% male, and 77.7% White. 10.3% had CAC = 0 and 19.2% had CAC≥1000. Individuals with CAC = 0 had the lowest while those with CAC≥1000 had the highest proportion with dementia (2% vs 8%), hearing impairment (46% vs 67%), low ABI (3% vs 18%), high PWV (27% vs 41%), reduced FVC (34% vs 42%), impaired grip strength (66% vs 74%), and mean composite abnormal aging score (2.6 vs 3.7). Participants with CAC = 0 were less likely to have abnormal ABI (aOR:0.15, 95%CI:0.07-0.34), high PWV (aOR:0.57, 95%CI:0.41-0.80), and reduced FVC (aOR:0.69, 95%CI:0.50-0.96). Conversely, participants with CAC≥1000 were more likely to have low ABI (aOR:1.74, 95%CI:1.27-2.39), high PWV (aOR:1.52, 95%CI:1.15-2.00), impaired physical functioning (aOR:1.35, 95%CI:1.05-1.73), and impaired grip strength (aOR:1.46, 95%CI:1.08-1.99). CONCLUSIONS: Our findings highlight CAC as a simple measure broadly associated with biological aging, with clinical and research implications for estimating the physical and physiological aging trajectory of older individuals.

E-Cigarette Use Among US Adults in the 2021 Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System Survey.

Importance: After the initial disruption from the COVID-19 pandemic, it is unclear how patterns of e-cigarette use in the US have changed. Objective: To examine recent patterns in current and daily e-cigarette use among US adults in 2021. Design, Setting, and Participants: This cross-sectional study used data from the 2021 Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System (BRFSS) database. The BRFSS is the largest national telephone-based survey of randomly sampled adults in the US. Adults aged 18 years or older, residing in 49 US states (all except Florida), the District of Columbia, and 3 US territories (Guam, Puerto Rico, and the US Virgin Islands), were included in the data set. Data analysis was performed in January 2023. Main Outcomes and Measures: The main outcome was age-adjusted prevalence of current and daily e-cigarette use overall and by participant characteristics, state, and territory. Descriptive statistical analysis was conducted, applying weights to account for population representation. Results: This study included 414 755 BRFSS participants with information on e-cigarette use. More than half of participants were women (51.3%). In terms of race and ethnicity, 0.9% of participants were American Indian or Alaska Native, 5.8% were Asian, 11.5% were Black, 17.3% were Hispanic, 0.2% were Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander, 62.2% were White, 1.4% were of multiple races or ethnicities, and 0.6% were of other race or ethnicity. Individuals aged 18 to 24 years comprised 12.4% of the study population. The age-standardized prevalence of current e-cigarette use was 6.9% (95% CI, 6.7%-7.1%), with almost half of participants using e-cigarettes daily (3.2% [95% CI, 3.1%-3.4%]). Among individuals aged 18 to 24 years, there was a consistently higher prevalence of e-cigarette use, with more than 18.6% reporting current use and more than 9.0% reporting daily use. Overall, among individuals reporting current e-cigarette use, 42.2% (95% CI, 40.7%-43.7%) indicated former combustible cigarette use, 37.1% (95% CI, 35.6%-38.6%) indicated current combustible cigarette use, and 20.7% (95% CI, 19.7%-21.8%) indicated never using combustible cigarettes. Although relatively older adults (aged ≥25 years) who reported current e-cigarette use were more likely to report former or current combustible cigarette use, younger adults (aged 18-24 years) were more likely to report never using combustible cigarettes. Notably, the proportion of individuals who reported current e-cigarette use and never using combustible cigarettes was higher in the group aged 18 to 20 years (71.5% [95% CI, 66.8%-75.7%]) compared with those aged 21 to 24 years (53.0% [95% CI, 49.8%-56.1%]). Conclusion and Relevance: These findings suggest that e-cigarette use remained common during the COVID-19 pandemic, particularly among young adults aged 18 to 24 years (18.3% prevalence). Notably, 71.5% of individuals aged 18 to 20 years who reported current e-cigarette use had never used combustible cigarettes. These results underscore the rationale for the implementation and enforcement of public health policies tailored to young adults.

Comprehensive review of the national surveys that assess E-cigarette use domains among youth and adults in the United States.

Surveillance of e-cigarette use among different population groups is important for the timely implementation and evaluation of tobacco regulatory policies. In this review, we identified 13 nationally representative, repeatedly conducted epidemiologic surveys that assess e-cigarette use among U.S. youth and/or adults and have been instrumental in e-cigarette surveillance. These surveys included National Youth Tobacco Survey, Youth Risk Behavior Surveillance System, Monitoring the Future Survey, International Tobacco Control Policy Evaluation Project (ITC) Youth Tobacco and Vaping Survey, Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System, National Health Interview Survey, Tobacco Use Supplement of the Current Population Survey, Health Information National Trends Survey, Tobacco Products and Risk Perception Surveys, ITC Four Country Smoking and Vaping Survey, National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey, National Survey on Drug Use and Health, and Population Assessment of Tobacco and Health. These surveys vary in scope and detail, with their unique strengths and the regulatory questions that can be answered using each survey data. We also highlighted the gaps in these surveys and made recommendations for improvement.

Examining the association of habitual e-cigarette use with inflammation and endothelial dysfunction in young adults: The VAPORS-Endothelial function study.

INTRODUCTION: Acute exposure to e-cigarette aerosol has been shown to have potentially deleterious effects on the cardiovascular system. However, the cardiovascular effects of habitual e-cigarette use have not been fully elucidated. Therefore, we aimed to assess the association of habitual e-cigarette use with endothelial dysfunction and inflammation - subclinical markers known to be associated with increased cardiovascular risk. METHODS: In this cross-sectional study, we analyzed data from 46 participants (23 exclusive e-cigarette users; 23 non-users) enrolled in the VAPORS-Endothelial function study. E-cigarette users had used e-cigarettes for ≥6 consecutive months. Non-users had used e-cigarettes <5 times and had a negative urine cotinine test (<30 ng/mL). Flow-mediated dilation (FMD) and reactive hyperemia index (RHI) were used to assess endothelial dysfunction, and we assayed high-sensitivity C-reactive protein, interleukin-6, fibrinogen, p-selectin, and myeloperoxidase as serum measures of inflammation. We used multivariable linear regression to assess the association of e-cigarette use with the markers of endothelial dysfunction and inflammation. RESULTS: Of the 46 participants with mean age of 24.3 ± 4.0 years, the majority were males (78%), non-Hispanic (89%), and White (59%). Among non-users, 6 had cotinine levels <10 ng/mL while 17 had levels 10-30 ng/mL. Conversely, among e-cigarette users, the majority (14 of 23) had cotinine ≥500 ng/mL. At baseline, the systolic blood pressure was higher among e-cigarette users than non-users (p=0.011). The mean FMD was slightly lower among e-cigarette users (6.32%) compared to non-users (6.53%). However, in the adjusted analysis, current e-cigarette users did not differ significantly from non-users in their mean FMD (Coefficient=2.05; 95% CI: -2.52-6.63) or RHI (Coefficient= -0.20; 95% CI: -0.88-0.49). Similarly, the levels of inflammatory markers were generally low and did not differ between e-cigarette users and non-users. CONCLUSIONS: Our findings suggest that e-cigarette use may not be significantly associated with endothelial dysfunction and systemic inflammation in relatively young and healthy individuals. Longer term studies with larger sample sizes are needed to validate these findings.

Psychosocial stressors and current e-cigarette use in the youth risk behavior survey.

BACKGROUND: This study explores the association between psychosocial stressors and current e-cigarette use among adolescents in the United States. METHODS: We used data from 12,767 participants in the 2019 National Youth Risk Behavioral Survey to examine the association between psychosocial stressors (bullying, sexual assault, safety-related absence from school, depressive symptoms, suicidal ideation, physical altercation, and weapon threats) and past-30-day e-cigarette use using multivariable-adjusted logistic regression models. We examined the association for each stressor and then as a burden score (0-7). To compare the strength of the association between stressors and current e-cigarette use to current combustible cigarette use, we additionally examined the association between each stressor and current combustible cigarette use. RESULTS: Approximately 32.7% reported current e-cigarette use. The weighted prevalence of current e-cigarette use was higher among individuals who experienced stressors than those who did not. For example, bullying (43.9% vs. 29.0%). Similar prevalence patterns were seen among other stressors. Individuals who experienced stressors had significantly higher adjusted odds of current e-cigarette use than those who did not (OR [Odds Ratio] range: 1.47-1.75). Similarly, individuals with higher burden scores had a higher prevalence (zero [20.5%], one [32.8%], two [41.4%], three [49.6%], four to seven [60.9%]) and higher odds of current e-cigarette use (OR range: 1.43-2.73) than those with a score of zero. The strength of the association between the stressors and e-cigarette use was similar to that between the stressors and combustible cigarette use. CONCLUSION: The study demonstrates a significant association between psychosocial stressors and adolescent e-cigarette use, highlighting the potential importance of interventions, such as targeted school-based programs that address stressors and promote stress management, as possible means of reducing adolescent e-cigarette use. Future research directions include exploring underlying mechanisms linking stressors to e-cigarette use and evaluating the effectiveness of interventions addressing stressors in reducing adolescent e-cigarette use.

Coronary Artery Calcium Scores in Older Adults With Diabetes and Their Association With Diabetes-Specific Risk Enhancers (from the Atherosclerosis Risk in Communities Study).

Coronary artery calcium (CAC) is a validated marker of atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD) risk; however, it is not routinely incorporated in ASCVD risk prediction in older adults with diabetes. We sought to assess the CAC distribution among this demographic and its association with "diabetes-specific risk enhancers," which are known to be associated with increased ASCVD risk. We used the ARIC (Atherosclerosis Risk in Communities) study data, including adults aged >75 years with diabetes, who had their CAC measured at ARIC visit 7 (2018 to 2019). The demographic characteristics of participants and their CAC distribution were analyzed using descriptive statistics. Multivariable-adjusted logistic regression models were used to estimate the association between diabetes-specific risk enhancers (duration of diabetes, albuminuria, chronic kidney disease, retinopathy, neuropathy, and ankle-brachial index) and elevated CAC, adjusting for age, gender, race, education level, dyslipidemia, hypertension, physical activity, smoking status, and family history of coronary heart disease. The mean age in our sample was 79.9 (SD 3.97) years, with 56.6% women and 62.1% White. The CAC scores were heterogenous, and the median CAC score was higher in participants with a greater number of diabetes risk enhancers, regardless of gender. In the multivariable-adjusted logistic regression models, participants with ≥2 diabetes-specific risk enhancers had greater odds of elevated CAC than those with <2 (odds ratio 2.31, 95% confidence interval 1.34 to 3.98). In conclusion, the distribution of CAC was heterogeneous among older adults with diabetes, with the CAC burden associated with the number of diabetes risk-enhancing factors present. These data may have implications for prognostication in older patients with diabetes and supports the possible incorporation of CAC in the assessment of cardiovascular disease risk in this population.

Patterns of tobacco product use and substance misuse among adolescents in the United States.

Among adolescents, sole use is the most common pattern of e-cigarette use. However, concurrent use of e-cigarettes with other tobacco products is not uncommon and may be associated with high-risk behaviors. We used data from 12,767 participants in the 2019 Youth Risk Behavior Survey to examine the patterns of tobacco product use among youth in the US. First, we examined the prevalence of e-cigarette-specific patterns of tobacco use (nonuse[no tobacco product use], sole use[sole e-cigarette use], dual-use[e-cigarette and one other tobacco product], and poly use[e-cigarette and two or more other tobacco products]). Then, using multivariable Poisson regression, we assessed how the tobacco use patterns were associated with the misuse of nine substances of abuse (alcohol, marijuana, cocaine, ecstasy, hallucinogens, heroin, inhalants, injectables, and methamphetamines). 62.9% of youth reported nonuse of any tobacco product. The weighted prevalence of sole e-cigarette use, dual use, and poly use was 23.2%, 4.2%, and 3.3%, respectively. Across all the substances explored, the prevalence was highest among poly users, followed by dual users, sole users, and non-users. Compared to non-users, sole, dual, and poly users had 7.8(95 %CI:6.1-10.0), 14.3(95 %CI:10.8-18.8), and 19.7(95 %CI:15.0-25.9) times higher adjusted prevalence of reporting past-30-day binge drinking, after adjusting for age, sex, race/ethnicity, sexual orientation, and depressive symptoms. This pattern was seen across all the different substances explored. These findings highlight the high prevalence of substance misuse among youth who use tobacco products and the need to educate and counsel on substances of abuse among this population, particularly among poly-tobacco users.

Pod-based e-cigarette use among US college-aged adults: A survey on the perception of health effects, sociodemographic correlates, and interplay with other tobacco products.

INTRODUCTION: E-cigarette use among youth and young adults remains of public health concern. Pod-based e-cigarettes, including JUUL, significantly changed the e-cigarette landscape in the US. Using an online survey, we explored the socio-behavioral correlates, predisposing factors, and addictive behaviors, among young adult pod-mod users within a University in Maryland, USA. METHODS: In total, 112 eligible college students aged 18-24 years, recruited from a University in Maryland, who reported using pod-mods were included in this study. Participants were categorized into current/non-current users based on past-30-day use. Descriptive statistics were used to analyze participants' responses. RESULTS: The mean age of the survey participants was 20.5 ± 1.2 years, 56.3% were female, 48.2% White, and 40.2% reported past-30-day (current) use of pod-mods. The mean age of first experimentation with pod-mods was 17.8 ± 1.4 years, while the mean age of regular use was 18.5 ± 1.4 years, with the majority (67.9%) citing social influence as the reason for initiation. Of the current users, 62.2% owned their own devices, and 82.2% predominantly used JUUL and menthol flavor (37.8%). A significant proportion of current users (73.3%) reported buying pods in person, 45.5% of whom were aged <21 years. Among all participants, 67% had had a past serious quit attempt. Among them, 89.3% neither used nicotine replacement therapy nor prescription medications. Finally, current use (adjusted odds ratio, AOR=4.52; 95% CI: 1.76-11.64), JUUL use (AOR=2.56; 95% CI: 1.08-6.03), and menthol flavor (AOR=6.52; 95% CI: 1.38-30.89) were associated with reduced nicotine autonomy, a measure of addiction. CONCLUSIONS: Our findings provide specific data to inform the development of public health interventions targeted at college youth, including the need for more robust cessation support for pod-mod users.

Healthcare Provider Screening for Tobacco Product and Electronic Cigarette Use Among Youth in the United States.

PURPOSE: Healthcare providers play a critical role in curbing youth tobacco use through screening and counseling. Current rates of tobacco use screening by healthcare providers among US youth are unknown. METHODS: We used 2020 National Youth Tobacco Survey data to examine the prevalence of healthcare provider screening for tobacco and e-cigarette use among US youth. Using multivariable logistic regression, we examined the factors associated with being screened for tobacco use. RESULTS: Of 13,434 individuals who reported past 12-month visits to any healthcare professional, 47.5% (44.8%-50.1%) reported being screened for any tobacco use, while 31.5% (29.2%-40.0%) reported e-cigarette-specific screening. The odds of tobacco use screening were lower among males (odds ratio [OR]: 0.81 [0.73-0.89]) and middle schoolers (OR: 0.39 [0.33-0.44]) compared to females and high schoolers, respectively. In addition, non-Hispanic Black (OR: 0.71 [0.56-0.89]), Hispanic (OR: 0.76 [0.63-0.92]), and Asian youth (OR: 0.48 [0.37-0.63]) had lower odds of being screened than non-Hispanic White youth. DISCUSSION: There are missed opportunities in tobacco screening by healthcare providers, particularly among males, middle schoolers, and racial/ethnic minority youth.

The inverse association of state cannabis vaping prevalence with the e-cigarette or vaping product-use associated lung injury.

The e-cigarette or vaping product-use-associated lung injury (EVALI) epidemic was primarily associated with the use of e-cigarettes containing tetrahydrocannabinol (THC)- the principal psychoactive substance in cannabis, and vitamin-E-acetate- an additive sometimes used in informally sourced THC-containing e-liquids. EVALI case burden varied across states, but it is unclear whether this was associated with state-level cannabis vaping prevalence. We, therefore, used linear regression models to assess the cross-sectional association between state-level cannabis vaping prevalence (obtained from the 2019 behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System) and EVALI case burden (obtained from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention) adjusted for state cannabis policies. Cannabis vaping prevalence ranged from 1.14%(95%CI, 0.61%-2.12%) in Wyoming to 3.11%(95%CI, 2.16%-4.44%) in New Hampshire. EVALI cases per million population ranged from 1.90(0.38-3.42) in Oklahoma to 59.10(19.70-96.53) in North Dakota. There was no significant positive association but an inverse association between state cannabis vaping prevalence and EVALI case burden (Coefficient, -18.6; 95%CI, -37.5-0.4; p-value, 0.05). Thus, state-level cannabis vaping prevalence was not positively associated with EVALI prevalence, suggesting that there may not be a simple direct link between state cannabis vaping prevalence and EVALI cases, but rather the relationship is likely more nuanced and possibly reflective of access to informal sources of THC-containing e-cigarettes.

Impact of the Food and Drug Administration enforcement policy on flavored e-cigarettes on the online popularity of disposable e-cigarettes: analyses of Google search query data.

BACKGROUND: The impact of the U.S. Food and Drug Administration's (FDA) initial enforcement policy on flavored cartridge-based e-cigarettes and subsequent notice for the removal of flavored disposable electronic cigarettes (e-cigarettes) such as Puff Bar from the market has not been well evaluated. We, therefore, sought to examine the impact of the e-cigarette flavor-related policy changes on the online popularity of Puff Bar, a prototypic disposable e-cigarette. METHODS: We tabulated the total weekly Google search queries originating from the U.S. for "Puff Bar" and "Puff Bars" from January 1, 2019, to December 31, 2021. We divided the three years into four (4) distinct periods using the dates of the initial announcement to ban non-tobacco flavored e-cigarettes (September 11, 2019), the finalization of the FDA enforcement policy on cartridge-based flavors (January 2, 2020), and the notice for the market withdrawal of flavored disposable e-cigarettes (July 20, 2020) as reference time points. Then, we used piecewise linear regression and autoregressive integrated moving average (ARIMA) to compare the trends in searches for Puff Bar for the four (4) periods. RESULTS: Before the initial announcement to ban non-tobacco flavored e-cigarettes, online search queries (per 10 million Google searches) for Puff Bar were slowly rising at a rate of 0.58 queries per week (95%CI: -0.80 - 1.97). Following the announcement, searches for Puff Bar increased significantly at a rate of 16.61 queries per week (95%CI: 12.13 - 21.10). The rate of searches for Puff Bar then increased exponentially at 40.08 queries per week (95%CI: 27.32 - 52.84) following the FDA flavor ban, which excluded disposable e-cigarettes. Then, the rate of increase declined but remained relatively stable at 3.67 queries per week (95%CI: 0.69-6.65) until the FDA's notice to remove flavored Puff Bar products from the market. Following this notice, the rate of searches for Puff Bar significantly declined (rate: -4.97 queries per week; 95%CI: -5.40--4.54). CONCLUSIONS: The tracking of online search data demonstrates rapid public recognition of the FDA's announcements of tobacco regulatory actions.

E-cigarette use among high school students in the United States prior to the COVID-19 pandemic: Trends, correlates, and sources of acquisition.

Detailed description of the prevalence and sources of e-cigarettes among youth is needed to inform effective regulatory policies. We used the Youth Risk Behavior Surveillance System data (2015-2019) to assess trends in current (past-30-day-use) and frequent (≥10 days in past-30-days) e-cigarette use among United States high schoolers before the COVID-19 pandemic. First, we assessed trends overall and then stratified by participants' sociodemographic characteristics, use of other tobacco products, and experiences of psychosocial stress. We also evaluated past year quit attempts and the changing sources of e-cigarettes. Our sample size was 41,021 (15,356-2015; 12,873-2017; 12,792-2019). The prevalence of current e-cigarette use increased from 24.0% (95%CI:21.9%-26.3%) in 2015 to 32.7% (30.4%-35.1%) in 2019. The proportion of current users who reported frequent use also increased significantly from 22.6% (20.4%-24.8%) to 45.4% (42.7%-48.2%). Thus, an increasing proportion of US high school students who use e-cigarettes reported frequent use, indicating greater nicotine dependence. The increase in current and frequent e-cigarette use was more pronounced in youth who reported other substance use and psychosocial stressors such as bullying. Between 2017 and 2019, there was a decline in the proportion of youth who bought e-cigarettes online (6.9% to 3.2%) or from convenience stores (22.0% to 16.6%). Conversely, there was an increase in the proportion who borrowed (34.5% to 40.1%) or purchased e-cigarettes through other people (10.7% to 18.0%), indicating that most youth are evading age-related restrictions by obtaining e-cigarettes from other people. Finally, a considerable proportion of youth tobacco users are making quit attempts; 47.6% (45.1%-50.1%) in 2019.

Assessment of Patterns in e-Cigarette Use Among Adults in the US, 2017-2020.

Importance: Updated data on the patterns of e-cigarette use among adults in the US are needed. Objective: To examine recent patterns in current and daily e-cigarette use among US adults. Design, Setting, and Participants: This repeated cross-sectional study used data from the 2017, 2018, and 2020 Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System, a nationally representative state-based survey of noninstitutionalized US adults. A total of 994 307 adults 18 years and older who were living in states and territories that provided data on e-cigarette use in 2017 (53 states and territories), 2018 (36 states and Guam), and 2020 (42 states and Guam) were included. Main Outcomes and Measures: The weighted prevalence of current (past 30 days) and daily e-cigarette use was estimated for each year, and changes in prevalence from 2017 to 2020 were assessed, first overall and then stratified by participant characteristics, including state or territory of residence. Results: Among 994 307 adults from states with data on e-cigarette use, 429 370 individuals (weighted 51.3% female) were participants in the 2017 survey, 280 184 (weighted 52.1% female) were participants in the 2018 survey, and 284 753 (weighted 52.1% female) were participants in the 2020 survey. The weighted proportions of young adults aged 18 to 24 years were 12.6% in 2017, 11.8% in 2018, and 11.9% in 2020. Across all 3 years, 17 035 participants (weighted, 1.0%) were American Indian or Alaska Native, 22 313 (weighted, 4.6%) were Asian, 75 780 (weighted, 12.2%) were Black, 72 190 (weighted, 15.1%) were Hispanic, 4817 (weighted, 0.2%) were Native Hawaiian, 757 140 (weighted, 65.1%) were White, 20 332 (weighted, 1.3%) were multiracial, and 6245 (weighted, 0.5%) were of other races and/or ethnicities. The prevalence of current e-cigarette use was 4.4% (95% CI, 4.3%-4.5%) in 2017, which increased to 5.5% (95% CI, 5.4%-5.7%) in 2018 and decreased slightly to 5.1% (95% CI, 4.9%-5.3%) in 2020. The recent decrease, though modest, was observed mainly among young adults aged 18 to 20 years (from 18.9% [95% CI, 17.2%-20.7%] to 15.6% [95% CI, 14.1%-17.1%]; P = .004). However, the prevalence of daily e-cigarette use increased consistently from 1.5% (95% CI, 1.4%-1.6%) in 2017 to 2.1% (95% CI, 2.0%-2.2%) in 2018 and 2.3% (95% CI, 2.2%-2.4%) in 2020. Among young adults aged 21 to 24 years, there was a slight, albeit insignificant, increase in the prevalence of current e-cigarette use (from 13.5% [95% CI, 12.3%-14.7%] to 14.5% [95% CI, 13.2%-15.9%]; P = .28) but a significant increase in the prevalence of daily e-cigarette use (from 4.4% [95% CI, 3.8%-5.1%] to 6.6% [95% CI, 5.6%-7.6%]; P < .001) between 2018 and 2020. State-level patterns in the prevalence of current e-cigarette use were heterogeneous, with states like Massachusetts (from 5.6% [95% CI, 4.8%-6.5%] to 4.1% [95% CI, 3.1%-5.3%]; P = .03) and New York (from 5.4% [95% CI, 4.9%-5.9%] to 4.1% [95% CI, 3.5%-4.7%]; P = .001) recording significant decreases between 2018 and 2020. In contrast, Guam (from 5.9% [95% CI, 4.5%-7.9%] to 11.4% [95% CI, 8.7%-14.8%]; P = .002) and Utah (from 6.1% [95% CI, 5.5%-6.7%] to 7.2% [95% CI, 6.5%-8.0%]; P = .02) recorded significant increases in current e-cigarette use over the same period. Conclusions and Relevance: In this study, a slight decrease in the prevalence of current e-cigarette use was found between 2018 and 2020; this decrease was mainly observed among young adults aged 18 to 20 years. In contrast, daily e-cigarette use consistently increased, particularly among young adults aged 21 to 24 years. This increase in daily use suggests greater nicotine dependence among those who use e-cigarettes, warranting continued surveillance.

Comparative Risks of Fracture Among Direct Oral Anticoagulants and Warfarin: A Systematic Review and Network Meta-Analysis.

Importance: Previous studies have shown the effectiveness and safety of direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs), including lower fracture risks, compared to warfarin. However, direct or indirect comparisons between different DOACs are scarce in the literature. Objective: This study aims to compare fracture risks among different DOACs and warfarin, including apixaban, rivaroxaban, dabigatran, and edoxaban, in patients with non-valvular atrial fibrillation (NVAF) or venous thromboembolism (VTE). Methods: We searched PubMed/MEDLINE, Embase, Cochrane CENTRAL, and Web of Science for randomized controlled trials and cohort studies comparing the fracture risks among patients who used warfarin or DOACs, up to March 2021. Two authors extracted data and appraised the risk of bias of included studies. The primary outcome was fracture risk. We performed pairwise meta-analyses to compare differences between medications and network meta-analyses using frequentist random-effects models to compare through indirect evidence. We used surface under the cumulative ranking curve (SUCRA) and mean ranks to determine the probability of a DOAC ranking best in terms of fracture risk. Results: Thirty-one studies were included in the final analysis. Twenty-four randomized controlled trials and seven cohort studies with 455,343 patients were included in the systematic review and network meta-analysis. Compared to warfarin, the risk of any fractures was lowest with apixaban [relative risk (RR) = 0.59; 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.48-0.73], followed by rivaroxaban (RR: 0.72; 95% CI: 0.60-0.86), edoxaban (RR: 0.88; 95% CI: 0.62-1.23), and dabigatran (RR = 0.90; 95% CI: 0.75-1.07). No substantial inconsistency between direct and indirect evidence was detected for all outcomes. Conclusions: All DOACs were safer than warfarin concerning the risk of fracture; however, apixaban had the lowest relative risk of fracture within the class of DOACs. Further head-to-head prospective studies should confirm the comparative safety profiles of DOACs regarding fractures.

Lipoprotein(a) and Subclinical Vascular and Valvular Calcification on Cardiac Computed Tomography: The Atherosclerosis Risk in Communities Study.

Background Lipoprotein(a) (Lp(a)) is a potent causal risk factor for cardiovascular events and mortality. However, its relationship with subclinical atherosclerosis, as defined by arterial calcification, remains unclear. This study uses the ARIC (Atherosclerosis Risk in Communities Study) to evaluate the relationship between Lp(a) in middle age and measures of vascular and valvular calcification in older age. Methods and Results Lp(a) was measured at ARIC visit 4 (1996-1998), and coronary artery calcium (CAC), together with extracoronary calcification (including aortic valve calcium, aortic valve ring calcium, mitral valve calcification, and thoracic aortic calcification), was measured at visit 7 (2018-2019). Lp(a) was defined as elevated if >50 mg/dL and CAC/extracoronary calcification were defined as elevated if >100. Logistic and linear regression models were used to evaluate the association between Lp(a) and CAC/extracoronary calcification, with further stratification by race. The mean age of participants at visit 4 was 59.2 (SD 4.3) years, with 62.2% women. In multivariable adjusted analyses, elevated Lp(a) was associated with higher odds of elevated aortic valve calcium (adjusted odds ratio [aOR], 1.82; 95% CI, 1.34-2.47), CAC (aOR, 1.40; 95% CI, 1.08-1.81), aortic valve ring calcium (aOR, 1.36; 95% CI, 1.07-1.73), mitral valve calcification (aOR, 1.37; 95% CI, 1.06-1.78), and thoracic aortic calcification (aOR, 1.36; 95% CI, 1.05-1.77). Similar results were obtained when Lp(a) and CAC/extracoronary calcification were examined on continuous logarithmic scales. There was no significant difference in the association between Lp(a) and each measure of calcification by race or sex. Conclusions Elevated Lp(a) at middle age is significantly associated with vascular and valvular calcification in older age, represented by elevated CAC, aortic valve calcium, aortic valve ring calcium, mitral valve calcification, thoracic aortic calcification. Our findings encourage assessing Lp(a) levels in individuals with increased cardiovascular disease risk, with subsequent comprehensive vascular and valvular assessment where elevated.

Sex-and race-specific burden of aortic valve calcification among older adults without overt coronary heart disease: The Atherosclerosis Risk in Communities Study.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: The prevalence of aortic valve calcification (AVC) increases with age. However, the sex-and race-specific burden of AVC and associated cardiovascular risk factors among adults ≥75 years are not well studied. METHODS: We calculated the sex-and race-specific burden of AVC among 2283 older Black and White adults (mean age:80.5 [SD:4.3] years) without overt coronary heart disease from the Atherosclerosis Risk in Communities Study who underwent non-contrast cardiac-gated CT-imaging at visit 7 (2018-2019). Using Poisson regression with robust variance, we calculated the adjusted prevalence ratios (aPR) of the association of AVC with cardiovascular risk factors. RESULTS: The overall AVC prevalence was 44.8%, with White males having the highest prevalence at 58.2%. The prevalence was similar for Black males (40.5%), White females (38.9%), and Black females (36.8%). AVC prevalence increased significantly with age among all race-sex groups. The probability of any AVC at age 80 years was 55.4%, 40.0%, 37.3%, and 36.2% for White males, Black males, White females, and Black females, respectively. Among persons with prevalent AVC, White males had the highest median AVC score (100.9 Agatston Units [AU]), followed by Black males (68.5AU), White females (52.3AU), and Black females (46.5AU). After adjusting for cardiovascular risk factors, Black males (aPR:0.53; 95%CI:0.33-0.83), White females (aPR:0.68; 95%CI:0.61-0.77), and Black females (aPR:0.49; 95%CI:0.31-0.77) had lower AVC prevalence compared to White males. In addition, systolic blood pressure, non-HDL-cholesterol, and lipoprotein (a) were independently associated with AVC, with no significant race/sex interactions. CONCLUSIONS: AVC, although highly prevalent, was not universally present in this cohort of older adults. White males had ∼50-60% higher prevalence than other race-sex groups. Moreover, cardiovascular risk factors measured in older age showed significant association with AVC.

Nativity-Related Disparities in Preterm Birth and Cardiovascular Risk in a Multiracial U.S. Cohort.

INTRODUCTION: Having a preterm birth is associated with future cardiovascular risk. Non-Hispanic Black women have higher rates of preterm birth than non-Hispanic White and Hispanic women, but nativity-related disparities in preterm birth are not well understood. METHODS: Data from 6,096 women in the Boston Birth Cohort: non-Hispanic Black (2,699), non-Hispanic White (997), or Hispanic (2,400), were analyzed in June 2021. Differences in cardiovascular risk factors were assessed. The association of preterm birth with nativity and duration of U.S. residence were investigated using multivariable logistic regression. RESULTS: U.S.-born women in all 3 racial-ethnic groups had a higher prevalence of obesity, smoking, and severe stress than foreign-born women. Foreign-born non-Hispanic Black and Hispanic women had lower odds of preterm birth than U.S.-born counterparts (non-Hispanic Black: AOR=0.79, 95% CI=0.65, 0.97; Hispanic: AOR=0.72, 95% CI=0.56, 0.93). In all the 3 groups, foreign-born women with shorter (<10 years) duration of U.S. residence had lower odds of preterm birth than the U.S.-born women (non-Hispanic Black: AOR=0.57, 95% CI=0.43, 0.75; Hispanic: AOR=0.72, 95% CI=0.55, 0.94; non-Hispanic White: AOR=0.46, 95% CI=0.25, 0.85), whereas the odds of preterm birth in foreign-born women with ≥10 years of residence were not significantly different. CONCLUSIONS: Foreign-born women had better cardiovascular risk profiles in all groups and lower odds of preterm birth in non-Hispanic Black and Hispanic groups. In all the 3 groups, a shorter duration of U.S. residence was associated with lower odds of preterm birth. Further studies are needed to understand the biological and social determinants underlying these nativity-related disparities and the impact of acculturation.

Coronary Artery Calcium for Risk Stratification of Sudden Cardiac Death: The Coronary Artery Calcium Consortium.

BACKGROUND: Coronary artery calcium (CAC) is a marker of plaque burden. Whether CAC improves risk stratification for incident sudden cardiac death (SCD) beyond atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD) risk factors is unknown. OBJECTIVES: SCD is a common initial manifestation of coronary heart disease (CHD); however, SCD risk prediction remains elusive. METHODS: The authors studied 66,636 primary prevention patients from the CAC Consortium. Multivariable competing risks regression and C-statistics were used to assess the association between CAC and SCD, adjusting for demographics and traditional risk factors. RESULTS: The mean age was 54.4 years, 33% were women, 11% were of non-White ethnicity, and 55% had CAC >0. A total of 211 SCD events (0.3%) were observed during a median follow-up of 10.6 years, 91% occurring among those with baseline CAC >0. Compared with CAC = 0, there was a stepwise higher risk (P trend < 0.001) in SCD for CAC 100 to 399 (subdistribution hazard ratio [SHR]: 2.8; 95% CI: 1.6-5.0), CAC 400 to 999 (SHR: 4.0; 95% CI: 2.2-7.3), and CAC >1,000 (SHR: 4.9; 95% CI: 2.6-9.9). CAC provided incremental improvements in the C-statistic for the prediction of SCD among individuals with a 10-year risk <7.5% (ΔC-statistic = +0.046; P = 0.02) and 7.5% to 20% (ΔC-statistic = +0.069; P = 0.003), which were larger when compared with persons with a 10-year risk >20% (ΔC-statistic = +0.01; P = 0.54). CONCLUSIONS: Higher CAC burden strongly associates with incident SCD beyond traditional risk factors, particularly among primary prevention patients with low-intermediate risk. SCD risk stratification can be useful in the early stages of CHD through the measurement of CAC, identifying patients most likely to benefit from further downstream testing.