The University of Wisconsin (UW) has secured a $5.7 million grant from the National Institutes of Health (NIH) to conduct a five-year study examining the long-term impact of vaping on heart and lung health. Called “Vape Check,” the study aims to provide the most comprehensive evidence to date on how vaping affects cardiovascular and pulmonary systems and associated disease risks.
This collaborative effort involves the UW Health Preventive Cardiology Program and the UW Center for Tobacco Research and Intervention (UW-CTRI). Dr. James Stein, a professor of medicine and director of UW’s Atherosclerosis Imaging Research Program, is co-leading the project with Tim Baker, associate director of UW-CTRI and a clinical psychology expert.
Researchers will recruit 600 participants, including 400 adults who have vaped regularly for at least a year and 200 non-vaping, non-smoking control participants matched by age and gender. Over three years, participants will undergo periodic health assessments at UW–Madison, including testing for vital signs, biomarkers of inflammation and cardiometabolic health, and arterial health via ultrasound scans. Lung function will be evaluated through CT scans, and data on nicotine use and vaping patterns will be collected to understand their relationship with biological changes.
A common study design error repeated
A problematic area which stands out in the design of this study, is the fact that the requirements for the 400 vaping participants are simply to have vaped regularly for a year or more, and to not be current smokers. Their smoking history, a significant factor in this case since most vapers tend to be ex-smokers, is not going to be taken into account. This of course is ridiculous given that any cardiopulmonary damage found in these participants, would likely to have been caused by their previous smoking.
Of course it is widely known that respiratory conditions like chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) and bronchitis, commonly linked to smoking, result in significant health challenges, including reduced lung function, decreased physical activity, and increased hospitalizations. This study aimed to determine whether switching entirely to ECs could mitigate these symptoms compared to continued cigarette smoking.
To this effect, the research team analysed data from over 5,600 U.S. adults without pre-existing lung disease. Participants were classified based on their respiratory symptom severity, using a wheezing and nighttime cough index. The study compared outcomes among those who continued smoking, transitioned exclusively to ECs, or quit smoking altogether.
The research team found that smokers with moderate symptoms who switched to ECs were 31% more likely to see symptom improvement compared to those who continued smoking. While smokers who quit entirely had a 36% higher likelihood of improvement.
Dual use remains a topic of contention
The risk of worsening symptoms was lower for EC-only users and those who quit smoking, compared to those who continued using CCs. Dual users of both CCs and ECs showed no significant improvement, underscoring the importance of complete transitions to ECs for potential benefits. And as one might expect, among participants with severe symptoms, those who switched to ECs or quit smoking entirely demonstrated greater improvements than those who continued smoking.
The findings highlight once again the potential of ECs as a harm-reduction tool for smokers who cannot quit entirely, offering benefits akin to quitting smoking in the short term. However dual use, a topic which has always sparked controversy, appears to provide little advantage, reinforcing the need for complete cessation or exclusive EC use.
The research team pointed out that this study could not assess outcomes for individuals with the most severe respiratory symptoms due to missing data, and it did not explore long-term health effects of EC use. However, it does add to the growing body of evidence suggesting that while ECs are not without risks, they are a safer and viable option for smokers seeking to improve respiratory health.
The science is undeniable
While vaping has never been recommended for non smokers, scientific evidence from renowned researchers such as Cardiologist Dr. Konstantinos Farsalinos and Respiratory Physician Dr. Ricardo Polosa, underscores its undeniable decreased health risks in comparison to smoking. Studies by these experts and countless others, highlight significant improvements in cardiovascular and pulmonary health among smokers who switch to vaping.
Reduced exposure to harmful toxins in e-cigarettes leads to better respiratory function, improved vascular performance, and a decreased risk of smoking-related diseases. Though further long-term studies are essential, the current data strongly support vaping as a harm-reduction tool, offering smokers a viable pathway to improve their health while mitigating the severe effects of traditional cigarettes.
FMRI Differentiates Between The Effects of Smoking and Vaping on Lung Function
