Journal: JAMA Network Open, 2025, doi: 10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2024.53987.
Authors: Erfan Tasdighi, Zhiqi Yao, Kunal K. Jha, Zeina A. Dardari, Ngozi Osuji, Tanuja Rajan, Ellen Boakye, … J. Blaha
Abstract:
Importance: Cardiovascular health outcomes associated with noncigarette tobacco products (cigar, pipe, and smokeless tobacco) remain unclear, yet such data are required for evidence-based regulation.
Objective: To investigate the association of noncigarette tobacco products with cardiovascular health outcomes.
Design, setting, and participants: This cohort study was conducted within the Cross Cohort Collaboration Tobacco Working Group by harmonizing tobacco-related data and conducting a pooled analysis from 15 US-based prospective cohorts with data on the use of at least 1 noncigarette tobacco product ranging between 1948 and 2015. The analysis for this study was conducted between September 2023 and February 2024. The median (IQR) follow-up time for the all-cause mortality outcome was 13.8 (10.2-19.2) years.
Exposure: Current, sole, and exclusive use of noncigarette tobacco products. Sole use refers to using a noncigarette tobacco product without currently smoking cigarettes. Exclusive use means using only the noncigarette tobacco product and never having smoked cigarettes.
Main outcomes and measures: Myocardial infarction, stroke, heart failure, atrial fibrillation, total coronary heart disease, total cardiovascular disease (CVD), coronary heart disease mortality, CVD mortality, and all-cause mortality.
Results: Of 103 642 participants (mean [SD] age, 55.7 [13.2] years; 49 550 female [47.8%] and 54 092 male [52.2%]), current use rates were 26 962 participants (26.3%) for cigarettes, 1147 participants (2.1%) for cigars, 530 participants (1.2%) for pipes, and 1410 participants (2.1%) for smokeless tobacco. Current cigar use was associated with stroke (hazard ratio [HR], 1.25; 95% CI, 1.01-1.55), atrial fibrillation (HR, 1.32; 95% CI, 1.13-1.53), and heart failure (HR, 1.29; 95% CI, 1.10-1.51) compared with never using cigars in the model adjusted for demographic and socioeconomic factors, cardiovascular risk factors, and cohort. Sole (HR, 1.34; 95% CI, 1.12-1.62) and exclusive (HR, 1.53; 95% CI, 1.20-1.96) cigar use was associated with stroke compared with never using cigars or cigarettes. Current pipe use was associated with heart failure (HR, 1.23; 95% CI, 1.01-1.49) compared with never using pipes, and sole pipe use was associated with myocardial infarction (HR, 1.43; 95% CI, 1.17-1.74) compared with never using pipes or cigarettes. Current use of smokeless tobacco was associated with coronary heart disease mortality (HR, 1.31; 95% CI, 1.08-1.59) and myocardial infarction (HR, 1.20; 95% CI, 1.03-1.39) compared with never using smokeless tobacco. Sole and exclusive smokeless tobacco use demonstrated associations with total CVD (HR, 1.34; 95% CI, 1.19-1.50 and HR, 1.34; 955 CI, 1.13-1.59, respectively), total coronary heart disease (HR, 1.41; 95% CI, 1.21-1.64 and HR, 1.36; 95% CI, 1.08-1.70, respectively), heart failure (HR, 1.41; 95% CI, 1.22-1.64 and HR, 1.70; 95% CI, 1.40-2.06, respectively), and cardiovascular (HR, 1.41; 95% CI, 1.20-1.65 and HR, 1.54; 95% CI, 1.24-1.91, respectively) and all-cause (HR, 1.46; 95% CI, 1.34-1.60 and HR, 1.39; 95% CI, 1.22-1.58, respectively) mortality compared with never using smokeless tobacco or cigarettes.
Conclusions and relevance: In this study, there were distinct risk patterns associated with the use of noncigarette tobacco products. These findings may carry implications for public health and regulation of noncigarette tobacco products.
To read the full text of the article, please visit the publisher’s website.
Journal: American Journal of Public Health, 2025, doi: 10.2105/AJPH.2024.307874
Authors: Todd Ebling, Sunday Azagba, Mark Hall, & Jessica King Jensen
Abstract:
Objectives: To provide a legal epidemiology review of state-level policies that regulate the direct delivery of recreational and medical cannabis in the United States.
Methods: We conducted a comprehensive review to identify all relevant policies as of July 1, 2024. Specifically, we developed a coding scheme to capture laws governing (1) direct delivery of recreational cannabis, (2) licensing for direct delivery of recreational cannabis, (3) direct delivery of medical cannabis to qualifying patients, and (4) medical cannabis delivery solely from caregivers to qualified patients.
Results: Fourteen states authorized the direct delivery of recreational cannabis to adults. Twenty-six states and the District of Columbia permitted the direct delivery of medical cannabis to qualifying patients. Twelve states allowed the delivery of medical cannabis to patients exclusively through caregivers. There were numerous variations in the licensing and authorization of recreational and medical cannabis delivery.
Conclusions: States varied in how the delivery of cannabis was regulated. Public Health Implications. A comprehensive review of state-level policies on cannabis delivery highlights the diverse approaches and their implications for recreational and medical cannabis access.
To read the full text of the article, please visit the publisher’s website.
Journal: International Journal of Neuropsychopharmacology, 2025, doi: 10.1093/ijnp/pyaf005
Authors: Mustafa Tuncturk, Shikha Kushwaha, Robin M. Heider, Tyler Oesterle, Richard Weinshilboum, & Ming-Fen Ho
Abstract:
Opioid use disorder (OUD) affects over 40 million people worldwide, creating significant social and economic burdens. Medication for opioid use disorder (MOUD) is often considered the primary treatment approach for OUD. MOUD, including methadone, buprenorphine, and naltrexone is effective for some, but its benefits may be limited by poor adherence to treatment recommendations. Immunopharmacotherapy offers an innovative approach by using vaccines to generate antibodies that neutralize opioids, blocking them from crossing the blood-brain barrier and reducing their psychoactive effects. To date, only three clinical trials for opioid vaccines have been published. While these studies demonstrated the potential of opioid vaccines for relapse prevention, there is currently no standardized protocol for evaluating their effectiveness. We have reviewed recent preclinical studies that demonstrated the efficacy of vaccines targeting opioids, including heroin, morphine, oxycodone, hydrocodone, and fentanyl. These studies showed that vaccines against opioids reduced drug reinforcement, decreased opioid-induced antinociception, and increased survival rates against lethal opioid doses. These studies also demonstrated the importance of vaccine formulation and the use of adjuvants in enhancing antibody production and specificity. Finally, we highlighted the strengths and concerns associated with the opioid vaccine treatment, including ethical considerations.
To read the full text of the article, please visit the publisher’s website.
Journal: Review Alcohol Research, 2025, doi: 10.35946/arcr.v45.1.02
Authors: Nina Moreno, & Roland S. Moore
Abstract:
Purpose: Sociocultural characteristics, including race/ethnicity and socioeconomic status (SES), may affect individuals’ attitudes and norms regarding alcohol use and treatment as well as their access to emerging health knowledge, innovative technologies, and general resources for improving health. As a result of these differences, as well as social determinants of health such as stigma and uneven enforcement, alcohol policies may not benefit all population subgroups equally. This review addresses research conducted within the last decade that examined differential effects of alcohol policies on alcohol consumption, alcohol harm, and alcohol treatment admissions across racial/ethnic and socioeconomic groups.
Search methods: The authors used the following Boolean phrase search terms to assess the association between race/ethnicity and outcomes: (“alcohol policy” OR “alcohol policies”) AND (“race” OR “ethnicity” OR “first nations” OR “African American” OR “Hispanic American” OR “Latino American” OR “Asian American” OR “Native American”). Association with SES was assessed using these terms: (“alcohol policy” OR “alcohol policies”) AND (“socioeconomic” OR “class”) AND (“effect” OR “impact” OR “outcome”). Both searches were conducted on August 28, 2023, using advanced search in seven EBSCOhost research databases: (1) EBSCO Biomedical Reference Collection: Corporate; (2) EBSCOhost E-Journals; (3) EBSCO MEDLINE Complete; (4) SocINDEX with Full Text; (5) APA PsycInfo; (6) LISTA (Library Information Sciences and Technology Abstracts); and (7) GreenFILE. Inclusion criteria for both searches were: (1) publication dates between 2014 and 2023; (2) peer-reviewed research articles; (3) data disaggregated by racial/ethnic and/or SES subgroups; and (4) English language only.
Search results: The racial/ethnic search produced 64 articles, of which 14 were reviewed as relevant to this study and 50 were excluded. The SES search generated 100 articles, of which 18 were reviewed as relevant to this study and 82 were excluded. Eight of the studies identified by these two searches overlapped (i.e., included both racial/ethnic and SES outcomes), resulting in a total of 24 articles included in this review.
Discussion and conclusions: Relying upon data from both U.S. and international research, the identified studies focused on differential effects of financially focused alcohol control policies (e.g., taxation and minimum unit pricing policies) as well as access/availability reduction policies (e.g., those governing outlet density, on-/off-premise sales, and establishment licensing). Several studies concluded that price increases via taxes or minimum unit pricing might be particularly effective in reducing the risk of alcohol-related harms in low-income/low-SES populations. Limitations of the present review include lack of standardization in the ways that SES was measured and the difficulty of measuring policy enforceability. Studies focused on differential effects of alcohol control policies across racial/ethnic groups demonstrated complex associations and the need to conduct further research that identifies better ways to reduce policy-induced health disparities across diverse populations.
To read the full text of the article, please visit the publisher’s website.