INTRODUCTION: To examine the prevalence and the changing pattern of e-cigarette use from preconception to pregnancy. AIMS AND METHODS: This is a cross-sectional study using data from the multi-site Pregnancy Risk Assessment Monitoring System in the United States, 2016-2017. All participating mothers with information on e-cigarette use before and during pregnancy were included. Self-reported information about e-cigarette use were assessed using questionnaires. Weighted prevalences of e-cigarette use before and during pregnancy were calculated. Multivariable logistic regressions were used to examine the association between various demographic characteristics and e-cigarette use before or during pregnancy. RESULTS: This study included 69 508 pregnant women from 38 states in the United States. The weighted prevalence of e-cigarette use before pregnancy and during the last 3 months of pregnancy was 3.6% (95% confidence interval [CI] 3.4%-3.9%) and 1.1% (0.9%-1.2%), respectively. The prevalence varied across states, ranging from 1.3% to 8.3% for e-cigarette use before pregnancy and from 0.1% to 3.4% for e-cigarette use during the last 3 months of pregnancy. Among women who used e-cigarettes before pregnancy, 24.4% (21.7%-27.1%) continued to use e-cigarettes during pregnancy. Among women who used e-cigarettes during pregnancy, 62.3% (56.5%-68.0%) were dual users. In multivariable analyses, cigarette smoking was most strongly associated with e-cigarette use. The adjusted odds ratio comparing smokers with nonsmokers before pregnancy was 11.10 (95% CI 9.34-13.20) for e-cigarette use before pregnancy and 6.72 (95% CI 4.38-10.31) for e-cigarette use during pregnancy. CONCLUSIONS: Using data from 38 states in the United States, we showed geographical variations in the prevalence of e-cigarette use before and during pregnancy. Among women who used e-cigarettes before pregnancy, a quarter of them continued to use e-cigarettes during pregnancy. Conventional cigarette use is a strong risk factor for e-cigarette use before and during pregnancy. The prevalence of e-cigarette use needs to be monitored continuously. IMPLICATIONS: This study provides important information to understand the status and changing patterns of e-cigarette use in pregnant women in the United States. Among pregnant women in 38 states in the United States, 3.6% of them used e-cigarettes during the 3 months before pregnancy and 1.1% used them during the last 3 months of pregnancy. The prevalence varied across states. A quarter of women who used e-cigarettes before pregnancy continued to use e-cigarettes during pregnancy. Cigarette smoking is the strongest predictor of e-cigarette use. Future research about health effects of e-cigarette use during pregnancy is in urgent need.
INTRODUCTION: To examine the prevalence and the changing pattern of e-cigarette use from preconception to pregnancy. AIMS AND METHODS: This is a cross-sectional study using data from the multi-site Pregnancy Risk Assessment Monitoring System in the United States, 2016-2017. All participating mothers with information on e-cigarette use before and during pregnancy were included. Self-reported information about e-cigarette use were assessed using questionnaires. Weighted prevalences of e-cigarette use before and during pregnancy were calculated. Multivariable logistic regressions were used to examine the association between various demographic characteristics and e-cigarette use before or during pregnancy. RESULTS: This study included 69 508 pregnant women from 38 states in the United States. The weighted prevalence of e-cigarette use before pregnancy and during the last 3 months of pregnancy was 3.6% (95% confidence interval [CI] 3.4%-3.9%) and 1.1% (0.9%-1.2%), respectively. The prevalence varied across states, ranging from 1.3% to 8.3% for e-cigarette use before pregnancy and from 0.1% to 3.4% for e-cigarette use during the last 3 months of pregnancy. Among women who used e-cigarettes before pregnancy, 24.4% (21.7%-27.1%) continued to use e-cigarettes during pregnancy. Among women who used e-cigarettes during pregnancy, 62.3% (56.5%-68.0%) were dual users. In multivariable analyses, cigarette smoking was most strongly associated with e-cigarette use. The adjusted odds ratio comparing smokers with nonsmokers before pregnancy was 11.10 (95% CI 9.34-13.20) for e-cigarette use before pregnancy and 6.72 (95% CI 4.38-10.31) for e-cigarette use during pregnancy. CONCLUSIONS: Using data from 38 states in the United States, we showed geographical variations in the prevalence of e-cigarette use before and during pregnancy. Among women who used e-cigarettes before pregnancy, a quarter of them continued to use e-cigarettes during pregnancy. Conventional cigarette use is a strong risk factor for e-cigarette use before and during pregnancy. The prevalence of e-cigarette use needs to be monitored continuously. IMPLICATIONS: This study provides important information to understand the status and changing patterns of e-cigarette use in pregnant women in the United States. Among pregnant women in 38 states in the United States, 3.6% of them used e-cigarettes during the 3 months before pregnancy and 1.1% used them during the last 3 months of pregnancy. The prevalence varied across states. A quarter of women who used e-cigarettes before pregnancy continued to use e-cigarettes during pregnancy. Cigarette smoking is the strongest predictor of e-cigarette use. Future research about health effects of e-cigarette use during pregnancy is in urgent need.
Authors: Holly B Shulman; Denise V D'Angelo; Leslie Harrison; Ruben A Smith; Lee Warner Journal: Am J Public Health Date: 2018-08-23 Impact factor: 9.308
Authors: Marcus R Orzabal; Emilie R Lunde-Young; Josue I Ramirez; Selene Y F Howe; Vishal D Naik; Jehoon Lee; Cristine L Heaps; David W Threadgill; Jayanth Ramadoss Journal: Transl Res Date: 2019-01-07 Impact factor: 7.012
Authors: Amelia V Wedel; Elise M Stevens; Neil Molina; Eleanor L S Leavens; Caroline Roberts; Theodore L Wagener Journal: J Okla State Med Assoc Date: 2018-10
Authors: Martha Kapaya; Denise V D'Angelo; Van T Tong; Lucinda England; Nan Ruffo; Shanna Cox; Lee Warner; Jennifer Bombard; Tanya Guthrie; Ayesha Lampkins; Brian A King Journal: MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep Date: 2019-03-01 Impact factor: 17.586
Authors: Sebastian Sailer; Giorgia Sebastiani; Vicente Andreu-Férnández; Oscar García-Algar Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health Date: 2019-12-14 Impact factor: 3.390
Authors: Laura R Stroud; George D Papandonatos; Nancy C Jao; Raymond Niaura; Stephen Buka; Neal L Benowitz Journal: Drug Alcohol Depend Date: 2022-02-17 Impact factor: 4.492