Abstract
Background
Tobacco smoking constitutes a primary cause of preventable cardiovascular and pulmonary diseases on a global scale. While smoking rates fall, e-cigarette use rises, especially in youth.
Objective
Assess effects of smoking, vaping, and dual use on lung function, exercise capacity and quality of life.
Methods
Participants were classified into five groups: Control, Cigarette use only, E-cigarettes use only, Ex-cigarette smoker current vaper, and Dual users (use of both e-cigarettes and combustible cigarettes). Participants performed spirometry, six minute walk test (6MWT) and completed health related quality of life (HRQoL) questionnaire.
Results
A total of 222 participants, 86.9% were male, with median age 26 years. Age and body mass index (BMI) showed no significant differences across groups. Cigarette-only and dual users reported 20 cigarettes/day with 5–7 years smoking duration, while e-cigarette use duration was 4–5 years among exclusive vapers, ex-smoker vapers, and dual users. Spirometry revealed impairments: Forced expiratory volume in the first second (FEV1; % predicted) was lower across groups versus controls (H = 80.69, df = 4, p < 0.001, η2 = 0.35), lowest in dual users. Forced vital capacity (FVC; L) showed no differences, while FVC (% predicted) decreased in smokers and dual users. FEV1/FVC ratio was reduced (H = 66.54, df = 4, p < 0.001, η2 = 0.29), most in dual users. 6MWT showed no group differences. HRQoL indicated decline in physical functioning (H = 35.11, p < 0.001, η2 = 0.14), role limitations due to physical health social functioning, and emotional wellbeing, lowest in cigarette-only and dual users.
Conclusion
Young adults using cigarettes and e-cigarettes showed impaired lung function and quality of life compared to never-users. Daily dual users showed the greatest declines, while former smokers using e-cigarettes showed intermediate outcomes. Exclusive e-cigarette users exhibited least impairment.
Keywords: cigarette smoking, dual use, electronic cigarettes, exercise test, forced expiratory volume, pulmonary function tests, quality of life, six-minute walk test
Introduction
Tobacco smoking is a worldwide problem, which is directly linked to chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), cancer, and cardiovascular disease (1). According to the World Health Organization (WHO), there are approximately 1.3 billion people who smoke tobacco globally, resulting in more than 8 million deaths each year from smoking-associated illnesses. This equates to one death every 6 s attributable to tobacco use (2). Electronic cigarettes (e-cigarettes), introduced in 2003, are a relatively new product on the market (3). E-cigarettes are battery-operated aerosol generators which heat a nicotine-containing solution (e-liquids) compared to burning tobacco such as in conventional cigarette smoking. These e-liquids contain various chemical components, including glycerol or propylene glycol, varying amounts of nicotine and flavorings such as aldehydes, pyrazines, menthol, menthone, and other minty compounds, the practice of using e-cigarettes is commonly known as vaping (4, 5).
In numerous countries, the prevalence of traditional cigarette smoking has decreased, while the use of e-cigarettes has risen across various age groups, particularly among adolescents and young adults (6–12). Recent data from high-income settings indicate that a substantial proportion of current e-cigarette users are former smokers, whereas a significant minority continue to use both products concurrently as dual users (13). Longitudinal and population-based surveys from the United Kingdom and the United States suggest that many individuals transition from smoking to exclusive vaping, yet a persistent segment maintains dual use, raising concerns about ongoing exposure to the toxicants of both products (6, 14). A recent Cochrane review reported high-certainty evidence that nicotine e-cigarettes increase smoking cessation rates compared with nicotine replacement therapy, with similar profiles of common adverse events, supporting their potential role as a cessation aid (15). Concurrently, the growing popularity of e-cigarettes as a perceived safer alternative, along with diverse flavors and greater social acceptability, has contributed to increased uptake among never-smokers, including young adults (11, 16, 17).
The detrimental impact of cigarette smoking is extensively documented, with prolonged use resulting in diminished pulmonary function, impaired exercise capacity, and reduced health-related quality of life due to dyspnea, deconditioning, and comorbidity burden (1). In contrast, the health implications of exclusive vaping and dual use remain less well-defined, particularly among younger populations (18). Existing research on e-cigarette users has yielded heterogeneous results, with some studies indicating reductions in spirometry indices and diffusing capacity of the lung for carbon monoxide (DLCO), while others have reported no significant impairment, often confounded by prior or concurrent smoking and relatively short exposure durations (19, 20). Evidence regarding exercise capacity and health-related quality of life (HRQoL) in exclusive vapers and dual users is even more limited. Emerging data suggest that both smoking and, to a lesser extent, vaping are associated with decreased physical performance and poorer HRQoL, particularly in the physical and mental health domains, with dual users frequently exhibiting the greatest symptom burden (21, 22). However, most available studies focus on older or mixed-age populations, and rarely provide direct comparisons between exclusive smokers, exclusive vapers, dual users, and never-users within the same cohort (7, 23–25).
These evidence gaps highlight the need for direct comparative data on lung function, exercise capacity, and HRQoL among young adults with varying patterns of tobacco and nicotine product use. This cross sectional study therefore aimed to evaluate the pulmonary function, exercise capacity, and quality of life among young adults with daily cigarette smoking, e-cigarette use, or dual use, compared to individuals who have never smoked or vaped.
Methods
Participants and assessment
A cross-sectional study was conducted between February 2022 and March 2025 at the Department of Respiratory Therapy, Batterjee Medical College (BMC), Jeddah, Saudi Arabia. Participants who met the inclusion criteria were enrolled and subsequently categorized into five groups according to their cigarette and e-cigarette use status. Demographic information and medical history were obtained at baseline. After baseline assessments, all participants underwent Pulmonary Function Testing (PFT), a Six-Minute Walk Test (6MWT), and completed a validated Health-Related Quality of Life (HRQoL) questionnaire.
Study protocol
Participants aged ≥18 years were recruited using a multi-modal strategy. Announcements were disseminated through the official communication channels of BMC and supplemented by outreach on social media platforms (Twitter, Facebook, and Snapchat) with digital advertisements highlighting study objectives, eligibility criteria, and contact information. Additional recruitment was conducted Via flyers in vape shops and community spaces frequented by smokers and vapers. To maximize participation, recruitment reminders and direct contact options were provided. Eligible participants were allocated into five groups.
Control group: individuals who had never smoked cigarettes or used e-cigarettes.
Cigarette-only group: daily cigarette smokers with a smoking history of ≥4 pack-years and no history of e-cigarette use (26). Pack year were calculated using standard pack year formula. Pack years = (number of cigarettes smoked per day ÷ 20) × years of smoking.
E-cigarette-only group: daily e-cigarette users for ≥4 years with no history of cigarette smoking.
Ex-cigarette smoker current vaper group: participants with a history of cigarette smoking but no cigarette use within the past year, and daily e-cigarette use for ≥4 years.
Dual-user group: participants who reported daily use of both cigarettes and e-cigarettes with a history of cigarette use ≥4 pack years and vaping for ≥4 years.
Participants were excluded if they had a history of unstable cardiopulmonary disease, such as uncontrolled hypertension, arrhythmias, ischemic heart disease, or heart failure. Individuals with any diagnosed acute or chronic respiratory conditions—including asthma, COPD, interstitial lung disease, pulmonary fibrosis, or respiratory infection within the previous 4 weeks, were also excluded. Additional exclusion criteria included current or past use of respiratory medications such as inhaled or systemic corticosteroids, bronchodilators, or leukotriene modifiers; neuromuscular disorders that could impair pulmonary function or exercise capacity (e.g., muscular dystrophy, myasthenia gravis); prior thoracic surgery or congenital lung abnormalities; and the use of inhaled substances other than cigarettes or e-cigarettes, such as shisha, or recreational inhalants.
All assessments were conducted in the same facility, with a standardized 30-min rest period between tests to minimize fatigue and ensure reliable measurements. A BMC College Clinic physician was available on site throughout the study to provide immediate medical support in the event of any emergencies.
Pulmonary function test
All participants underwent spirometry to evaluate pulmonary function, specifically measuring Forced Vital Capacity (FVC), Forced Expiratory Volume in the first second (FEV1), and the FEV1/FVC ratio. The results were reported in liters (L) and as percentages of predicted normal values (% predicted). Spirometry was conducted using a MasterScreen PFT system powered by SentrySuite Software (Vyaire Medical), adhering to the guidelines of the European Respiratory Society (ERS), and the American Thoracic Society (ATS) (27).
The participants were seated and wore a nose clip during the test. Following demonstration and coaching, participants executed a maximal inspiration to total lung capacity, succeeded by a forceful and rapid exhalation through a disposable mouthpiece until no further air could be expelled, with a minimum exhalation duration of 6 s followed by a rapid inspiration.
Six minute walk test
Participants underwent a six-minute walk test conducted in accordance with the American Thoracic Society (ATS) guidelines (28). The test was administered along a flat, indoor corridor measuring 30 m, with cones marking intervals of 1–3 m at turnaround points. Following the confirmation of eligibility and baseline vital signs, participants were instructed to walk as far as possible within a 6-min duration at a self-selected pace, explicitly avoiding running. Participants were permitted to decelerate or rest as necessary and were provided with time prompts at 1-min intervals. The timing commenced with the participant's first step and continued through any rest periods. Upon completion of the 6 min, participants ceased walking, and the total distance was calculated based on the number of completed laps plus any final partial lap. Heart rate, SpO2, and Borg dyspnea/fatigue scores were recorded both prior to and following the test.
Health-related quality of life
HRQoL was assessed using the RAND SF-36 questionnaire (29). It includes 36 items covering eight domains. Physical functioning (10 items), social functioning (two items), role limitation due to physical health problems (four items), role limitation due to emotional problems (four items), bodily pain (two items), emotional wellbeing (five items), general health perceptions (five items), and energy/fatigue (four items). A higher score indicated a healthier state, with scores for each domain ranging from zero (worst) to 100 (best).
Sample size
A priori power analysis was conducted using G*Power version 3.1.9.7 (30). Assuming a medium effect size (f = 0.25), an alpha level of 0.05, and 80% power, the estimated total sample size for a one-way ANOVA comparing five groups was approximately 200 participants (around 40 per group).
Ethical approval
This study was approved by the Institutional Ethical Committee at BMC (Approval No. RES 2022-0036). All procedures followed the ethical standards of the committee and the principles of the Declaration of Helsinki. Written informed consent was obtained from all participants prior to enrollment. Participation was voluntary, and individuals retained the right to withdraw at any stage. Confidentiality was maintained throughout, with all data anonymized and securely stored to ensure privacy and data protection
Statistical analysis
The Shapiro–Wilk test was used to assess normality. As the data were not normally distributed, continuous variables were presented as median and interquartile range (IQR), while categorical variables were summarized as frequencies and percentages (%). Group differences in continuous variables were analyzed using the Kruskal–Wallis test, with effect sizes reported as eta-squared (η2). Post-hoc pairwise comparisons were performed using Dunn's test with Bonferroni correction and adjusted p-value (Adj.p) were reported. A p-value ≤ 0.05 was considered statistically significant. Data analysis was conducted using SPSS software (version 25.0, IBM Corp., Armonk, NY, USA).
Results
Study population characteristics
A total of 250 individuals were screened for eligibility, of whom 28 were excluded (including those not meeting inclusion criteria and three participants who were unable to perform pulmonary function tests). Consequently, 222 participants were enrolled and analyzed across the five study groups (Figure 1). No significant differences were observed in age or BMI across groups. However, a significant difference in gender distribution was found among the groups (p = 0.007), with male participants comprising the majority in all groups (Table 1). The median number of cigarettes smoked per day was 20 (IQR 10) among cigarette-only users and dual users. The median smoking duration was 5 pack years (IQR 6) in cigarette-only users, 5.5 pack years (IQR 4) in ex-cigarette smoker current vapers, and 7 pack years (IQR 5) in dual users. The median duration of e-cigarette use was 5 years (IQR 1) in e-cigarette–only users, 4 years (IQR 1) in ex-cigarette smoker current vapers, and 4 years (IQR 2) in dual users; the corresponding median daily e-cigarette puffs per day were 150 (IQR 80), 180 (IQR 100), and 195 (IQR 140) respectively.
Figure 1.
Flowchart of data collection.
Table 1.
Socio-demographic data (n = 222).
| Parameters | Group 1 Control (n = 45) | Group 2 Cigarette use only (n = 45) | Group 3 E-cigarette use only (n = 44) | Group 4 Ex-cigarette smoker current vaper (n = 44) | Group 5 Dual user (n = 44) | p -value | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Gender n (%) | Male | 35 (77.8) | 42 (93.33) | 33 (75) | 42 (95.45) | 41 (93.18) | 0.007 |
| Female | 10 (22.2) | 3 (6.67) | 11 (25) | 2 (4.55) | 3 (6.82) | ||
| Age (years) Median (IQR) | 29 (7) | 30 (9) | 27 (5) | 27 (5) | 28 (6) | 0.06 | |
| BMI Kg/m2 Median (IQR) | 23.91 (4.23) | 25.15 (5.03) | 23.30 (7) | 23.91 (6.02) | 23.75 (4.58) | 0.83 | |
Pulmonary function test and 6MWT
Spirometry revealed mild to moderate obstructive patterns among cigarette-only users and dual users. FEV1 (L) was significantly reduced in cigarette-only users, ex-cigarette smoker current vapers, and dual users compared with controls (H = 35.36, df = 4, p < 0.001, η2 = 0.144, indicating a large effect). Similar reductions were observed for FEV1 (% predicted) across groups (H = 80.69, df = 4, p < 0.001, η2 = 0.35, also indicating a large effect), with dual users exhibiting the lowest values. FVC (L) did not differ significantly across groups (p = 0.24), however, FVC (% predicted) was modestly but significantly lower in smokers and dual users compared with controls (H = 17.84, df = 4, p = 0.001, η2 = 0.064, indicating a medium effect). The FEV1/FVC ratio was markedly reduced in cigarette-only users, ex-cigarette smoker current vapers, and dual users, with the greatest reduction observed among dual users (H = 66.54, df = 4, p < 0.001, η2 = 0.288, indicating a large effect; Table 2).
Table 2.
Pulmonary function test outcomes among control participants, cigarette users, E-cigarette users, ex-smokers currently vaping, and dual users (n = 222).
| Parameters | Group 1 Control (n = 45) | Group 2 Cigarette use only (n = 45) | Group 3 E-cigarette use only (n = 44) | Group 4 Ex-cigarette smoker current vaper (n = 44) | Group 5 Dual user (n = 44) | H statistics | p -value | η 2 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| FEV1 (L) | 3.7 (0.93) | 3.21 (0.84) | 3.34 (0.83) | 3.31 (0.92) | 3.07 (0.54) | 35.36 | <0.001 | 0.144 |
| FEV1 (% predicted) | 93 (12) | 78 (15) | 85 (15) | 80 (15) | 75 (9) | 80.69 | <0.001 | 0.35 |
| FVC (L) | 4.53 (1.09) | 4.06 (1.07) | 4.33 (1.51) | 4.19 (0.85) | 4.11 (1.28) | – | 0.24 | – |
| FVC (% predicted) | 92 (15) | 84 (15) | 92 (20.5) | 89 (14.5) | 87 (14.75) | 17.84 | 0.001 | 0.064 |
| FEV1/FVC (%) | 91 (11.05) | 81 (12) | 92.12 (15.9) | 77 (17.75) | 71.5 (16.25) | 66.54 | <0.001 | 0.288 |
Values are presented as Median (IQR).
Post-hoc pairwise comparisons (Dunn's test with Bonferroni correction) showed that the dual user group had significantly lower FEV1 (L) compared with, the control group (Adj.p < 0.001), the e-cigarette–only group (Adj.p = 0.03), and the ex-cigarette smoker current vaper group (Adj.p = 0.008; Figure 2A). Similarly, FEV1 (% predicted) was lower in dual users compared with all other groups: controls (p < 0.001), cigarette-only users (Adj.p = 0.02), e-cigarette–only users (Adj.p = 0.001), and ex-cigarette smoker current vapers (Adj.p < 0.001; Figure 2B). For the FEV1/FVC ratio, dual users showed significantly lower values compared with controls and e-cigarette–only users (both Adj.p < 0.001). Comparable reductions were also observed among cigarette-only users and ex- cigarette smoker current vapers when compared with controls and e-cigarette–only users (both Adj.p < 0.001; Figure 2C). The 6MWT showed no significant differences between groups for walking distance, dyspnea scores, SpO2, and heart rate (Table 3).
Figure 2.
Comparison of pulmonary function test between the groups. (A) FEV1 (L), (B) FEV1 (% predicted), and (C) FEV1/FVC ratio.
Table 3.
Six-minute walk distance and physiological responses in control participants, cigarette users, E-cigarette users, ex-smokers currently vaping, and dual users (n = 222).
| Parameters | Group 1 Control (n = 45) | Group 2 Cigarette use only (n = 45) | Group 3 E-cigarette use only (n = 44) | Group 4 Ex-cigarette smoker current vaper (n = 44) | Group 5 Dual user (n = 44) | p -value |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Walked distance (m) | 709.68 (60.19) | 697.44 (84.65) | 700.61 (87.85) | 708.55 (78.70) | 700.81 (84.24) | 0.18 |
| Dyspnea score post test | 0 (0) | 0 (0) | 0 (0) | 0 (0) | 0 (0) | 0.48 |
| Baseline SpO2 | 100 (1) | 99 (2) | 100 (1) | 100 (1) | 99 (1.75) | 0.14 |
| Post test SpO2 | 100 (1) | 100 (1) | 100 (1) | 100 (1) | 99.5 (1) | 0.92 |
| Baseline HR | 84 (19) | 83 (19) | 81 (20) | 86 (28) | 86.5 (20) | 0.86 |
| Post test HR | 103 (24) | 99 (36) | 106.5 (28) | 100.5 (22) | 103.5 (31) | 0.87 |
Values are presented as Median (IQR).
Health-related quality of life characteristics
The SF-36 questionnaire findings showed significant reductions in several domains across groups. Physical functioning was significantly lower (H = 35.11, df = 4, p < 0.001, η2 = 0.14) and social functioning (H = 35.11, df = 4, p < 0.001, η2 = 0.14) both demonstrating large effect sizes. Emotional wellbeing was also reduced (H = 19.51, df = 4, p = 0.001, η2 = 0.07) with a medium effect, whereas role limitations due to physical health showed a smaller but significant reduction (H = 10.33, df = 4, p = 0.03, η2 = 0.02). Dual users and cigarette-only users generally reported the lowest scores compared with controls, indicating reduced health-related quality of life. No significant differences were observed for role limitations due to emotional problems, energy/fatigue, pain, general health, or health change. In Table 4, the groups across the domains of the questionnaire were reported.
Table 4.
Comparison of health-related quality of life measures among control participants, cigarette users, E-cigarette users, ex-smokers currently vaping, and dual users (n = 222).
| Parameters | Group 1 Control (n = 45) | Group 2 Cigarette use only (n = 45) | Group 3 E-cigarette use only (n = 44) | Group 4 Ex-cigarette smoker current vaper (n = 44) | Group 5 Dual user (n = 44) | p -value |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Physical functioning | 100 (10) | 85 (20) | 90 (20) | 90 (15) | 90 (10) | <0.001 |
| Role limitations due to physical health | 95 (12.5) | 100 (25) | 92.5 (25) | 100 (25) | 80 (25) | 0.03 |
| Role limitation due to emotional problem | 90 (20) | 100 (30) | 97.5 (28.75) | 95 (27.5) | 80 (30) | 0.36 |
| Energy fatigue | 80 (15) | 80 (20) | 80 (23.75) | 75 (15) | 80 (13.45) | 0.12 |
| Emotional wellbeing | 90 (20) | 80 (23) | 80 (14.38) | 80 (16.25) | 78 (18) | 0.001 |
| Social function | 87.5 (12.5) | 80 (27.50) | 80 (23.75) | 87.5 (27.5) | 75 (16.88) | <0.001 |
| Pain | 90 (15) | 90 (22.50) | 97.50 (18.75) | 85 (22.50) | 90 (20) | 0.09 |
| General health | 85 (10) | 80 (12.5) | 80 (23.75) | 80 (20) | 80 (17.5) | 0.08 |
| Health change | 80 (25) | 75 (30) | 77.5 (13.75) | 75 (25) | 77.5 (10) | 0.39 |
Values are presented as Median (IQR).
The post-hoc analysis revealed significant group differences across several SF-36 domains. In the physical functioning domain, dual users had lower scores compared with controls (Adj.p < 0.001), cigarette-only users were lower than controls (Adj.p < 0.001), and ex-cigarette smoker current vapers were lower than controls (Adj.p = 0.04). For role limitations due to physical health, dual users scored significantly lower than e-cigarette–only users and ex-cigarette smoker current vapers (Adj.p = 0.049). In the emotional wellbeing domain, all groups showed reductions compared with controls: dual users (Adj.p = 0.003), cigarette-only users (Adj.p = 0.01), ex-cigarette smoker current vapers (Adj.p = 0.001), and e-cigarette–only users (Adj.p = 0.04). In social functioning, dual users had significantly lower scores compared with controls (Adj.p < 0.001), cigarette-only users (Adj.p = 0.006), e-cigarette–only users (Adj.p < 0.001), and ex-cigarette smoker current vapers (Adj.p = 0.002).
Discussion
The present investigation demonstrated clinically significant impairments in lung function and quality of life among young adults using cigarettes, with dual users showing the greatest decline. Both cigarette and dual users exhibited reduced FEV1 and FEV1/FVC ratios, accompanied by lower scores in physical functioning, role limitations due to physical health, emotional wellbeing, and social functioning compared with controls. Ex-smokers who currently vape showed similar patterns, whereas e-cigarette–only users displayed intermediate values without clinically significant reductions, suggesting that vaping alone may be less harmful than smoking but still associated with adverse respiratory and psychosocial outcomes.
The cumulative exposure to cigarette smoking over time contributes to a disproportionate decline in FEV1 relative to FVC, resulting in a reduced FEV1/FVC ratio (31, 32). Similarly, our study identified a significant decrease in FEV1, FEV1% predicted, and FEV1/FVC among current smokers. These physiological impairments align with the early trajectory of obstructive lung disease and highlight the measurable impact of smoking even in relatively young or asymptomatic populations (33).
Current evidence concerning the long-term impact of vaping on pulmonary function remains both limited and evolving. In a 3.5-year prospective observational study, Polosa et al. reported that individuals who exclusively used e-cigarettes daily exhibited no significant alterations in lung function when compared to never-smokers (34). Additionally, these individuals showed no pathological abnormalities on high-resolution computed tomography (HRCT) and did not consistently present respiratory symptoms. Conversely, Digambiro et al. identified significantly reduced forced expiratory volume in FEV1, FVC, and FEV1/FVC ratios in young adult e-cigarette users compared to non-smokers (35). However, the study did not specify whether the e-cigarette users were former or concurrent cigarette smokers, thereby limiting the interpretability of these findings. In this study, exclusive e-cigarette users showed higher FEV1, FEV1 % predicted, and FEV1/FVC ratios than cigarette-only and dual users, with FVC comparable to controls, indicating minimal pulmonary impairment. Additionally, ex-smokers who vape demonstrated intermediate lung function and quality of life scores, suggesting partial mitigation of prior smoking effects. These findings support the potential of exclusive e-cigarette use as a harm-reduction strategy, consistent with previous studies, while highlighting the need for further research on long-term safety and clinical outcomes (36–38).
Nicotine and chemical inhalation from cigarettes and e-cigarettes impairs oxygen uptake and utilization, reducing exercise capacity (39, 40). Dinkelo et al. found physical training was highest in never users, followed by vapers, smokers, and dual users (41). However, in the current study there were no significant differences in 6-MWT performance, possibly due to the young age and submaximal nature of testing. Reduced cardiopulmonary fitness from cigarette and e-cigarette use affects daily activities and thereby quality of life (12, 42). Physical functioning and role limitations due to physical health were significantly reduced among cigarette users, ex-smokers who vape, and dual users in our study. Emotional wellbeing and social function declined among user groups, though these outcomes may be influenced by various psychosocial factors like mental health conditions, social support, and stress (43, 44). Nevertheless, these variables were not assessed in our study.
Dual users, who often initiate e-cigarette use as a perceived safer alternative or to aid smoking cessation. However, people who use e-cigarettes end up using both possibly due to either higher nicotine dependence or dissatisfaction with lower levels of nicotine in the vape (45–47). In the current analysis, greatest impairments were observed in this group, FEV1 (% predicted) declined by 18.5% and FEV1/FVC by 21.42% compared with controls and modest FVC reductions, indicating predominantly obstructive changes. HRQoL was also most affected. These findings suggest that combined exposure to cigarettes and e-cigarettes may have additive or synergistic effects on respiratory and psychosocial health, highlighting a critical gap in long-term dual-use research.
This study has several limitations, including a predominantly male sample, a cross-sectional design precluding causal inference, and unmeasured potential confounders such as lifestyle, socioeconomic, and psychosocial factors. This study did not evaluate other potential sources of exposure, such as secondhand smoke, occupational pollutants, or environmental factors (e.g., biomass or charcoal exposure), which may contribute to residual confounding. Additionally, inflammatory and oxidative stress biomarkers were not assessed, limiting insights into systemic effects of cigarette and e-cigarette use.
Future longitudinal studies with larger, more diverse populations are needed to establish causality and improve generalizability. Adjusting for confounders and incorporating inflammatory and oxidative stress biomarkers would provide deeper insights into the systemic effects of cigarette and e-cigarette use.
Conclusion
This study observed that young adults who use cigarettes, e-cigarettes, and use of both exhibit varying degrees of impairment in lung function and HRQoL compared to those who have never used these products. Among the groups, daily dual users demonstrated the most significant deficits in respiratory and psychosocial health, whereas former smokers who currently use e-cigarettes and exclusive e-cigarette users exhibited intermediate and relatively better outcomes, respectively. These patterns represent associations observed in this cross-sectional sample and should not be construed as evidence of causality or reduced harm. Furthermore, the predominance of younger adult male participants limits the generalizability of the findings. Nonetheless, these results highlight the necessity for ongoing tobacco prevention efforts and public health education targeting all forms of tobacco and nicotine use, particularly the combined use of products, to enhance respiratory health and wellbeing among young adults.
Acknowledgments
The authors gratefully acknowledge the support of the Ongoing Research Funding Program (ORF-2025-1377), King Saud University, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia, for funding this research.
Funding Statement
The author(s) declared that financial support was received for this work and/or its publication. This research was funded by the Ongoing Research Funding Program (ORF-2025-1377), King Saud University, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia. The funder had no role in the study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.
Footnotes
Edited by: Rizwan Ullah, University of Virginia, United States
Reviewed by: Niharika Khanna, University of Maryland, United States
Zahira Altagracia Quinones, University of Rochester, United States
Data availability statement
The raw data supporting the conclusions of this article will be made available by the authors, without undue reservation.
Ethics statement
The studies involving humans were approved by Institutional Ethical Committee at Batterjee Medical College, Jeddah, Saudi Arabia. The studies were conducted in accordance with the local legislation and institutional requirements. The participants provided their written informed consent to participate in this study. Written informed consent was obtained from the individual(s) for the publication of any potentially identifiable images or data included in this article.
Author contributions
GK: Investigation, Writing – original draft, Writing – review & editing. AJ: Conceptualization, Data curation, Investigation, Writing – original draft. WR: Data curation, Formal analysis, Investigation, Writing – original draft. WA: Investigation, Methodology, Resources, Software, Writing – original draft. MM: Investigation, Methodology, Resources, Writing – original draft. BA: Investigation, Methodology, Resources, Writing – original draft. MH: Software, Supervision, Writing – review & editing. MA: Conceptualization, Supervision, Writing – review & editing. KA: Data curation, Supervision, Writing – review & editing. SA: Investigation, Project administration, Writing – review & editing. JS: Conceptualization, Supervision, Writing – review & editing. AA: Funding acquisition, Supervision, Writing – review & editing.
Conflict of interest
The author(s) declared that this work was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.
Generative AI statement
The author(s) declared that generative AI was not used in the creation of this manuscript.
Any alternative text (alt text) provided alongside figures in this article has been generated by Frontiers with the support of artificial intelligence and reasonable efforts have been made to ensure accuracy, including review by the authors wherever possible. If you identify any issues, please contact us.
Publisher's note
All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article, or claim that may be made by its manufacturer, is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.
Supplementary material
The Supplementary Material for this article can be found online at: https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fpubh.2025.1707230/full#supplementary-material
References
- 1.Rey-Brandariz J, Pérez-Ríos M, Ahluwalia JS, Beheshtian K, Fernández-Villar A, Represas-Represas C, et al. Tobacco patterns and risk of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease: results from a cross-sectional study. Arch Bronconeumol. (2023) 59:717–24. doi: 10.1016/j.arbres.2023.07.009 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 2.Lu W, Aarsand R, Schotte K, Han J, Lebedeva E, Tsoy E, et al. Tobacco and COPD: presenting the world health organization (WHO) tobacco knowledge summary. Respir Res. (2024) 25:338. doi: 10.1186/s12931-024-02961-5 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 3.Henningfield JE, Zaatari G. Electronic nicotine delivery systems: emerging science foundation for policy. Tob Control. (2010) 19:89–90. doi: 10.1136/tc.2009.035279 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 4.Lim H-H, Shin H-S. Measurement of aldehydes in replacement liquids of electronic cigarettes by headspace gas chromatography-mass spectrometry. Bull Korean Chem Soc. (2013) 34:2691–6. doi: 10.5012/bkcs.2013.34.9.2691 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
- 5.Hahn J, Monakhova YB, Hengen J, Kohl-Himmelseher M, Schüssler J, Hahn H, et al. Electronic cigarettes: overview of chemical composition and exposure estimation. Tob Induc Dis. (2014) 12:1–12. doi: 10.1186/s12971-014-0023-6 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 6.Schoenborn C, Gindi R. Electronic cigarette use among adults: United States, 2014. NCH Data Breif . (2014) 217:1–8. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 7.McNeil A, Brose L, Calder R, Hitchman S, Hajek P, McRobbie H. E-cigarettes: an evidence update. A report commissioned by Public Health England. Public Health England. (2015) 111:14–5. [Google Scholar]
- 8.Hammond D, Rynard VL, Reid JL. Changes in prevalence of vaping among youths in the United States, Canada, and England from 2017 to 2019. JAMA Pediatr. (2020) 174:797–800. doi: 10.1001/jamapediatrics.2020.0901 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 9.Dutra LM, Glantz SA. High international electronic cigarette use among never smoker adolescents. J Adolesc Health. (2014) 55:595–7. doi: 10.1016/j.jadohealth.2014.08.010 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 10.Cornelius ME, Loretan CG, Wang TW, Jamal A, Homa DM. Tobacco product use among adults—United States, 2020. Morb Mortal Wkly Rep. (2022) 71:397. doi: 10.15585/mmwr.mm7111a1 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 11.Althobaiti NK, Mahfouz MEM. Prevalence of electronic cigarette use in Saudi Arabia. Cureus. (2022) 14:e25731. doi: 10.7759/cureus.25731 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 12.Wang TW. Tobacco product use among adults—United States, 2017. MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep. (2018) 67:1225–1232. doi: 10.15585/mmwr.mm6744a2 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 13.Smoking Ao Health . Use of E-Cigarettes (Vapourisers) Among Adults in Great Britain. ASH Fact Sheet. London (2019). [Google Scholar]
- 14.Villarroel MA, Cha AE, Vahratian A. Electronic cigarette use among US adults, 2018. NCH Data Breif . (2020) 365:1–8. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 15.Lindson N, Butler AR, McRobbie H, Bullen C, Hajek P, Begh R, et al. Electronic cigarettes for smoking cessation. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. (2024) 1:CD010216. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD010216.pub8 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 16.Ayers JW, Leas EC, Allem J-P, Benton A, Dredze M, Althouse BM, et al. Why do people use electronic nicotine delivery systems (electronic cigarettes)? A content analysis of Twitter, 2012–2015. PloS One. (2017) 12:e0170702. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0170702 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 17.Hansen J, Hanewinkel R, Morgenstern M. Electronic cigarette marketing and smoking behaviour in adolescence: a cross-sectional study. ERJ Open Res. (2018) 4:00155–2018. doi: 10.1183/23120541.00155-2018 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 18.Tsai M, Byun MK, Shin J, Crotty Alexander LE. Effects of e-cigarettes and vaping devices on cardiac and pulmonary physiology. J Physiol. (2020) 598:5039–62. doi: 10.1113/JP279754 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 19.Antoniewicz L, Brynedal A, Hedman L, Lundbäck M, Bosson JA. Acute effects of electronic cigarette inhalation on the vasculature and the conducting airways. Cardiovasc Toxicol. (2019) 19:441–50. doi: 10.1007/s12012-019-09516-x [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 20.Meo SA, Ansary MA, Barayan FR, Almusallam AS, Almehaid AM, Alarifi NS, et al. Electronic cigarettes: impact on lung function and fractional exhaled nitric oxide among healthy adults. Am J Mens Health. (2019) 13:1557988318806073. doi: 10.1177/1557988318806073 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 21.Hajat C, Stein E, Shantikumar S, Niaura R, Ferrara P, Polosa R. A scoping review of studies on the health impact of electronic nicotine delivery systems. Intern Emerg Med. (2022) 17:241–68. doi: 10.1007/s11739-021-02835-4 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 22.Qureshi MA, Vernooij RW, La Rosa GRM, Polosa R, O'Leary R. Respiratory health effects of e-cigarette substitution for tobacco cigarettes: a systematic review. Harm Reduct J. (2023) 20:143. doi: 10.1186/s12954-023-00877-9 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 23.Nutt DJ, Phillips LD, Balfour D, Curran HV, Dockrell M, Foulds J, et al. Estimating the harms of nicotine-containing products using the MCDA approach. Eur Addict Res. (2014) 20:218–25. doi: 10.1159/000360220 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 24.Britton J, George J, Bauld L, Agrawal S, Moxham J, Arnott D, et al. A rational approach to e-cigarettes: challenging ERS policy on tobacco harm reduction. Eur Respir J. (2020) 55:e2000166. doi: 10.1183/13993003.00166-2020 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 25.Wang JB, Olgin JE, Nah G, Vittinghoff E, Cataldo JK, Pletcher MJ, et al. Cigarette and e-cigarette dual use and risk of cardiopulmonary symptoms in the health eHeart study. PloS One. (2018) 13:e0198681. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0198681 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 26.Rosewich M, Schulze J, Eickmeier O, Adler S, Rose MA, Schubert R, et al. Early impact of smoking on lung function, health, and well-being in adolescents. Pediatr Pulmonol. (2012) 47:692–9. doi: 10.1002/ppul.21602 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 27.Stanojevic S, Kaminsky DA, Miller MR, Thompson B, Aliverti A, Barjaktarevic I, et al. ERS/ATS technical standard on interpretive strategies for routine lung function tests. Eur Respir J. (2022) 60:2101499. doi: 10.1183/13993003.01499-2021 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 28.Laboratories ACoPSfCPF. ATS statement: guidelines for the six-minute walk test. Am J Respir Crit Care Med. (2002) 166:111–7. doi: 10.1164/ajrccm.166.1.at1102 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 29.Hays RD, Sherbourne CD, Mazel RM. The rand 36-item health survey 1.0. Health Econ. (1993) 2:217–27. doi: 10.1002/hec.4730020305 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 30.Faul F, Erdfelder E, Lang A-G, Buchner A. G* Power 3: a flexible statistical power analysis program for the social, behavioral, and biomedical sciences. Behav Res Methods. (2007) 39:175–91. doi: 10.3758/BF03193146 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 31.Lee PN, Fry JS. Systematic review of the evidence relating FEV1decline to giving up smoking. BMC Med. (2010) 8:84. doi: 10.1186/1741-7015-8-84 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 32.Wang Z, Qiu Y, Ji X, Dong L. Effects of smoking cessation on individuals with COPD: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Front Public Health. (2024) 12:1433269. doi: 10.3389/fpubh.2024.1433269 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 33.Sato K, Shibata Y, Inoue S, Igarashi A, Tokairin Y, Yamauchi K, et al. Impact of cigarette smoking on decline in forced expiratory volume in 1 s relative to severity of airflow obstruction in a Japanese general population: the Yamagata-Takahata study. Respir Investig. (2018) 56:120–7. doi: 10.1016/j.resinv.2017.11.011 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 34.Polosa R, Cibella F, Caponnetto P, Maglia M, Prosperini U, Russo C, et al. Health impact of E-cigarettes: a prospective 3.5-year study of regular daily users who have never smoked. Sci Rep. (2017) 7:13825. doi: 10.1038/s41598-017-14043-2 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 35.Digambiro RA, Parwanto E, Tjahjadi D, Ditriana D. Analysis of pulmonary function between E-cigarette users and non-smokers aged 20–30 years in Jakarta. J Respirol Indones. (2025) 45:127–35. doi: 10.36497/jri.v45i2.791 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
- 36.Cibella F, Campagna D, Caponnetto P, Amaradio MD, Caruso M, Russo C, et al. Lung function and respiratory symptoms in a randomized smoking cessation trial of electronic cigarettes. Clin Sci. (2016) 130:1929–37. doi: 10.1042/CS20160268 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 37.Polosa R, Morjaria JB, Caponnetto P, Caruso M, Campagna D, Amaradio MD, et al. Persisting long term benefits of smoking abstinence and reduction in asthmatic smokers who have switched to electronic cigarettes. Discov Med. (2016) 21:99–108. doi: 10.2147/COPD.S161138 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 38.Polosa R, Morjaria JB, Prosperini U, Busà B, Pennisi A, Malerba M, et al. COPD smokers who switched to e-cigarettes: health outcomes at 5-year follow up. Ther Adv Chronic Dis. (2020) 11:2040622320961617. doi: 10.1177/2040622320961617 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 39.Macera CA, Aralis HJ, MacGregor AJ, Rauh MJ, Han PP, Galarneau MR. Cigarette smoking, body mass index, and physical fitness changes among male navy personnel. Nicotine Tob Res. (2011) 13:965–71. doi: 10.1093/ntr/ntr104 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 40.Pintican D, Mihu D. Influence of smoking on exercise capacity. Palestrica Millenni III. (2015) 16:164–71. [Google Scholar]
- 41.Dinkeloo E, Grier TL, Brooks RD, Jones BH. Vaping, smoking, and the physical fitness of active young men. Am J Prev Med. (2020) 58:e31–e7. doi: 10.1016/j.amepre.2019.08.015 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 42.Wang MP, Ho SY, Leung LT, Lam TH. Electronic cigarette use and respiratory symptoms in Chinese adolescents in Hong Kong. JAMA Pediatr. (2016) 170:89–91. doi: 10.1001/jamapediatrics.2015.3024 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 43.Becker TD, Arnold MK, Ro V, Martin L, Rice TR. Systematic review of electronic cigarette use (vaping) and mental health comorbidity among adolescents and young adults. Nicotine Tob Res. (2021) 23:415–25. doi: 10.1093/ntr/ntaa171 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 44.Heiligenstein E, Smith SS. Smoking and mental health problems in treatment-seeking university students. Nicotine Tob Res. (2006) 8:519–23. doi: 10.1080/14622200600789718 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 45.Bullen C, McRobbie H, Thornley S, Glover M, Lin R, Laugesen M. Effect of an electronic nicotine delivery device (e cigarette) on desire to smoke and withdrawal, user preferences and nicotine delivery: randomised cross-over trial. Tob Control. (2010) 19:98–103. doi: 10.1136/tc.2009.031567 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 46.Vansickel AR, Cobb CO, Weaver MF, Eissenberg TE. A clinical laboratory model for evaluating the acute effects of electronic “cigarettes”: nicotine delivery profile and cardiovascular and subjective effects. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev. (2010) 19:1945–53. doi: 10.1158/1055-9965.EPI-10-0288 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 47.Benowitz NL, Donny EC, Hatsukami DK. Reduced nicotine content cigarettes, e-cigarettes and the cigarette end game. Addiction. (2017) 112:6. doi: 10.1111/add.13534 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
Associated Data
This section collects any data citations, data availability statements, or supplementary materials included in this article.
Supplementary Materials
Data Availability Statement
The raw data supporting the conclusions of this article will be made available by the authors, without undue reservation.