Evidence Hub

Health impacts of passive exposure to alternative tobacco products: a systematic review

Khouri PE, Yildiz B, Montoya M, Yashaeva L, Rosenfeld Y, Gushken F, Fidalgo TM, Braga M et al.

Respiratory medicine, 2026

12 participants

Abstract

OBJECTIVES: Electronic nicotine delivery systems (ENDS), waterpipe (hookah), heated tobacco products (HTPs), and bidis are increasingly used worldwide and are known to harm users. However, the health risks of passive (secondhand) exposure to these products remain poorly understood. We aimed to systematically review existing evidence on the health impacts of passive exposure to ENDS, waterpipe, HTPs, and bidis.

DATA SOURCES: We systematically searched CINAHL, Web of Science, Scopus, PubMed, Cochrane, and Embase (from inception to December 2024) for original human studies reporting clinical or biological effects of passive exposure to these products.

STUDY SELECTION: Eligible designs included RCTs, cohort, case-control, cross-sectional, and experimental studies.

DATA EXTRACTION: Two reviewers independently assessed risk of bias using an adapted Newcastle-Ottawa Scale, with study quality rated as good, fair, or poor.

DATA SYNTHESIS: Of 8810 articles identified, 20 met inclusion criteria (10 cross-sectional, 2 case-control, 7 experimental, 1 cohort). Most studies evaluated passive ENDS (n = 12; 5 good, 3 fair, 4 poor), showing associations with asthma, bronchitis, ear, nose and throat symptoms, mental health problems, and increased inflammatory markers. Waterpipe exposure (n = 6; 3 good, 2 fair, 1 poor) was linked to toxicant biomarkers and increased risk of COPD and childhood cancer. Only one study each (both poor quality) examined passive exposure to bidis (lung cancer) and…

How strong is the evidence?

Evidence Hub reads this as a systematic review, done in people. Its evidence level is 1 of 5 (Highest · pooled evidence). Pooled evidence from several studies sits at the top of the evidence pyramid. Reported size: 12 participants or records.

How the five levels of evidence work. The level is assigned automatically from the abstract and can be wrong, so check the paper.

Read the paper

Related studies

Go deeper in Evidence Hub

Evidence Hub adds a study data sheet (design, sample size, evidence level, key numbers), an AI summary and a chat grounded in the paper's text.

Open this study Sign up free