Importance Electronic cigarette (e-cigarette) use in pregnancy has been steadily increasing and has been hyped as being a safe alternative to cigarette smoking during pregnancy. This review discloses what is currently known about e-cigarette use in pregnancy and the effects of its use on pregnancy outcomes. Objective To determine what is currently known about the prevalence of e-cigarette use in pregnancy and the effects of e-cigarette use on pregnancy and perinatal/neonatal outcomes. Evidence Acquisition A PubMed, CINAHL, and EMBASE search was undertaken using the search terms “pregnancy” OR “pregnancy complications” OR “pregnancy outcome” OR “newborn” OR “neonate” OR “birth” AND “electronic cigarettes” OR “e-cigarettes” OR “ecigarettes” OR “vaping” OR “vape.” The search was limited to the English language and between 2007 and October 12, 2017. Results The search identified 91 articles, 40 of which are the basis for this review. The prevalence of e-cigarette use is 0.6% to 15%. The amount of nicotine consumed by e-cigarette users is comparable to that consumed by cigarette smokers. Most of the animal model studies suggest a potential danger to the developing fetus primarily because of the nicotine consumed and that consumption has multiple effects on the immune system, neural development, lung function, and cardiac function. There is a widespread flawed perception that e-cigarettes are safe to use during pregnancy. Conclusions The marketing of e-cigarette use as a safer alternative to cigarette smoking has led to an increasing use even in pregnancy. The nicotine consumed by e-cigarettes is similar to that consumed by cigarette smoking. Animal studies confirm the dangers of nicotine to the developing fetus. More research needs to be done specifically assessing e-cigarette use, pregnancy, and pregnancy outcomes. Relevance The amount of nicotine consumed in cigarette smoking is similar to the amount of nicotine consumed with e-cigarettes. The effects of nicotine exposure during fetal development are well known and include effects on multiple organ systems. Target Audience Obstetricians and gynecologists, family physicians. Learning Objectives After completing this activity, the learner should be better able to determine the prevalence of e-cigarette use in pregnancy, analyze and compare the nicotine consumed with cigarette smoking versus the nicotine consumed with e-cigarette smoking, and evaluate the risk in animal studies of the consumption of nicotine on the developing fetus.

: Non-surgical treatments for cervical intraepithelial neoplasia 2/3 (CIN2/3) are needed as surgical treatments have been shown to double preterm delivery rate. The goal of this study was to demonstrate safety of a human papillomavirus (HPV) therapeutic vaccine called PepCan, which consists of four current good-manufacturing production-grade peptides covering the HPV type 16 E6 protein and skin test reagent as a novel adjuvant.: The study was a single-arm, single-institution, dose-escalation phase I clinical trial, and the patients (n = 24) were women with biopsy-proven CIN2/3. Four injections were administered intradermally every 3 weeks in limbs. Loop electrical excision procedure (LEEP) was performed 12 weeks after the last injection for treatment and histological analysis. Six subjects each were enrolled (50, 100, 250, and 500 μg per peptide). : The most common adverse events (AEs) were injection site reactions, and none of the patients experienced dose-limiting toxicities. The best histological response was seen at the 50 μg dose level with a regression rate of 83% (n = 6), and the overall rate was 52% (n = 23). Vaccine-induced immune responses to E6 were detected in 65% of recipients (significantly in 43%). Systemic T-helper type 1 (Th1) cells were significantly increased after four vaccinations ( = 0.02). : This study demonstrated that PepCan is safe. A significantly increased systemic level of Th1 cells suggests that which induces interleukin-12 (IL-12) , may have a Th1 promoting effect. A phase II clinical trial to assess the full effect of this vaccine is warranted.

The composition of transgenic DAS-68416-4 soybean seed and forage was compared with that of non-transgenic soybean. DAS-68416-4 soybean expresses the aryloxyalkanoate dioxygenase-12 enzyme from the soil bacterium, Delftia acidovorans, which detoxifies 2,4-dichlorophenoxyacetic acid (2,4-D), conferring tolerance to this herbicide. DAS-68416-4 also expresses the phosphinothricin acetyltransferase enzyme from Streptomyces viridochromogenes which confers tolerance to glufosinate-ammonium herbicides. As expected for an input trait, results indicate that DAS-68416 soybean is compositionally equivalent to non-transgenic soybean. Methods and Materials Field phase Ten field experiments were conducted in 2009 to produce soybean forage and seed for compositional analysis. Field sites were located in Lonoke,

No abstract