In this case-control study of marijuana smokers, nonsmokers, and tobacco-only smokers, smoking marijuana was associated with paraseptal emphysema, bronchiectasis, bronchial wall thickening, and airway mucoid impaction.
Key Results
■ In this retrospective case-control study analyzing chest CT findings in 56 marijuana smokers, 57 nonsmokers, and 33 tobacco-only smokers, marijuana smokers had higher rates of airway changes than did tobacco-only smokers or nonsmokers (P < .001 to P = .04).
■ Emphysema was more common in marijuana smokers than in nonsmokers (75% vs 5%, P < .001) and in age- and sex-matched marijuana smokers than in tobacco-only smokers (93% vs 67%, P = .009); the paraseptal subtype of emphysema was predominant in marijuana smokers.
Introduction
Marijuana is the most widely used illicit psychoactive substance in the world (1) and the second-most commonly smoked substance after tobacco (2). Its use has increased in Canada since the legalization of nonmedical marijuana in 2018. In 2020, 20% of the population in Canada aged at least 15 years reported having used marijuana in the previous 3 months compared with 14% of the population before marijuana legalization (3). In the United States, the percentage of all adults reporting marijuana use within the previous year rose from 6.7% in 2005 to 12.9% in 2015 (4).
Marijuana is consumed via multiple routes, including smoking, vaporizing, and eating, with inhaled methods being the most common (5). It may be smoked by itself or mixed with tobacco. It is usually smoked without a filter, and users inhale larger volumes with a longer breath hold compared with tobacco smokers (6). For measures of airflow obstruction, one marijuana joint can produce an effect similar to that of 2.5–5.0 tobacco cigarettes (7). Marijuana smoke contains known carcinogens and other chemicals associated with respiratory diseases (8).
Numerous studies have focused on the relationship of marijuana to pulmonary function tests, symptoms, and lung cancer. Two recent systematic reviews (2,9) determined that heavy marijuana use can lead to respiratory symptoms similar to those in tobacco smokers, including cough, sputum production, and wheeze. These are likely related to inflammation of the tracheobronchial mucosa (10) and mucus hypersecretion (11). One study posits that although marijuana causes bronchitis in current users, it does not lead to irreversible airway damage (6). The relationship of marijuana use to pulmonary function test results and lung cancer occurrence is described as equivocal, and both review studies comment on the possibility of the bronchodilatory effect of chronic marijuana smoking leading to a long-term increase in forced vital capacity, a trend also observed in a large population-based cohort study (12). Pulmonary function tests also indicate central airway inflammation in marijuana smokers (6).
To our knowledge, only two previous studies (7,13) have evaluated lung imaging findings in marijuana smokers and neither could establish a clear association between marijuana smoking and emphysema. Other studies investigating this relationship have been case reports and small case series, with little ability to draw clinically relevant conclusions. Other possible lung imaging findings associated with marijuana smoking, such as bronchiectasis, have not been studied.
The purpose of this study was to use chest CT to investigate the effects of marijuana smoking on the lung. We sought to determine if there were identifiable sequelae on chest CT images, including emphysema and signs of airway inflammation.
Materials and Methods
Patients
This retrospective case-control study was performed with approval and waiver of informed consent from the local institutional review board. We included chest CT studies obtained prior to November 2020 at The Ottawa Hospital, a tertiary care center, and its affiliate hospitals. Patients were assigned to one of the following three groups: marijuana smokers, nonsmoker control patients, or tobacco-only smokers.
Marijuana smokers.—Cases were identified by searching for the terms marijuana and cannabis in The Ottawa Hospital picture archiving and communications system, and results were filtered to include only those in which chest CT was performed. Charts were reviewed to assess the frequency and duration of marijuana use, as well as for concomitant tobacco use. A total of 56 marijuana smokers were identified with chest CT performed between October 2005 and July 2020. Patient ages were sorted into 5-year age blocks (15–19 years, 20–24 years, 25–30 years, etc), and the number of men and women in each age category was determined. Marijuana consumption was quantified using the conversion of 0.32 g of marijuana per joint, as described by Ridgeway et al (14).
Nonsmoker control patients.—The pool of control patients was identified by searching for the phrase sarcoma initial staging in The Ottawa Hospital picture archiving and communications system. Initial staging chest CT of patients with newly diagnosed sarcoma and without history of smoking, lung disease, or chemotherapy was chosen. Patient charts were reviewed for use of marijuana or tobacco. In the case of marijuana smokers, the patient was excluded from the nonsmoker control group and added to the marijuana smoker group. New control patients were then selected. If the patient smoked only tobacco, he or she was not included in the nonsmoker control group. Fifty-seven control patients were identified with chest CT performed between April 2010 and October 2019. Control subjects were sorted into 5-year age blocks, and an appropriate age- and sex-matched subgroup was created.
Tobacco-only smokers.—The pool of tobacco-only smokers included patients with a chest CT examination performed as part of the high-risk lung cancer screening program (minimum age, 50 years; smoking history, >25 pack-years). Tobacco-only smokers were selected in a similar manner to those in the nonsmoker control group. Patient charts were reviewed for use of marijuana. If marijuana use was identified, the patient was excluded and added to the group of marijuana smokers, and a new patient was selected. Thirty-three tobacco-only smokers were identified with chest CT performed between April and June 2019.
Age- and sex-matched subgroups.—Because the tobacco smoker group included only patients aged at least 50 years, similarly aged patients in the marijuana smoker group and the nonsmoker control group were included in the subgroup analysis.
Image Analysis
Chest CT studies were obtained with different multidetector scanners with a section thickness of 2 mm or less. Intravenous iopamidol (Isovue; Bracco Imaging) was used in contrast-enhanced studies. The typical volumetric CT dose index and dose-length product for contrast-enhanced studies were 5.7 mGy and 238.5 mGy · cm, respectively. All images from chest CT studies were reviewed separately by two thoracic fellowship-trained radiologists (G.R., P.S.; 10 and 3 years of experience, respectively), who were blinded to clinical history (ie, marijuana and tobacco use) and other imaging findings. To assess interobserver variability, CT images from 30 patients (10 patients from each group) were reviewed initially. Final statistical analyses were performed on imaging findings obtained using consensus reads involving both radiologists on the entire study population of 146 patients. Lung findings assessed were (a) emphysema and (b) airway changes.
Emphysema.—The predominant pattern of emphysema (paraseptal or centrilobular) was recorded in accordance with Fleischner society descriptions (15).
Airway changes.—Bronchiectasis and bronchial wall thickening (Fig 3A) in accordance with descriptions by Ooi et al (16) and mucoid impaction presence or absence were recorded. The presence or absence of inflammatory small airway disease, in the form of centrilobular nodular opacities (15), also was recorded. Air trapping was not assessed because expiratory acquisitions were not available for all patients.
Figure 1: Flowchart shows patient inclusion and exclusion criteria for this study. Subgroups were created by age and sex matching to the tobacco-only cohort (who were taken from the high-risk lung cancer screening program; to qualify for screening, these patients needed to be 50 years or older). Any patients 50 years or older in the marijuana smoker or nonsmoker main groups were included in the subgroup analysis. Patients younger than 50 years in the marijuana smoker or nonsmoker main groups were excluded from subgroup analysis.
Figure 1:
Figure 2: Airway changes in a 66-year-old male marijuana and tobacco smoker. Contrast-enhanced (A) axial and (B) coronal CT images show cylindrical bronchiectasis and bronchial wall thickening (arrowheads) in multiple lung lobes bilaterally in a background of paraseptal (arrows) and centrilobular emphysema.
Figure 2:
Figure 3: Pulmonary emphysema in (A, B) marijuana and (C, D) tobacco smokers. (A) Axial and (B) coronal CT images in a 44-year-old male marijuana smoker show paraseptal emphysema (arrowheads) in bilateral upper lobes. (C) Axial and (D) coronal CT images in a 66-year-old female tobacco smoker with centrilobular emphysema represented by areas of centrilobular lucency (arrowheads).
Figure 3:
Non–lung-related findings.—Gynecomastia was recorded with a cutoff dimension of 22 mm of breast tissue (17). Coronary artery calcification was evaluated using the ordinal scoring method previously used by Shemesh et al (18), and a score of 0–12 was recorded for each patient.
Statistical Analyses
Interobserver agreement was evaluated using the Cohen κ statistic. Results were analyzed using χ2 tests to assess for significant differences in rates of emphysema, bronchiectasis, bronchial wall thickening, mucoid impaction, gynecomastia, and coronary artery disease between groups of marijuana smokers, tobacco smokers, and control patients; statistical significance was set at P < .05. Marijuana smokers were compared with control subjects in the main group analysis, and they were compared with both tobacco smokers and control patients in the subgroup analysis. The χ2 tests were performed using an online statistics calculator (https://www.socscistatistics.com/).
Results
Patient Characteristics
A total of 56 marijuana smokers (mean age, 49 years ± 14 [SD]; 34 male, 22 female) and 57 control patients (mean age, 49 years ± 14; 32 male, 25 female) were identified. Patients older than 50 years were included in subgroups for comparison with those who only smoked tobacco; subgroups consisted of 30 marijuana smokers (mean age, 60 years ± 6; 23 male, seven female), 29 control patients (mean age, 61 years ± 6; 17 male, 12 female), and 33 tobacco-only smokers (mean age, 60 years ± 6; 18 male, 15 female). Patient selection criteria are summarized in Figure 1, and patient characteristics are summarized in Table 1.
Table 1: Patient Characteristics
Our ability to quantify marijuana use was limited, with a daily amount specified in only 28 of 56 patients; average marijuana consumption among these patients was 1.85 g per day (range, 0.25–9.25 g per day). There were 50 of 56 marijuana-smokers who also smoked tobacco, with pack-year data specified in only 47 patients; average smoking history was 25 pack-years (range, 0–100 pack-years) (14).
For tobacco-only smokers, average smoking history was 40 pack-years (range, 25–105 pack-years).
Interobserver Agreement
For the analysis of 30 patients, interobserver agreement between the two readers was fair for assessment of bronchiectasis (κ = 0.27), moderate for assessment of bronchial wall thickening (κ = 0.49), substantial for assessment of emphysema (κ = 0.79), and strong for assessment of mucoid impaction (κ = 0.84).
Marijuana Smokers versus Nonsmoker Controls
There were differences in rates of emphysema (both paraseptal and centrilobular) (75% vs 5%, P < .001), bronchial thickening (64% vs 11%, P < .001), bronchiectasis (23% vs 4%, P = .002), and mucoid impaction (46% vs 2%, P < .001) between marijuana smokers and nonsmoker control patients, respectively. No patient had pneumothorax.
Subgroup analysis demonstrated differences in frequency of bronchial thickening (83% vs 21%, P < .001), bronchiectasis (33% vs 7%, P = .012) and mucoid impaction (67% vs 3%, P < .001) between marijuana smokers and nonsmoker control patients, respectively.
Centrilobular nodules were observed in 18% of marijuana smokers while no nonsmoker control patients exhibited this finding (P < .001). Gynecomastia was significantly more common in marijuana smokers than in nonsmoker control patients (38% vs 16%, P = .04). While there was a difference in coronary artery calcification rates between marijuana smokers and nonsmoker control patients (43% vs 26%,), this did not reach statistical significance (P = .06).
Marijuana Smokers versus Tobacco-only Smokers
Differences in bronchial thickening (64% vs 42%, P = .04), bronchiectasis (23% vs 6%, P = .04), and mucoid impaction (46% vs 15%, P = .003) were seen in the non–age-matched marijuana group compared with the tobacco-only group. Subgroup analysis again demonstrated significant differences in rates of bronchial thickening (83% vs 42%, P < .001), bronchiectasis (33% vs 6%, P = .006), and mucoid impaction (67% vs 15%, P < .001) in marijuana smokers compared with tobacco-only smokers. Figure 2 demonstrates CT findings of airway changes in a combined marijuana and tobacco smoker. Variable interobserver agreement limits our ability to draw strong conclusions about bronchial wall thickening and bronchiectasis.
We found no difference between the overall rates of emphysema (including both paraseptal and centrilobular emphysema) when comparing non–age-matched marijuana smokers and tobacco-only smokers (75% vs 67%, P = .40); however, higher rates of emphysema were noted when the age-matched marijuana group was compared with the tobacco-only group (93% vs 67%, P = .01). Also, a significant difference in a paraseptal predominant pattern of emphysema was seen in the marijuana smokers compared with the tobacco-only smokers (57% vs 24%, P = .009) (Fig 3), while we found no evidence of a difference in the proportion of those with a centrilobular pattern (37% vs 39%, P = .82). Rates of the key CT findings in each cohort are summarized for the main group in Table 2 and for the subgroup in Table 3.
Table 2: Rates of Thoracic CT Findings among Marijuana Smokers, Nonsmoker Control Patients, and Tobacco Smokers (Main Groups)
Table 3: Rates of Thoracic CT Findings among Marijuana Smokers, Nonsmoker Control Patients, and Tobacco Smokers (Age- and Sex-matched Subgroups)
Discussion
In this era of legalization and increasing consumption of marijuana, we sought to identify the imaging features of marijuana smoking on chest CT scans. We found higher rates of emphysema among marijuana smokers (42 of 56, 75%) than among nonsmokers (three of 57, 5%) (P < .001) and among age-matched marijuana smokers (28 of 30, 93%) than among tobacco-only smokers (22 of 33, 67%) (P = .009). Paraseptal emphysema was more predominant in marijuana smokers (27 of 56, 48%) than in tobacco-only smokers (eight of 33, 24%) (P = .03) and in age-matched marijuana smokers (17 of 30, 57%) than in tobacco-only smokers (eight of 33, 24%) (P = .009). Markers of airway inflammation were higher among marijuana smokers than among other groups for both non–age-matched and age-matched subgroup comparisons (P < .001 to P = .04). Gynecomastia was more common in marijuana smokers (13 of 34, 38%) than in control patients (five of 32, 16%) (P = .039) or tobacco-only smokers (two of 18, 11%) (P = .04). There was no evident difference in the presence of coronary artery calcification between age-matched marijuana smokers (21 of 30, 70%) and tobacco-only smokers (28 of 33, 85%) (P = .16).
It has been posited that certain maneuvers performed by marijuana smokers, such as full inhalation with a sustained Valsalva maneuver, may lead to microbarotrauma and peripheral airspace changes, such as apical bullae. In our study, paraseptal emphysema was the predominant pattern seen in marijuana smokers, while centrilobular emphysema was the predominant pattern seen in tobacco-only smokers. This may represent an earlier stage of apical bulla formation reported in marijuana smokers (19,20) and may explain the absence of the typical pulmonary function test changes of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease in marijuana smokers. The χ2 tests revealed similar overall rates of emphysema in the non–age-matched marijuana smoker group and the tobacco-only smoker groups and higher rates of emphysema among age-matched marijuana smokers compared with tobacco-only smokers. This is in contradistinction to a study by Ruppert et al (21), which showed similar prevalence of emphysema among 38 tobacco-only smokers and 32 tobacco and marijuana smokers but occurrence of emphysema in the latter group at a younger age. We were not able to establish a definite association between marijuana smoking and emphysema or bullous disease. Causality needs to be further examined in larger patient cohorts with prospective accurate quantification data, given the increasing body of evidence suggesting an association between smoking marijuana and spontaneous pneumothorax (22,23).
Bronchiectasis, bronchial wall thickening, and mucoid impaction are CT indicators of airway inflammation. Our findings suggest that smoking marijuana leads to chronic bronchitis in addition to the airway changes associated with smoking tobacco. This is especially striking given the extensive smoking history of patients in the tobacco-only group (smoking history, 25–100 pack-years). In addition, our results were still significant when comparing the non–age-matched groups, including younger patients who smoked marijuana and who presumably had less lifetime exposure to cigarette smoke. Further studies in larger cohorts are needed to better define imaging correlates of airway inflammation and chronic bronchitis that have been described in association with marijuana smoking in previous clinical studies and systematic literature reviews (2,24).
Poorly defined centrilobular ground-glass nodules can denote inflammatory small airway disease corresponding to the entity of respiratory bronchiolitis characterized by accumulation of pigmented histiocytes adjacent to respiratory bronchioles and alveolar ducts and sacs. This finding is commonly related to cigarette smoking (25,26) but can be related to inhalation of a variety of toxic particles (15). A histopathologic study comparing 10 marijuana smokers with five tobacco smokers and five nonsmokers reported that marijuana smoking was associated with massive intra-alveolar accumulation of pigmented histiocytes evenly throughout the pulmonary parenchyma, assumed to be related to higher particulate matter concentration and deeper and longer inhalation techniques used by marijuana smokers (27). In our study, we found no differences in the occurrence of centrilobular nodules between marijuana smokers and tobacco-only smokers. However, this may be because 89% (50 of 56) marijuana smokers were also tobacco smokers. Further assessment in imaging-based studies with larger patient cohorts and better quantification data are required. Furthermore, biopsy confirmation may be needed to better understand the histopathology of these nodules in marijuana smokers: Are they related to respiratory bronchiolitis or organizing pneumonia (described by Berkowitz et al [28]).
We were unable to confirm an association between coronary artery calcification and marijuana smoking, similar to a systematic review of 24 articles that reported that evidence on the association of marijuana use with cardiovascular risk factors is insufficient to make conclusions (29). At least one recent study of 146 young marijuana users with chest pain found that marijuana use did not confer additional risk of coronary artery disease, as detected with coronary CT angiography (30). Tobacco smoking, on the other hand, is an established risk factor for coronary artery disease (31). Our study also enabled us to confirm the well-known relationship between regular long-term marijuana use and gynecomastia (32).
Our study had limitations. First, the small sample size precluded us from drawing strong conclusions. Second, the retrospective nature of the study had its own inherent limitations. Third, there was inconsistent quantification of patient marijuana use, due in part to the previous illegal nature of marijuana possession, which led to a lack of patient reporting. Accurate quantification is further complicated by the fact that users often share joints, use different inhalation techniques, and use marijuana of varying potency. Fourth, given that most marijuana smokers also smoke tobacco, the synergistic effects of these two substances cannot be effectively evaluated. Fifth, only a portion of patients could be age matched, since the tobacco-only cohort was taken from the lung cancer screening study and the patients were aged at least 50 years. Due to the age mismatch in the larger cohort, there are differences in the duration of smoking. Lastly, variable interobserver agreement limits our ability to draw strong conclusions about bronchial wall thickening and bronchiectasis.
In conclusion, our study suggests that distinct radiologic findings in the lung may be seen in marijuana smokers, including higher rates of paraseptal emphysema and airway inflammatory changes, such as bronchiectasis, bronchial wall thickening, and mucoid impaction when compared with nonsmoker control patients and those who only smoke tobacco. These findings may be related to specific inhalational techniques while smoking marijuana, as well as to the bronchodilatory and immunomodulatory properties of its components. Further larger and prospective studies are necessary to confirm and further elucidate these findings, as marijuana use is bound to increase in the future, given the increasing legalization of its use for medical and recreational purposes.
Disclosures of conflicts of interest: L.M. No relevant relationships. P.S. No relevant relationships. J.P.S. No relevant relationships. M.D.F.M. Radiology editorial board. G.R. Legal advice for BLG firm.
Author Contributions
Author contributions: Guarantors of integrity of entire study, L.M., P.S., G.R.; study concepts/study design or data acquisition or data analysis/interpretation, all authors; manuscript drafting or manuscript revision for important intellectual content, all authors; approval of final version of submitted manuscript, all authors; agrees to ensure any questions related to the work are appropriately resolved, all authors; literature research, L.M., P.S., M.D.F.M., G.R.; clinical studies, G.R.; statistical analysis, L.M., J.P.S., M.D.F.M., G.R.; and manuscript editing, all authors
References
1. Lafaye G, Karila L, Blecha L, Benyamina A. Cannabis, cannabinoids, and health. Dialogues Clin Neurosci2017;19(3):309–316. Crossref, Medline, Google Scholar
2. Ribeiro LI, Ind PW. Effect of cannabis smoking on lung function and respiratory symptoms: a structured literature review. NPJ Prim Care Respir Med2016;26(1):16071. Crossref, Medline, Google Scholar
3. Rotermann M. Looking back from 2020, how cannabis use and related behaviours changed in Canada. Health Rep2021;32(4):3–14. Medline, Google Scholar
4. Kerr WC, Lui C, Ye Y. Trends and age, period and cohort effects for marijuana use prevalence in the 1984-2015 US National Alcohol Surveys. Addiction2018;113(3):473–481. Crossref, Medline, Google Scholar
5. Schauer GL, King BA, Bunnell RE, Promoff G, McAfee TA. Toking, Vaping, and Eating for Health or Fun: Marijuana Use Patterns in Adults, U.S., 2014. Am J Prev Med2016;50(1):1–8. Crossref, Medline, Google Scholar
6. Ribeiro L, Ind PW. Marijuana and the lung: hysteria or cause for concern?Breathe (Sheff)2018;14(3):196–205. Crossref, Medline, Google Scholar
7. Aldington S, Williams M, Nowitz M, et al. Effects of cannabis on pulmonary structure, function and symptoms. Thorax2007;62(12):1058–1063. Crossref, Medline, Google Scholar
8. Moir D, Rickert WS, Levasseur G, et al. A comparison of mainstream and sidestream marijuana and tobacco cigarette smoke produced under two machine smoking conditions. Chem Res Toxicol2008;21(2):494–502. Crossref, Medline, Google Scholar
9. Martinasek MP, McGrogan JB, Maysonet A. A Systematic Review of the Respiratory Effects of Inhalational Marijuana. Respir Care2016;61(11):1543–1551. Crossref, Medline, Google Scholar
10. Sarafian TA, Magallanes JA, Shau H, Tashkin D, Roth MD. Oxidative stress produced by marijuana smoke. An adverse effect enhanced by cannabinoids. Am J Respir Cell Mol Biol1999;20(6):1286–1293. Crossref, Medline, Google Scholar
11. Gong H Jr, Fligiel S, Tashkin DP, Barbers RG. Tracheobronchial changes in habitual, heavy smokers of marijuana with and without tobacco. Am Rev Respir Dis1987;136(1):142–149. Crossref, Medline, Google Scholar
12. Hancox RJ, Poulton R, Ely M, et al. Effects of cannabis on lung function: a population-based cohort study. Eur Respir J2010;35(1):42–47. Crossref, Medline, Google Scholar
13. Morris MA, Jacobson SR, Kinney GL, et al. Marijuana Use Associations with Pulmonary Symptoms and Function in Tobacco Smokers Enrolled in the Subpopulations and Intermediate Outcome Measures in COPD Study (SPIROMICS). Chronic Obstr Pulm Dis (Miami)2018;5(1):46–56. Medline, Google Scholar
14. Ridgeway G, Kilmer B. Bayesian inference for the distribution of grams of marijuana in a joint. Drug Alcohol Depend2016;165:175–180. Crossref, Medline, Google Scholar
15. Lynch DA, Austin JH, Hogg JC, et al. CT-Definable Subtypes of Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease: A Statement of the Fleischner Society. Radiology2015;277(1):192–205. Link, Google Scholar
16. Ooi GC, Khong PL, Chan-Yeung M, et al. High-resolution CT quantification of bronchiectasis: clinical and functional correlation. Radiology2002;225(3):663–672. Link, Google Scholar
17. Klang E, Kanana N, Grossman A, et al. Quantitative CT Assessment of Gynecomastia in the General Population and in Dialysis, Cirrhotic, and Obese Patients. Acad Radiol2018;25(5):626–635. Crossref, Medline, Google Scholar
18. Shemesh J, Henschke CI, Shaham D, et al. Ordinal scoring of coronary artery calcifications on low-dose CT scans of the chest is predictive of death from cardiovascular disease. Radiology2010;257(2):541–548. Link, Google Scholar
19. Johnson MK, Smith RP, Morrison D, Laszlo G, White RJ. Large lung bullae in marijuana smokers. Thorax2000;55(4):340–342. Crossref, Medline, Google Scholar
20. Hii SW, Tam JD, Thompson BR, Naughton MT. Bullous lung disease due to marijuana. Respirology2008;13(1):122–127. Crossref, Medline, Google Scholar
21. Ruppert AM, Perrin J, Khalil A, et al. Effect of cannabis and tobacco on emphysema in patients with spontaneous pneumothorax. Diagn Interv Imaging2018;99(7-8):465–471. Crossref, Medline, Google Scholar
22. Stefani A, Aramini B, Baraldi C, et al. Secondary spontaneous pneumothorax and bullous lung disease in cannabis and tobacco smokers: A case-control study. PLoS One2020;15(3):e0230419. Crossref, Medline, Google Scholar
23. Bisconti M, Marulli G, Pacifici R, et al. Cannabinoids Identification in Lung Tissues of Young Cannabis Smokers Operated for Primary Spontaneous Pneumothorax and Correlation with Pathologic Findings. Respiration2019;98(6):503–511. Crossref, Medline, Google Scholar
24. Tetrault JM, Crothers K, Moore BA, Mehra R, Concato J, Fiellin DA. Effects of marijuana smoking on pulmonary function and respiratory complications: a systematic review. Arch Intern Med2007;167(3):221–228. Crossref, Medline, Google Scholar
25. Niewoehner DE, Kleinerman J, Rice DB. Pathologic changes in the peripheral airways of young cigarette smokers. N Engl J Med1974;291(15):755–758. Crossref, Medline, Google Scholar
26. Fraig M, Shreesha U, Savici D, Katzenstein AL. Respiratory bronchiolitis: a clinicopathologic study in current smokers, ex-smokers, and never-smokers. Am J Surg Pathol2002;26(5):647–653. Crossref, Medline, Google Scholar
27. Gill A. Bong lung: regular smokers of cannabis show relatively distinctive histologic changes that predispose to pneumothorax. Am J Surg Pathol2005;29(7):980–982. Crossref, Medline, Google Scholar
28. Berkowitz EA, Henry TS, Veeraraghavan S, Staton GW Jr, Gal AA. Pulmonary effects of synthetic marijuana: chest radiography and CT findings. AJR Am J Roentgenol2015;204(4):750–757. Crossref, Medline, Google Scholar
29. Ravi D, Ghasemiesfe M, Korenstein D, Cascino T, Keyhani S. Associations Between Marijuana Use and Cardiovascular Risk Factors and Outcomes: A Systematic Review. Ann Intern Med2018;168(3):187–194. Crossref, Medline, Google Scholar
30. Burt JR, Agha AM, Yacoub B, Zahergivar A, Pepe J. Marijuana use and coronary artery disease in young adults. PLoS One2020;15(1):e0228326. Crossref, Medline, Google Scholar
31. Cheezum MK, Kim A, Bittencourt MS, et al. Association of tobacco use and cessation with coronary atherosclerosis. Atherosclerosis2017;257:201–207. Crossref, Medline, Google Scholar
32. Fonseca BM, Rebelo I. Cannabis and Cannabinoids in Reproduction and Fertility: Where We Stand. Reprod Sci2022;29(9):2429–2439. Crossref, Medline, Google Scholar
LONDON (AP) — Most people have accumulated a pile of data — selfies, emails, videos and more — on their social media and digital accounts over their lifetimes. What happens to it when we die?
It’s wise to draft a will spelling out who inherits your physical assets after you’re gone, but don’t forget to take care of your digital estate too. Friends and family might treasure files and posts you’ve left behind, but they could get lost in digital purgatory after you pass away unless you take some simple steps.
Here’s how you can prepare your digital life for your survivors:
Apple
The iPhone maker lets you nominate a “ legacy contact ” who can access your Apple account’s data after you die. The company says it’s a secure way to give trusted people access to photos, files and messages. To set it up you’ll need an Apple device with a fairly recent operating system — iPhones and iPads need iOS or iPadOS 15.2 and MacBooks needs macOS Monterey 12.1.
For iPhones, go to settings, tap Sign-in & Security and then Legacy Contact. You can name one or more people, and they don’t need an Apple ID or device.
You’ll have to share an access key with your contact. It can be a digital version sent electronically, or you can print a copy or save it as a screenshot or PDF.
Take note that there are some types of files you won’t be able to pass on — including digital rights-protected music, movies and passwords stored in Apple’s password manager. Legacy contacts can only access a deceased user’s account for three years before Apple deletes the account.
Google
Google takes a different approach with its Inactive Account Manager, which allows you to share your data with someone if it notices that you’ve stopped using your account.
When setting it up, you need to decide how long Google should wait — from three to 18 months — before considering your account inactive. Once that time is up, Google can notify up to 10 people.
You can write a message informing them you’ve stopped using the account, and, optionally, include a link to download your data. You can choose what types of data they can access — including emails, photos, calendar entries and YouTube videos.
There’s also an option to automatically delete your account after three months of inactivity, so your contacts will have to download any data before that deadline.
Facebook and Instagram
Some social media platforms can preserve accounts for people who have died so that friends and family can honor their memories.
When users of Facebook or Instagram die, parent company Meta says it can memorialize the account if it gets a “valid request” from a friend or family member. Requests can be submitted through an online form.
The social media company strongly recommends Facebook users add a legacy contact to look after their memorial accounts. Legacy contacts can do things like respond to new friend requests and update pinned posts, but they can’t read private messages or remove or alter previous posts. You can only choose one person, who also has to have a Facebook account.
You can also ask Facebook or Instagram to delete a deceased user’s account if you’re a close family member or an executor. You’ll need to send in documents like a death certificate.
TikTok
The video-sharing platform says that if a user has died, people can submit a request to memorialize the account through the settings menu. Go to the Report a Problem section, then Account and profile, then Manage account, where you can report a deceased user.
Once an account has been memorialized, it will be labeled “Remembering.” No one will be able to log into the account, which prevents anyone from editing the profile or using the account to post new content or send messages.
X
It’s not possible to nominate a legacy contact on Elon Musk’s social media site. But family members or an authorized person can submit a request to deactivate a deceased user’s account.
Passwords
Besides the major online services, you’ll probably have dozens if not hundreds of other digital accounts that your survivors might need to access. You could just write all your login credentials down in a notebook and put it somewhere safe. But making a physical copy presents its own vulnerabilities. What if you lose track of it? What if someone finds it?
Instead, consider a password manager that has an emergency access feature. Password managers are digital vaults that you can use to store all your credentials. Some, like Keeper,Bitwarden and NordPass, allow users to nominate one or more trusted contacts who can access their keys in case of an emergency such as a death.
But there are a few catches: Those contacts also need to use the same password manager and you might have to pay for the service.
___
Is there a tech challenge you need help figuring out? Write to us at onetechtip@ap.org with your questions.
The Canadian Paediatric Society says doctors should regularly screen children for reading difficulties and dyslexia, calling low literacy a “serious public health concern” that can increase the risk of other problems including anxiety, low self-esteem and behavioural issues, with lifelong consequences.
New guidance issued Wednesday says family doctors, nurses, pediatricians and other medical professionals who care for school-aged kids are in a unique position to help struggling readers access educational and specialty supports, noting that identifying problems early couldhelp kids sooner — when it’s more effective — as well as reveal other possible learning or developmental issues.
The 10 recommendations include regular screening for kids aged four to seven, especially if they belong to groups at higher risk of low literacy, including newcomers to Canada, racialized Canadians and Indigenous Peoples. The society says this can be done in a two-to-three-minute office-based assessment.
Other tips encourage doctors to look for conditions often seen among poor readers such as attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder; to advocate for early literacy training for pediatric and family medicine residents; to liaise with schools on behalf of families seeking help; and to push provincial and territorial education ministries to integrate evidence-based phonics instruction into curriculums, starting in kindergarten.
Dr. Scott McLeod, one of the authors and chair of the society’s mental health and developmental disabilities committee, said a key goal is to catch kids who may be falling through the cracks and to better connect families to resources, including quicker targeted help from schools.
“Collaboration in this area is so key because we need to move away from the silos of: everything educational must exist within the educational portfolio,” McLeod said in an interview from Calgary, where he is a developmental pediatrician at Alberta Children’s Hospital.
“Reading, yes, it’s education, but it’s also health because we know that literacy impacts health. So I think that a statement like this opens the window to say: Yes, parents can come to their health-care provider to get advice, get recommendations, hopefully start a collaboration with school teachers.”
McLeod noted that pediatricians already look for signs of low literacy in young children by way of a commonly used tool known as the Rourke Baby Record, which offers a checklist of key topics, such as nutrition and developmental benchmarks, to cover in a well-child appointment.
But he said questions about reading could be “a standing item” in checkups and he hoped the society’s statement to medical professionals who care for children “enhances their confidence in being a strong advocate for the child” while spurring partnerships with others involved in a child’s life such as teachers and psychologists.
The guidance said pediatricians also play a key role in detecting and monitoring conditions that often coexist with difficulty reading such as attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder, but McLeod noted that getting such specific diagnoses typically involves a referral to a specialist, during which time a child continues to struggle.
He also acknowledged that some schools can be slow to act without a specific diagnosis from a specialist, and even then a child may end up on a wait list for school interventions.
“Evidence-based reading instruction shouldn’t have to wait for some of that access to specialized assessments to occur,” he said.
“My hope is that (by) having an existing statement or document written by the Canadian Paediatric Society … we’re able to skip a few steps or have some of the early interventions present,” he said.
McLeod added that obtaining specific assessments from medical specialists is “definitely beneficial and advantageous” to know where a child is at, “but having that sort of clear, thorough assessment shouldn’t be a barrier to intervention starting.”
McLeod said the society was partly spurred to act by 2022’s “Right to Read Inquiry Report” from the Ontario Human Rights Commission, which made 157 recommendations to address inequities related to reading instruction in that province.
He called the new guidelines “a big reminder” to pediatric providers, family doctors, school teachers and psychologists of the importance of literacy.
“Early identification of reading difficulty can truly change the trajectory of a child’s life.”
This report by The Canadian Press was first published Oct. 23, 2024.
LONDON (AP) — Britain’s drug regulator approved the Alzheimer’s drug Kisunla on Wednesday, but the government won’t be paying for it after an independent watchdog agency said the treatment isn’t worth the cost to taxpayers.
It is the second Alzheimer’s drug to receive such a mixed reception within months. In August, the U.K. regulator authorized Leqembi while the same watchdog agency issued draft guidance recommending against its purchase for the National Health Service.
In a statement on Wednesday, Britain’s Medicines and Healthcare regulatory Agency said Kisunla “showed some evidence of efficacy in slowing (Alzheimer’s) progression” and approved its use to treat people in the early stages of the brain-robbing disease. Kisunla, also known as donanemab, works by removing a sticky protein from the brain believed to cause Alzheimer’s disease.
Meanwhile, the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence, or NICE, said more evidence was needed to prove Kisunla’s worth — the drug’s maker, Eli Lilly, says a year’s worth of treatment is $32,000. The U.S. Food and Drug Administration authorized Kisunla in July. The roll-out of its competitor drug Leqembi has been slowed in the U.S. by spotty insurance coverage, logistical hurdles and financial worries.
NICE said that the cost of administering Kisunla, which requires regular intravenous infusions and rigorous monitoring for potentially severe side effects including brain swelling or bleeding, “means it cannot currently be considered good value for the taxpayer.”
Experts at NICE said they “recognized the importance of new treatment options” for Alzheimer’s and asked Eli Lilly and the National Health Service “to provide additional information to address areas of uncertainty in the evidence.”
Under Britain’s health care system, most people receive free health care paid for by the government, but they could get Kisunla if they were to pay for it privately.
“People living with dementia and their loved ones will undoubtedly be disappointed by the decision not to fund this new treatment,” said Tara Spires-Jones, director of the Centre for Discovery Brain Sciences at the University of Edinburgh. “The good news that new treatments can slow disease even a small amount is helpful,” she said in a statement, adding that new research would ultimately bring safer and more effective treatments.
Fiona Carragher, chief policy and research officer at the Alzheimer’s Society, said the decision by NICE was “disheartening,” but noted there were about 20 Alzheimer’s drugs being tested in advanced studies, predicting that more drugs would be submitted for approval within years.
“In other diseases like cancer, treatments have become more effective, safer and cheaper over time,” she said. “ We hope to see similar progress in dementia.”
___
The Associated Press Health and Science Department receives support from the Howard Hughes Medical Institute’s Science and Educational Media Group. The AP is solely responsible for all content.
