Back

Pediatric nicotine exposures from devices and liquids: a comparative analysis of U.S. poison center data

Miller, R. S.; Varney, S. M.

2026-07-07 toxicology
10.64898/2026.07.04.26357293 medRxiv
Show abstract

Introduction: Pediatric nicotine exposures remain an important and preventable public health issue, particularly with the rapid expansion of electronic nicotine delivery systems. This study compared demographic characteristics, exposure circumstances, and clinical outcomes between pediatric cases involving nicotine devices and bottled liquids reported to U.S. poison centers. Method: This retrospective cohort study analyzed National Poison Data System cases from 2011-2022 involving children aged less than 6 years exposed to nicotine devices or bottled liquids. Analyses were limited to cases with definitive medical outcomes. The primary outcome was defined as a moderate or major clinical effect or death. Odds ratios with 95% confidence intervals were calculated, with a secondary analysis restricted to route-concordant exposures. Results: The final cohort included 15,497 cases: 10,168 device exposures and 5,329 liquid exposures. Demographic characteristics were similar between groups. Device exposures more frequently involved inhalation, while ingestion predominated overall. Clinical effects were typically mild and transient, with vomiting and coughing most commonly reported. The primary outcome occurred in 1.9% of device cases and 2.0% of liquid cases (OR = 1.05; 95% CI 0.82-1.34). A secondary analysis restricted to inhalation-only device exposures and ingestion-only liquid exposures similarly found no significant difference in clinically important outcomes (OR = 1.38; 95% CI 0.92-2.12). Two deaths occurred, one in each group. Conclusion: These findings suggest that, despite differences in formulation and route of exposure, nicotine devices and bottled liquids produce broadly similar clinical toxicity profiles in young children. Prevention strategies should address all household nicotine products rather than focusing on specific delivery systems.

Matching journals

The top 5 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.

50% of probability mass above

"Similar papers" are the closest papers from that journal in the model's embedding space. They show what the match is built on, but the ranking comes mostly from a classifier over the whole training set, not from these examples alone.