Exposure to harmful and potentially harmful constituents decreased in smokers switching to Carbon-Heated Tobacco Product

Research progress and prospect on the safety of heated tobacco products

In recent years, Heated tobacco products (HTP) have gradually entered the market and become more and more popular with consumers because of their low risk (compared with traditional cigarette). With the increasing popularity and proportion of HTP in the international market, people pay more and more attention to the safety evaluation of HTP, but there is still a lack of systematic review of HTP safety research. In this review, the harmful components of HTP, multi-organ functional programming effects (including respiratory system, cardiovascular system, etc.), and mechanism of the effect generation (including oxidative stress, inflammatory response, etc.) were systematically reviewed, the safety effects of HTP and traditional cigarettes were compared in detail, and the shortcomings and future research directions in the field of HTP safety were discussed. In summary, this review conforms to the general trend of contemporary "tobacco and health", helps people to understand and evaluate HTP more systematically, and provides a strong theoretical support and literature basis for the tobacco industry to carry out HTP risk assessment and exposure improvement.

Comparison of Publications on Heated Tobacco Products With Conventional Cigarettes and Implied Desirability of the Products According to Tobacco Industry Affiliation: A Systematic Review

INTRODUCTION

Heated tobacco products (HTPs) have been advertised as "reduced-harm" tobacco products compared to conventional cigarettes (CC); however, no direct evidence supporting HTPs being desirable for human health exists. A previous systematic review reported that evidence on HTPs published in 2017 or earlier was primarily drawn from industry-related papers. We aimed to investigate whether tobacco industry-affiliated studies are more likely to conclude that HTPs are more desirable than CC.

METHODS

PubMed and Ichushi-Web were searched up to March 15, 2022, for studies on HTPs published in 2017 or after. We selected studies that assessed any measures of HTPs and CC, including secondary analyses using gray literature in English or Japanese. We excluded review articles except for a meta-analysis that met the aforementioned criteria. Data on the authors' affiliations, grant, conflict of interest, category of research subjects, and interpretation were extracted. Research members in two groups independently assessed the papers; discrepancies were solved by discussion between the groups.

RESULTS

Overall, 134 studies met the criteria. Eighty-seven (64.9%) of them were affiliated with the tobacco industry. Of the 134 studies, 56.3% (49/87) of the industry-affiliated studies versus 19.1% (9/47) of nonindustry-affiliated studies concluded that HTPs were more desirable than CC (p < .01). No study investigated clinically relevant outcomes, such as disease occurrence.

CONCLUSIONS

Publications on HTPs in the biomedical literature from January 2017 to March 2022 were dominated by tobacco industry-affiliated studies. More than half of them concluded that HTPs were more desirable than CC compared to independent studies.

IMPLICATIONS

Tobacco industry advertises HTPs as "reduced-harm" tobacco products compared to CC. HTP users tend to consider HTPs as alternative tobacco products less harmful than CC (ie, products for "harm reduction"). Our results demonstrated that papers written by tobacco industry-affiliated authors concluded that HTPs were more desirable than CC compared to papers by independent authors. However, all their judgments were based on surrogate outcomes. Surrogate outcomes are not necessarily linked to clinically relevant outcomes such as disease occurrence. Further studies on HTPs using clinically relevant outcomes are warranted by independent authors from tobacco industry.

Critical appraisal of interventional clinical trials assessing heated tobacco products: a systematic review

OBJECTIVE

To critically assess the methodological characteristics and quality of interventional clinical trials investigating the effects of heated tobacco products (HTPs).

DATA SOURCES

Web of Science (Core collection and MEDLINE), Scopus, MedRxiv, ClinicalTrials.gov and ICTRP trial databases and transnational HTP manufacturer online publication libraries were searched for clinical trials on HTPs published between January 2010 and April 2022.

STUDY SELECTION

Interventional clinical trials of any design, in which at least one group of adult participants used a currently marketed HTP, were selected by two reviewers with good or very good agreement.

DATA EXTRACTION

Data relating to trial characteristics and effects of intervention on primary outcomes were extracted using a predesigned form. Risk of bias was assessed using Cochrane's Risk of Bias tool v1.

DATA SYNTHESIS

40 trials were included, 29 of which were tobacco industry affiliated. Methodological characteristics, such as registration, design, setting, comparator interventions, participants, outcomes and analyses, varied between trials, though there were few significant differences between industry-affiliated and independent trials. Of the 40 trials, 33 were judged to be at high risk of bias and 6 at unclear risk of bias. Trial findings were not significantly associated with either affiliation or risk of bias.

CONCLUSIONS

The conduct and reporting of HTP interventional clinical trials were poor in many respects and limited to investigating effects of short-term exposure. These trials fall short of what is needed to determine whether HTPs are beneficial to public health, meaning they may not be a sound basis for tobacco control policy decisions.

What Can Current Biomarker Data Tell Us About the Risks of Lung Cancer Posed by Heated Tobacco Products?

INTRODUCTION

Heated tobacco products (HTPs) are marketed as less harmful alternatives to cigarettes, but the lung cancer risk of HTPs is unknown. In the absence of epidemiological data, assessing the risks of HTPs relies on biomarker data from clinical trials. This study examined existing biomarker data to determine what it tells us about the lung cancer risk posed by HTPs.

AIMS AND METHODS

We identified all biomarkers of exposure and potential harm measured in HTP trials and evaluated their appropriateness based on ideal characteristics for measuring lung cancer risk and tobacco use. The effects of HTPs on the most appropriate biomarkers within cigarette smokers switched to HTPs and compared to continued cigarette smoking or cessation were synthesized.

RESULTS

Sixteen out of eighty-two biomarkers (7 exposure and 9 potential harm) measured in HTP trials have been associated with tobacco use and lung cancer, dose-dependently correlated with smoking, modifiable upon cessation, measured within an appropriate timeframe, and had results published. Three of the exposure biomarkers significantly improved in smokers who switched to HTPs and were not significantly different from cessation. The remaining 13 biomarkers did not improve-in some instances worsening upon switching to HTPs-or were inconsistently affected across studies. There were no appropriate data to estimate the lung cancer risk of HTPs in non-smokers.

CONCLUSIONS

The appropriateness of existing biomarker data in assessing lung cancer risk of HTPs, both relative to cigarettes and their absolute risk, is limited. Furthermore, findings on the most appropriate biomarkers were conflicting across studies and largely showed no improvement following a switch to HTPs.

IMPLICATIONS

Biomarker data are fundamental to assessing the reduced risk potential of HTPs. Our evaluation suggests much of the existing biomarker data on HTPs is inappropriate for determining the risk of lung cancer posed by HTPs. In particular, there is a paucity of data on the absolute lung cancer risk of HTPs, which could be obtained from comparisons to smokers who quit and never smokers exposed to or using HTPs. There is an urgent need for further exploration of the lung cancer risks posed by HTPs, via clinical trials and, in the long-term, confirmation of these risks via epidemiological studies. However, careful consideration should be given to biomarker selection and study design to ensure both are appropriate and will provide valuable data.

Changes in Biomarkers of Exposure and Potential Harm in Smokers Switched to Vuse Vibe or Vuse Ciro Electronic Nicotine Delivery Systems

Electronic nicotine delivery systems (ENDS) have the potential to provide nicotine to tobacco consumers while reducing exposure to combustion-related toxicants. Here, we report changes in biomarkers of exposure (BoE) and biomarkers of potential harm (BoPH) in smokers who completely switched to Vuse Vibe and Vuse Ciro ENDS products, or to smoking abstinence in a randomized, controlled clinical study. Thirteen BoE (12 urinary and one blood) that indicate exposure to harmful and potentially harmful toxicants (HPHCs) were evaluated at baseline on day 5. Urinary BoPH linked to oxidative stress, platelet activation, and inflammation were also assessed at baseline, and on day 5 and day 7. Nicotine exposure was lower in Vuse Vibe and Vuse Ciro groups compared to baseline values. Urinary non-nicotine BoE decreased significantly (52.3-96.7%) in the Vuse ENDS groups, and the reductions were similar in magnitude to those observed in the abstinence group. Blood carboxyhemoglobin decreased 52.8-55.0% in all study groups. Decreases (10-50%) in BoPH were observed in all study groups. Thus, smokers who switch exclusively to Vuse Vibe or Vuse Ciro products or completely abstain from smoking are exposed to substantially lower levels of HPHCs, and experience improvements in BoPH of oxidative stress and inflammation pathways.

Heat-not-burn tobacco products and cardiovascular risk reduction: A systematic review of randomized controlled trials

BACKGROUND

Heat-not-burn (HNB) technology by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration has been classified as a modified risk tobacco product, which can be a better option for those populations who cannot give up the habit of smoking. The outlook on the effects of these products is quite controversial in the scientific world.

OBJECTIVE

To present the effect of HNB tobacco products on the cardiovascular system, with reference to the existence of possible benefits of the technology.

METHODS

The literature search was conducted in PubMed/Medline, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), and ClinicalTrials.gov databases, with reliance on a well-defined guiding research statement. Quality appraisal was performed using the CASP checklist for randomized controlled trials.

RESULTS

The search of three databases identified 167 records, and after selection process, 25 randomized controlled trials were eligible for our study's criteria. Twenty studies investigated the effects of HNB products on biomarkers of clinical relevance. Five studies evaluated other functional heart parameters rather than biomarkers.

CONCLUSION

With HNB tobacco products, significant reductions were found in biomarkers of exposure and biological effect related to pathways involved in cardiovascular disease, including inflammation, oxidative stress, lipid metabolism, platelet function, and endothelial dysfunction.

Assessment of the Exposure to Aromatic Amines in Users of Various Tobacco/Nicotine Products

Aromatic amines such as ortho-toluidine (o-Tol), 2-aminonaphthalene (2-AN), and 4-aminobiphenyl (4-ABP) are human bladder carcinogens and occur at various workplaces, in ambient air, in food products, as well as in tobacco smoke. In a clinical study comprising a period of 74 h under confinement, we investigated the exposure to these three aromatic amines as well as to 3-aminobiphenyl (3-ABP) by measuring them in urine of habitual users of combustible cigarettes (CCs), electronic cigarettes (ECs), heated tobacco products (HTPs), oral tobacco (OT), and nicotine replacement therapy products (NRTs). Non-users (NU) of any tobacco/nicotine products served as (negative) control group. Smokers (CC) exhibited the highest levels for all four aromatic amines measured, significantly elevated compared to NU and non-CC users. Urinary levels in users of EC, HTP, NRT (mostly nicotine gum), and OT (mostly snus) were not significantly different from those in NU. Users of HTP showed slightly elevated urinary excretion levels of o-Tol, 3-ABP, and 4-ABP compared to some other non-CC groups. Dose markers such as daily consumption, urinary nicotine equivalents (Nequ), and plasma cotinine (CotP) were found to be consistently and significantly correlated with the excretion of aromatic amines for smokers (CC) only. Excretion levels of 3- and 4-ABP in smokers were significantly lower in the urine collected overnight compared to that collected during the day, which is just the opposite of what we observed for other biomarkers in this study. The possible reason for this observation is discussed. In conclusion, in contrast to smoking of CCs, the use of ECs, HTPs, nicotine gum, and oral tobacco was not observed to be associated with significant exposure to the aromatic amines o-Tol, 2-AN, 3-ABP, and 4-ABP. The observed slight increase in o-Tol, 3-ABP, and 4-ABP excretions in HTP users has to be verified in larger studies.

A Decision-Theoretic Public Health Framework for Heated Tobacco and Nicotine Vaping Products

Markets for nicotine vaping products (NVPs) and heated tobacco products (HTPs) have grown as these products became positioned as harm-reduction alternatives to combusted tobacco products. Herein, we present a public health decision-theoretic framework incorporating different patterns of HTP, NVP, and cigarette use to examine their impacts on population health. Our framework demonstrates that, for individuals who would have otherwise smoked, HTP use may provide public health benefits by enabling cessation or by discouraging smoking initiation and relapse. However, the benefits are reduced if more harmful HTP use replaces less harmful NVP use. HTP use may also negatively impact public health by encouraging smoking by otherwise non-smokers or by encouraging initiation or relapse into smoking. These patterns are directly influenced by industry behavior as well as public policy towards HTPs, NVPs, and cigarettes. While substantial research has been devoted to NVPs, much less is known about HTPs. Better information is needed to more precisely define the health risks of HTPs compared to cigarettes and NVPs, the relative appeal of HTPs to consumers, and the likelihood of later transitioning to smoking or quitting all products. While our analysis provides a framework for gaining that information, it also illustrates the complexities in distinguishing key factors.

A Survey on the Actual Use of and Reasons for Heated Tobacco Products in Patients with Rheumatoid Arthritis

The actual use of heated tobacco products (HTPs) among smokers with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) is little known. The objective of this study was to clarify the prevalence and reasons for HTP use among smokers with RA. We administered a web survey to a research company panel in Japan between December 2020 and January 2021. After 170,000 panelists completed a primary questionnaire regarding smoking and disease status, 198 smokers with RA completed a secondary questionnaire regarding the reasons for HTP use and perceptions about the harmfulness of HTPs. The primary questionnaire revealed that smokers with RA were more likely to use HTPs than smokers without RA, and the adjusted odds ratio of RA for HTP use was one of the highest factors among other diseases (adjusted OR: 2.34, 95% CI: 1.92-2.85, p < 0.001). The secondary questionnaire revealed that 43.7% of HTP smokers with RA had considered using HTPs due to their RA, and 42.0% of them felt that starting HTPs relieved the symptoms of RA. These results indicated that smokers with RA tend to start using HTPs due to their RA, despite the lack of evidences that HTPs are safer alternatives.

Heated tobacco products for smoking cessation and reducing smoking prevalence

BACKGROUND

Heated tobacco products (HTPs) are designed to heat tobacco to a high enough temperature to release aerosol, without burning it or producing smoke. They differ from e-cigarettes because they heat tobacco leaf/sheet rather than a liquid. Companies who make HTPs claim they produce fewer harmful chemicals than conventional cigarettes. Some people report stopping smoking cigarettes entirely by switching to using HTPs, so clinicians need to know whether they are effective for this purpose and relatively safe. Also, to regulate HTPs appropriately, policymakers should understand their impact on health and on cigarette smoking prevalence.

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the effectiveness and safety of HTPs for smoking cessation and the impact of HTPs on smoking prevalence.  SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Tobacco Addiction Group's Specialised Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, and six other databases for relevant records to January 2021, together with reference-checking and contact with study authors and relevant groups.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) in which people who smoked cigarettes were randomised to switch to exclusive HTP use or a control condition. Eligible outcomes were smoking cessation, adverse events, and selected biomarkers.  RCTs conducted in clinic or in an ambulatory setting were deemed eligible when assessing safety, including those randomising participants to exclusively use HTPs, smoke cigarettes, or attempt abstinence from all tobacco. Time-series studies were also eligible for inclusion if they examined the population-level impact of heated tobacco on smoking prevalence or cigarette sales as an indirect measure.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We followed standard Cochrane methods for screening and data extraction. Our primary outcome measures were abstinence from smoking at the longest follow-up point available, adverse events, serious adverse events, and changes in smoking prevalence or cigarette sales. Other outcomes included biomarkers of harm and exposure to toxicants/carcinogens (e.g. NNAL and carboxyhaemoglobin (COHb)). We used a random-effects Mantel-Haenszel model to calculate risk ratios (RR) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for dichotomous outcomes. For continuous outcomes, we calculated mean differences on the log-transformed scale (LMD) with 95% CIs. We pooled data across studies using meta-analysis where possible.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 13 completed studies, of which 11 were RCTs assessing safety (2666 participants) and two were time-series studies. We judged eight RCTs to be at unclear risk of bias and three at high risk. All RCTs were funded by tobacco companies. Median length of follow-up was 13 weeks. No studies reported smoking cessation outcomes.  There was insufficient evidence for a difference in risk of adverse events between smokers randomised to switch to heated tobacco or continue smoking cigarettes, limited by imprecision and risk of bias (RR 1.03, 95% CI 0.92 to 1.15; I2 = 0%; 6 studies, 1713 participants). There was insufficient evidence to determine whether risk of serious adverse events differed between groups due to very serious imprecision and risk of bias (RR 0.79, 95% CI 0.33 to 1.94; I2 = 0%; 4 studies, 1472 participants). There was moderate-certainty evidence for lower NNAL and COHb at follow-up in heated tobacco than cigarette smoking groups, limited by risk of bias (NNAL: LMD -0.81, 95% CI -1.07 to -0.55; I2 = 92%; 10 studies, 1959 participants; COHb: LMD -0.74, 95% CI -0.92 to -0.52; I2 = 96%; 9 studies, 1807 participants). Evidence for additional biomarkers of exposure are reported in the main body of the review. There was insufficient evidence for a difference in risk of adverse events in smokers randomised to switch to heated tobacco or attempt abstinence from all tobacco, limited by risk of bias and imprecision (RR 1.12, 95% CI 0.86 to 1.46; I2 = 0%; 2 studies, 237 participants). Five studies reported that no serious adverse events occurred in either group (533 participants). There was moderate-certainty evidence, limited by risk of bias, that urine concentrations of NNAL at follow-up were higher in the heated tobacco use compared with abstinence group (LMD 0.50, 95% CI 0.34 to 0.66; I2 = 0%; 5 studies, 382 participants). In addition, there was very low-certainty evidence, limited by risk of bias, inconsistency, and imprecision, for higher COHb in the heated tobacco use compared with abstinence group for intention-to-treat analyses (LMD 0.69, 95% CI 0.07 to 1.31; 3 studies, 212 participants), but lower COHb in per-protocol analyses (LMD -0.32, 95% CI -1.04 to 0.39; 2 studies, 170 participants). Evidence concerning additional biomarkers is reported in the main body of the review. Data from two time-series studies showed that the rate of decline in cigarette sales accelerated following the introduction of heated tobacco to market in Japan. This evidence was of very low-certainty as there was risk of bias, including possible confounding, and cigarette sales are an indirect measure of smoking prevalence.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

No studies reported on cigarette smoking cessation, so the effectiveness of heated tobacco for this purpose remains uncertain. There was insufficient evidence for differences in risk of adverse or serious adverse events between people randomised to switch to heated tobacco, smoke cigarettes, or attempt tobacco abstinence in the short-term. There was moderate-certainty evidence that heated tobacco users have lower exposure to toxicants/carcinogens than cigarette smokers and very low- to moderate-certainty evidence of higher exposure than those attempting abstinence from  all tobacco. Independently funded research on the effectiveness and safety of HTPs is needed.  The rate of decline in cigarette sales accelerated after the introduction of heated tobacco to market in Japan but, as data were observational, it is possible other factors caused these changes. Moreover, falls in cigarette sales may not translate to declining smoking prevalence, and changes in Japan may not generalise elsewhere. To clarify the impact of rising heated tobacco use on smoking prevalence, there is a need for time-series studies that examine this association.

Alternative tobacco products use and its impact on urologic health - will the lesser evil still be evil? A commentary and review of literature

INTRODUCTION

Alternative tobacco products, including electronic cigarettes (e-cigarettes) and non-combustible tobacco products or heat-not-burn (HNB) products, are substitutes to conventional combustible cigarettes with the potential to impact urologic health, similar to traditional smoking. Most urologists, however, have limited knowledge of these products and are unfamiliar with their potential health implications. We conducted a review to assess the impact of e-cigarettes and HNB products on urologic health.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

A bibliographic search covering the period up to April, 2021 was conducted using MEDLINE®/PubMed® and Google Scholar. Articles were reviewed and categorized based on the potential impact on erectile dysfunction, semen quality, lower urinary tract symptoms, genitourinary malignancies, and smoking cessation. Data were extracted, analyzed and summarized.

RESULTS

Mature data on the long-term impact of e-cigarette and HNB product use on urologic health are lacking. E-cigarette and HNB vapors appear to contain decreased concentrations of chemicals responsible for erectile dysfunction compared to tobacco smoke but may play a role through endothelial damage. Use of e-cigarettes is associated with lower sperm counts. No definitive data has shown a link between e-cigarette or HNB product use and lower urinary tract symptoms. Multiple carcinogens including those specifically linked to bladder cancer have been identified in the urine of e-cigarette and HNB product users. Limited data suggest e-cigarettes may aid in smoking cessation.

CONCLUSIONS

Urologists may benefit from understanding the urologic health concerns surrounding e-cigarettes and HNB product use and patients may benefit from being properly educated.

Urinary biomarkers for secondhand smoke and heated tobacco products exposure

Concerns have recently grown about the health effects of secondhand smoke exposure and heated tobacco products. The analysis of tobacco smoke biomarkers is critical to assess the health effects of tobacco smoke exposure. For this purpose, the simultaneous determinations of exposure markers and health effect markers would provide a better evaluation of smoke exposure. In this study, nicotine metabolites (nicotine, cotinine, trans-3'-hydroxycotinine) and 4-(methylnitrosamino)-1-(3-pyridyl)-1-butanol in urine were analyzed as exposure markers. The DNA damage markers, 7-methylguanine and 8-hydroxy-2'-deoxyguanosine, were simultaneously measured as health effect markers. The results revealed significant levels of urinary nicotine metabolites and 4-(methylnitrosamino)-1-(3-pyridyl)-1-butanol in the subjects exposed to secondhand smoke and heated tobacco products. In addition, the urinary levels of 7-methylguanine and 8-hydroxy-2'-deoxyguanosine tended to be high for secondhand smoke and heated tobacco products exposures, as compared to those of non-smokers. These biomarkers will be useful for evaluating tobacco smoke exposure.

Optimization of aqueous aerosol extract (AqE) generation from e-cigarettes and tobacco heating products for in vitro cytotoxicity testing

Electronic cigarettes (e-cigarettes) and tobacco heating products (THPs) have reduced yields of toxicants and have recently emerged as a potentially safer alternative to combustible cigarettes. To understand if reduced toxicant exposure is associated with reductions in biological responses, there is a need for high-quality pre-clinical in vitro studies. Here, we investigated the cytotoxic response of human umbilical vein endothelial cells to conventional cigarette aqueous aerosol extracts (AqE) and highly concentrated AqEs from e-cigarettes (two generations of atomisers) and THPs (two variants). All AqE samples were generated by a standardized methodology and characterized for nicotine, propylene glycol and vegetable glycerol. The cigarette AqE caused a maximum 100 ± 0.00 % reduction in cell viability at 35 % dose (2.80 puffs) as opposed to 96.63 ± 2.73 % at 50 % (20 puffs) and 99.85 ± 0.23 % at 75 % (30 puffs) for the two THP variants (glo Bright Tobacco, glo Rich Tobacco), and 99.07 ± 1.61 % at the neat ePen2.0 e-cigarette (200 puffs). The AqE of the remaining e-cigarettes either resulted in an incomplete dose-response or did not elicit any response. The methods utilized were suitably sensitive to not only differentiate between cigarette, THP and e-cigarette aerosols but also to distinguish between products within each product category.