Two Different Heated Tobacco Products vs. Cigarettes: Comparison of Nicotine Delivery and Subjective Effects in Experienced Users

Use of quantitative in vitro to in vivo extrapolation (QIVIVE) for the assessment of non-combustible next-generation product aerosols

With the use of in vitro new approach methodologies (NAMs) for the assessment of non-combustible next-generation nicotine delivery products, new extrapolation methods will also be required to interpret and contextualize the physiological relevance of these results. Quantitative in vitro to in vivo extrapolation (QIVIVE) can translate in vitro concentrations into in-life exposures with physiologically-based pharmacokinetic (PBPK) modelling and provide estimates of the likelihood of harmful effects from expected exposures. A major challenge for evaluating inhalation toxicology is an accurate assessment of the delivered dose to the surface of the cells and the internalized dose. To estimate this, we ran the multiple-path particle dosimetry (MPPD) model to characterize particle deposition in the respiratory tract and developed a PBPK model for nicotine that was validated with human clinical trial data for cigarettes. Finally, we estimated a Human Equivalent Concentration (HEC) and predicted plasma concentrations based on the minimum effective concentration (MEC) derived after acute exposure of BEAS-2B cells to cigarette smoke (1R6F), or heated tobacco product (HTP) aerosol at the air liquid interface (ALI). The MPPD-PBPK model predicted the in vivo data from clinical studies within a factor of two, indicating good agreement as noted by WHO International Programme on Chemical Safety (2010) guidance. We then used QIVIVE to derive the exposure concentration (HEC) that matched the estimated in vitro deposition point of departure (POD) (MEC cigarette = 0.38 puffs or 11.6 µg nicotine, HTP = 22.9 puffs or 125.6 µg nicotine) and subsequently derived the equivalent human plasma concentrations. Results indicate that for the 1R6F cigarette, inhaling 1/6th of a stick would be required to induce the same effects observed in vitro, in vivo. Whereas, for HTP it would be necessary to consume 3 sticks simultaneously to induce in vivo the effects observed in vitro. This data further demonstrates the reduced physiological potency potential of HTP aerosol compared to cigarette smoke. The QIVIVE approach demonstrates great promise in assisting human health risk assessments, however, further optimization and standardization are required for the substantiation of a meaningful contribution to tobacco harm reduction by alternative nicotine delivery products.

Evaluation of Cytotoxic and Genotoxic Effects in Buccal Mucosal Cells in Non-Smokers and Users of Traditional Combustible Tobacco Products and Non-Combustible Alternatives

AIMS/OBJECTIVES

The aim of this cross-sectional observational study was to investigate cytogenetic damage to the buccal mucosa in non-smokers and consumers of traditional combustible tobacco products and non-combustible alternatives.

METHODS

A total of 160 participants were divided into four groups according to the type of product used, including non-smokers, users of conventional combustible tobacco (cigarettes), heated tobacco, and electronic, tobacco-free vapor products (e-cigarettes). Buccal mucosa samples were analyzed using the micronucleus cytome assay to assess cytotoxic and genotoxic damage.

RESULTS

E-cigarette users showed significantly higher values for all tested parameters in the micronucleus test compared to non-smokers (p < 0.05). Similarly, users of tobacco heating products showed an increase in all parameters (p < 0.05), with the exception of the number of cells with micronuclei. Conventional cigarette smokers showed a notable increase in the number of binucleated cells and cells with karyorrhexis and karyolysis (p ≤ 0.05). When assessing the differences between users of traditional combustible tobacco products and non-combustible alternatives, these did not appear to be significant, except for e-cigarette users, who had significantly more cells with condensed chromatin (p ≤ 0.001), while users of tobacco heating products had more pyknotic cells (p ≤ 0.001).

CONCLUSION

The results of this study underscore the heightened occurrence of cytotoxic and genotoxic damage in users of both conventional combustible tobacco products and non-combustible alternatives compared to non-smokers, emphasizing the detrimental impact of these products on the oral mucosa.

Comparison of Biomarkers of Exposure in a Controlled Study of Smokers Switched from Conventional Cigarettes to Heated Tobacco Products

The heated tobacco product (HTP) heats rather than burns tobacco to release an aerosol with significantly fewer toxicants than conventional cigarette smoke and has received global attention in recent years. To investigate whether changes in biomarkers of exposure could be detected after switching from conventional cigarettes (CCs) to HTPs, 224 subjects from four cities in China participated in this study. Nine biomarkers containing tobacco-specific nitrosamines (TSNAs), volatile organic compounds (VOCs), and the biomarkers for acrolein and crotonaldehyde were determined by UPLC-MS/MS. The levels of the sum of nine biomarkers in CCs were 5.4 and 5.2 times higher than in an Original-HTP and Menthol-HTP, respectively. Among the nine biomarkers, 3HPMA and 3HMPMA accounted for the highest proportions. Switching from CCs to HTPs is good for both men and women because the changes in each biomarker in urine samples were the same in men and women. Among all the subjects, subjects aged 20-39 years had the greatest reduction in biomarker residues in urine. The findings of the present study provided useful information for the health risk research of HTPs in China.