Search

In vitro (geno)toxicity assessment of electronic vapour products (EVPs), relative to conventional cigarette, currently uses assays, including the micronucleus and Ames tests. Whilst informative on induction of a finite endpoint and relative risk posed by test articles, such assays could benefit from mechanistic supplementation. The ToxTracker and Aneugen Clastogen Evaluation analysis can indicate the activation of reporters associated with (geno)toxicity, including DNA damage, oxidative stress, the p53-related stress response and protein damage. Here, we tested for the different effects of a selection of neat e-liquids, EVP aerosols and Kentucky reference 1R6F cigarette smoke samples in the ToxTracker assay. The assay was initially validated to assess whether a mixture of e-liquid base components, propylene glycol (PG) and vegetable glycerine (VG) had interfering effects within the system. This was achieved by spiking three positive controls into the system with neat PG/VG or phosphate-buffered saline bubbled (bPBS) PG/VG aerosol (nicotine and flavour free). PG/VG did not greatly affect responses induced by the compounds. Next, when compared to cigarette smoke samples, neat e-liquids and bPBS aerosols (tobacco flavour; 1.6% freebase nicotine, 1.6% nicotine salt or 0% nicotine) exhibited reduced and less complex responses. Tested up to a 10% concentration, EVP aerosol bPBS did not induce any ToxTracker reporters. Neat e-liquids, tested up to 1%, induced oxidative stress reporters, thought to be due to their effects on osmolarity in vitro. E-liquid nicotine content did not affect responses induced. Additionally, spiking nicotine alone only induced an oxidative stress response at a supraphysiological level. In conclusion, the ToxTracker assay is a quick, informative screen for genotoxic potential and mechanisms of a variety of (compositionally complex) samples, derived from cigarettes and EVPs. This assay has the potential for future application in the assessment battery for next-generation (smoking alternative) products, including EVPs., (© The Author(s) 2021. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the UK Environmental Mutagen Society.)

Background: Electronic cigarettes (e-cigarettes) have been characterised as significantly less harmful than cigarettes by many health agencies and regulators globally. In this study, we examined to what extent perceived relative harms of e-cigarettes compared to cigarettes have changed in the USA., Methods: We analysed the data from the longitudinal and nationally representative, Population Assessment of Tobacco and Health Study to assess the relative perceived harm of e-cigarettes amongst US adults between 2013 and 2016., Results: The proportion of US adults who correctly perceived e-cigarettes as less harmful than cigarettes decreased each year from 41.1% (CI 40.1-42.1%) in 2013-2014, 31.5% (CI 30.8-32.2%) in 2014-2015 and 25.3% (CI 24.6-26.0%) in 2015-2016. Concurrently, the proportion of US adults who perceived e-cigarettes as equally, or more, harmful than cigarettes increased from 53.7% (CI 52.3-55.1%), 64.9% (CI 63.6-66.2%) to 72.7% (CI 71.5-73.9%) respectively. The proportion of US adults who held negative relative harm perceptions of e-cigarettes increased regardless of current smoking or vaping status by 24.6% and 29.6% respectively within 3 years. In Wave 3, the proportion of current smokers who perceived the relative harm of e-cigarettes as less harmful was lower at 29.3% (CI 28.2-30.4%) compared to current e-cigarette users at 43.5% (CI 40.3-46.7%). Former smokers who used e-cigarettes and believed that they were equally, or more, harmful than cigarettes in 2014-2015 had significantly higher rates of smoking relapse in the following year, 29% and 37% (p < 2.2e-16), respectively, compared to those with positive relative harm perceptions who reported relapse rates of 19%., Conclusions: In this study, the proportion of US adults who incorrectly perceived e-cigarettes as equal to, or more, harmful than cigarettes increased steadily regardless of smoking or vaping status. Current adult smokers appear to be poorly informed about the relative risks of e-cigarettes yet have potentially the most to gain from transitioning to these products. The findings of this study emphasise the urgent need to accurately communicate the reduced relative risk of e-cigarettes compared to continued cigarette smoking and clearly differentiate absolute and relative harms. Further research is required to elucidate why the relative harm of e-cigarettes is misunderstood and continues to deteriorate.

The use of electronic vaping products (EVPs) continues to increase worldwide among adult smokers in parallel with accumulating information on their potential toxicity and relative safety compared to tobacco smoke. At this time, in vitro assessments of many widely available EVPs are limited. In this study, an in vitro battery of established assays was used to examine the cytotoxic (Neutral red uptake), genotoxic (In vitro micronucleus) and mutagenic (Bacterial reverse mutation) responses of two commercial EVPs (blu GO™ disposable and blu PLUS+™ rechargeable) when compared to smoke from a reference cigarette (3R4F). In total, 12 commercial products were tested as e-liquids and as aerosols. In addition, two experimental base liquids containing 1.2% and 2.4% nicotine were also assessed to determine the effect of flavour and nicotine on all three assays. In the bacterial reverse mutation (Ames) and in vitro micronucleus (IVM) assays, exposures to e-liquids and EVP aerosols, with and without nicotine and in a range of flavourings, showed no mutagenic or genotoxic effects compared to tobacco smoke. The neutral red uptake (NRU) assay showed significantly reduced cytotoxicity (P < .05) for whole undiluted EVP aerosols compared to tobacco smoke, which by contrast was markedly cytotoxic even when diluted. The reduced in vitro toxicological responses of the EVPs add to the increasing body of scientific weight-of-evidence supporting the role of high-quality EVPs as a harm reduction tool for adult smokers., Competing Interests: Declaration of Competing Interest All authors are employees of Imperial Brands plc., (Copyright © 2020 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd.. All rights reserved.)

E-cigarettes containing 'nicotine salts' aim to increase smoker's satisfaction by improving blood nicotine delivery and other sensory properties. Here, we evaluated the pharmacokinetic profiles and subjective effects of nicotine from two e-cigarette device platforms with varying concentrations of nicotine lactate (nicotine salt) e-liquid relative to conventional cigarettes. A randomised, open-label, cross-over clinical study was conducted in 15 healthy US adult smokers. Five different e-cigarette products were evaluated consecutively on different days after use of own brand conventional cigarette. Plasma nicotine pharmacokinetics, subjective effects, and tolerability were assessed following controlled use of the products. The rate of nicotine absorption into the bloodstream was comparable from all e-cigarettes tested and was as rapid as that for conventional cigarette. However, in all cases, nicotine delivery did not exceed that of the conventional cigarette. The pharmacokinetic profiles of nicotine salt emissions were also dependent upon the properties of the e-cigarette device. Subjective scores were numerically highest after smoking a conventional cigarette followed by the myblu 40-mg nicotine salt formulation. The rise in nicotine blood levels following use of all the tested e-cigarettes was quantified as 'a little' to 'modestly' satisfying at relieving the desire to smoke. All products were well tolerated with no notable adverse events reported. These results demonstrate that, while delivering less nicotine than a conventional cigarette, the use of nicotine salts in e-cigarettes enables cigarette-like pulmonary delivery of nicotine that reduces desire to smoke.

There is scientific agreement that the detrimental effects of cigarettes are produced by the formation of Harmful and Potentially Harmful Constituents from tobacco combustion and not by nicotine. For this reason numerous public health bodies and governments worldwide have indicated that e-cigarettes have a central role to play in tobacco harm reduction. In this study, high content screening (HCS) was used to compare the effects of neat e-liquids and 3R4F reference cigarette smoke condensate (CSC), which served as a positive control, in Normal Human Bronchial Epithelial (NHBE) cells. The endpoints measured covered cellular health, energy production and oxidative stress. Base liquids, with or without nicotine, and commercial, flavoured, nicotine-containing e-liquids (CFs), had little or no effect on cell viability and most HCS endpoints even at significantly higher concentrations (typically 100 times or higher) than 3R4F CSC. CSC induced a dose-dependent decrease of cell viability and triggered the response in all HCS endpoints. Effects of CFs were typically observed at or above 1%. CF Menthol was the most active flavour, with minimum effective concentrations 43 to 659 times higher than corresponding 3R4F CSC concentrations. Our results show a lower biological activity of e-liquids compared to cigarette smoke condensate in this experimental setting, across wide range of cellular endpoints., (Copyright © 2019 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd.. All rights reserved.)

With the growing prevalence of e-cigarettes as an alternative to conventional cigarettes amongst smokers worldwide, there is a need for new methods to evaluate their relative toxicological profile as part of a safety assessment. Initiatives to replace, reduce and refine animal testing have led to developments of new methodologies utilizing organotypic, in vitro tissue models. Here we use a respiratory epithelial model, EpiAirway, to examine the biological effects of nicotine-containing blu PLUS + e-cigarettes, with or without blueberry flavoring, in comparison to conventional cigarette smoke. Tissues were exposed at the air-liquid interface to cigarette smoke or e-cigarette aerosol generated using a VITROCELL VC1 smoking/vaping robot. Following exposure to cigarette smoke, there was a significant decrease in tissue viability and barrier function. Additionally, secretion of inflammatory cytokines, interleukin 6 and 8 (IL-6, IL-8) altered and a marker of DNA damage, γ-H2AX, was significantly increased. Conversely, tissues exposed to up to 400 puffs of e-cigarette aerosol with or without blueberry flavor did not differ compared to air-exposed tissues in any of the measured endpoints. Overall, the tested e-cigarette products induced significantly less cytotoxicity than conventional cigarette smoke under the conditions of test and suggest such products have the potential for reduced health risks. Our results also demonstrate that organotypic tissue models are useful for assessing the biological impact of e-cigarettes and their flavorings., (Copyright © 2019 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Electronic cigarettes (e-cigarettes) are an increasingly popular alternative to combustible tobacco cigarettes among smokers worldwide. A growing body of research indicates that flavours play a critical role in attracting and retaining smokers into the e-cigarette category, directly contributing to declining smoking rates and tobacco harm reduction. The responsible selection and inclusion levels of flavourings in e-liquids must be guided by toxicological principles. Some flavour ingredients, whether natural extracts or synthetic, are known allergens. In this study, we used the Genomic Allergen Rapid Detection (GARD) testing strategy to predict and compare the respiratory and skin sensitising potential of three experimental and two commercial e-liquids. These novel, myeloid cell-based assays use changes in the transcriptional profiles of genomic biomarkers that are collectively relevant for respiratory and skin sensitisation. Our initial results indicate that the GARD assays were able to differentiate and broadly classify e-liquids based on their sensitisation potential, which are defined mixtures. Further studies need to be conducted to assess whether and how these assays could be used for the screening and toxicological assessment of e-liquids to support product development and commercialisation., (Copyright © 2019 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

The safety profile of Puritane™, a closed system electronic vapour product (EVP), was evaluated when used by smokers of conventional cigarettes (CCs) for 24 months in a real-life setting. The study was a two-centre ambulatory clinical study with 209 healthy volunteers. Outcome measures included adverse events (AEs), vital signs, electrocardiogram, lung function tests, exposure to nicotine and selected smoke constituents, nicotine withdrawal effects and smoking desire. No serious AEs related to EVP use were observed. The most frequently reported AEs were headache, nasopharyngitis, sore throat and cough, reported by 28.7%, 28.7%, 19.6% and 16.7% of subjects, respectively, which dissipated over time. Small decreases in lung function were not considered clinically relevant. No clinically relevant findings were observed in the other safety parameters. From Month 2, nicotine withdrawal symptoms decreased. Smoking desire and CC consumption steadily decreased over time in all subjects. EVP use was associated with reduced exposure to cigarette smoke constituents, whereas urinary nicotine levels remained close to baseline. Body weight did not increase in CC subjects switching to the EVP. In conclusion, the aerosol of the EVP at study was well tolerated and not associated with any clinically relevant health concerns after usage for up to 24 months., (Copyright © 2017 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

A randomised, parallel group clinical study was performed to evaluate the safety profile of an e-vapour product (EVP; 2.0% nicotine) in smokers of conventional cigarettes (CCs) switching to use the EVP for 12 weeks. During the study, no clinically significant product-related findings were observed in terms of vital signs, electrocardiogram, lung function tests and standard clinical laboratory parameters. Adverse events (AEs) reported by EVP subjects were more frequent during the first week after switching to the EVP. The frequency of AEs reduced thereafter and out of a total of 1515 reported AEs, 495 were judged as being related to nicotine withdrawal symptoms. The most frequently stated AEs were headache, sore throat, desire to smoke and cough reported by 47.4, 27.8, 27.5 and 17.0% of subjects, respectively. Only 6% of AEs were judged as probably or definitely related to the EVP. Additional observations in EVP subjects included a decrease in the level of urine nicotine equivalents by up to 33.8%, and decreases in the level of three biomarkers of exposure to toxicants known to be present in CC smoke (benzene, acrolein and 4-[methylnitrosamino]-1-[3-pyridyl]-1-butanone). The decrease in nicotine equivalents coincided with an increase in nicotine withdrawal symptoms, measured by a questionnaire, which subsided after two weeks. The data presented here shows the potential EVPs may offer smokers looking for an alternative to CCs., (Crown Copyright © 2016. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

An Electronic Vapour Product (EVP) has been evaluated for short-term safety parameters and subjective effects in a 2-part study, in smokers. Part 1 compared the EVP with unflavoured (UF) and flavoured (FL) e-liquid at 2.0% nicotine to a conventional cigarette (CC; JPS Silver King Size, 0.6 mg) and a licensed nicotine inhalator (Nicorette(®), 15 mg). Part 2 assessed the effect of increasing concentrations of nicotine in the e-liquid used with the EVP (0%, 0.4%, 0.9%, 2.0%). The study was designed as a randomised, controlled, crossover trial. Outcomes included adverse events (AEs), vital signs, exhaled carbon monoxide (CO), clinical laboratory parameters, smoking urges and withdrawal symptoms. In both study parts, only mild non-serious AEs were reported. No major differences were observed in AEs between the EVPs and Nicorette(®). Exhaled CO levels only increased for CC. All products appeared to decrease smoking urges and nicotine withdrawal symptom scores to a similar extent. The EVP had a similar short-term safety profile to Nicorette(®) and relieved smoking urges and nicotine withdrawal symptoms to a similar extent as Nicorette(®) and CC. Unlike nicotine replacement therapies, the EVP may offer an alternative for those finding it difficult to quit the behavioural and sensorial aspects of smoking., (Copyright © 2015 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

The pharmacokinetic (PK) profile of nicotine delivered by an Electronic Vapour Product (EVP) was characterised in a 2-part study in smokers. The study was designed as a randomised, controlled, four-way crossover trial. Part 1 compared an unflavoured e-liquid (UF2.0%) and a flavoured e-liquid (FL2.0%) to a conventional cigarette (CC; JPS Silver King Size, 0.6 mg) and a licensed nicotine inhalator (Nicorette(®); 15 mg). Part 2 compared e-liquids with increasing nicotine concentrations (0%, 0.4%, 0.9%, 2.0%). Subjects used each different product for a daily use session. In Part 1, maximum plasma nicotine concentration (Cmax) for UF2.0%, FL2.0%, Nicorette(®) and CC was 3.6, 2.5, 2.5 and 21.2 ng/mL, respectively. The time to maximum plasma nicotine concentration (Tmax) was longer for the EVP (UF2.0%, 9.0 min; FL2.0%, 10.0 min) and the nicotine inhalator (13.0 min) compared to CC (3.0 min). In Part 2, EVP with 0%, 0.4%, 0.9% and 2.0% nicotine produced Cmax values of 0.6, 1.0, 1.9 and 3.6 ng/mL, respectively. At the maximum nicotine concentration of 2% as prescribed by the European Tobacco Directive, the EVP achieved nicotine delivery that was comparable to the inhalator. EVPs thus offer a potential alternative to nicotine inhalator devices for those finding it difficult to quit smoking., (Copyright © 2015 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)