Reductions in biomarkers of exposure to selected harmful and potentially harmful constituents following exclusive and partial switching from combustible cigarettes to myblu™ electronic nicotine delivery systems (ENDS)

Paul Morris, Simon McDermott, Fiona Chapman, Thomas Verron, Xavier Cahours, Matthew Stevenson, Joseph Thompson, Nveed Chaudhary, Grant O'Connell, Paul Morris, Simon McDermott, Fiona Chapman, Thomas Verron, Xavier Cahours, Matthew Stevenson, Joseph Thompson, Nveed Chaudhary, Grant O'Connell

Abstract

Electronic nicotine delivery systems (ENDS) offer adult combustible cigarette smokers an alternative, potentially reduced harm, mode of nicotine delivery, attributed to fewer and reduced levels of harmful and potentially harmful constituents (HPHCs) in their aerosols compared to cigarette smoke. These two identical, randomised, open label, two-part studies aimed to compare levels of 15 biomarkers of exposure (BoE) to selected HPHCs associated with tobacco smoking in healthy US adult smoker subjects (n = 72). Following 9 days of exclusive use of a range of allocated myblu™ ENDS variants, subjects' levels of 14 non-nicotine BoE were substantially reduced compared to baseline values (combustible cigarette use), in the range of 46-97%. BoE reductions were sustained in subjects who continued myblu use exclusively (n = 25) for a further 5 days, and returned to near baseline levels in subjects who returned to exclusive combustible cigarette use (n = 21). Dual users (n = 24) demonstrated reductions in BoE to a lesser extent than with exclusive myblu use. Measured nicotine equivalents did not significantly change throughout the study. These data suggest exclusive use of ENDS provides adult smokers seeking an alternative to combustible cigarettes with substantial reductions in HPHC exposures whilst achieving satisfying levels of nicotine delivery. Dual use involving substitution of cigarettes may also provide some of this advantage, but to lesser extent. Overall, the data contribute to the weight of evidence that ENDS are an important tool in tobacco harm reduction for adult smokers unwilling to or uninterested in quitting smoking. Study 1: NCT04430634, study 2: NCT04429932, clinicaltrials.gov (10-06-2020).

Keywords: Biomarkers of exposure; Cigarette; Electronic nicotine delivery systems; Smoking; Tobacco harm reduction; e-Cigarettes.

Conflict of interest statement

This work was funded by Fontem US LLC, a subsidiary of Imperial Brands PLC, and manufacturers of the myblu™ products used in this study. This work was performed by Imperial Brands PLC on behalf of Fontem US LLC as a service provider. Work was contracted to Celerion, who conducted the study and analysed the data. At the time of the study and/or writing, PM, SM, FC, TV, XC, MS, JT, NC and GOC were employees of Imperial Brands PLC.

© 2021. The Author(s).

Figures

Fig. 1
Fig. 1
Overview of the study design. Following screening, participants checked-in to their respective clinical research unit on Day 2. On Days 2 through 1 (24 h) baseline BoE assessments were made followed by randomisation to the myblu ENDS product use sequences detailed, Days 1 through 9 (Part 1). Details of the products (A–H) for identical Studies 1 and 2 can be found in Table 1 (n = number of participants intended to participate in one Study). In Part 2 of the Studies, participants were randomised to one of three study arms (I, J or K, detailed in Table 2). Participant follow-up was carried out approximately 14 days after the end of the study to determine if any adverse events had occurred
Fig. 2
Fig. 2
Relative levels of 14 biomarkers of exposure (BoE) following selected product use, measured at Days 9 and 14 of Study 1. Values are expressed relative (%) to baseline levels (combustible cigarette smoking) measured on Day 1 and are detailed in labels on the bars. Red bars represent participants who switched from exclusive myblu use to exclusively smoking their usual brand of cigarette on Day 10 of the Study (arm 1 J) (n = 11); green bars represent dual-use (50% reported usual brand cigarette smoking and myblu use ad libitum from Day 10 of the Study) participants (arm 1 K) (n = 12); blue bars represent participants who continued to exclusively using their selected myblu products ad libitum from Day 10 of the Study (arm 1I) (n = 14). Definitions of abbreviated BoE can be found in Table 3 (color figure online)
Fig. 3
Fig. 3
Relative levels of 14 biomarkers of exposure following selected product use, measured at Days 9 and 14 of Study 2. Values are expressed relative (%) to baseline levels (combustible cigarette smoking) measured on Day 1 and are detailed in labels on the bars. Red bars represent participants who switched from exclusive myblu use to exclusively smoking their usual brand of cigarette on Day 10 of the Study (arm 2 J) (n = 10); green bars represent dual-use (50% reported usual brand cigarette smoking and myblu use ad libitum from Day 10 of the Study) participants (arm 2 K) (n = 12); blue bars represent participants who continued to exclusively using their selected myblu products ad libitum from Day 10 of the Study (arm 2I) (n = 11). Definitions of abbreviated BoE can be found in Table 3 (color figure online)

References

    1. Royal College of Physicians (2016) Nicotine without smoke: tobacco harm reduction. . Accessed 6 Aug 2021
    1. Polosa R, et al. The effect of e-cigarette aerosol emissions on respiratory health: a narrative review. Expert Rev Respir Med. 2019;13(9):899–915. doi: 10.1080/17476348.2019.1649146.
    1. McNeill A, Brose LS, Calder R, Bauld L, Robson D (2018) Evidence review of ENDS and heated tobacco products 2018. A report commissioned by Public Health England, London
    1. Polosa R, et al. A fresh look at tobacco harm reduction: the case for the electronic cigarette. Harm Reduct J. 2013;10(1):19. doi: 10.1186/1477-7517-10-19.
    1. Hartmann-Boyce J, et al. Electronic cigarettes for smoking cessation. Cochrane Database of Systematic Rev. 2020 doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD010216.pub4.
    1. George J, et al. Cardiovascular effects of switching from tobacco cigarettes to electronic cigarettes. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2019;74(25):3112–3120. doi: 10.1016/j.jacc.2019.09.067.
    1. Polosa R, et al. COPD smokers who switched to ENDS: health outcomes at 5-year follow up. Ther Adv Chronic Dis. 2020;11:2040622320961617. doi: 10.1177/2040622320961617.
    1. Rudd K, et al. Chemical composition and in vitro toxicity profile of a pod-based ENDS aerosol compared to cigarette smoke. Appl In Vitro Toxicol. 2020 doi: 10.1089/aivt.2019.0015.
    1. Goniewicz ML, et al. Levels of selected carcinogens and toxicants in vapour from electronic cigarettes. Tob Control. 2014;23:133–139. doi: 10.1136/tobaccocontrol-2012-050859.
    1. Hajek P, et al. Electronic cigarettes: review of use, content, safety, effects on smokers and potential for harm and benefit. Addiction. 2014;109:1801–1810. doi: 10.1111/add.12659.
    1. Tayyarah R, Long GA. Comparison of select analytes in aerosol from ENDS with smoke from conventional cigarettes and with ambient air. Regul Toxicol Pharmacol. 2014;70(3):704–710. doi: 10.1016/j.yrtph.2014.10.010.
    1. Margham J, et al. Chemical composition of aerosol from an ENDS: a quantitative comparison with cigarette smoke. Chem Res Toxicol. 2016;29(10):1662–1678. doi: 10.1021/acs.chemrestox.6b00188.
    1. Wieczorek R, et al. A comparative in vitro toxicity assessment of electronic vaping product e-liquids and aerosols with tobacco cigarette smoke. Toxicol In Vitro. 2020;66:104866. doi: 10.1016/j.tiv.2020.104866.
    1. Czekala L, et al. Toxicological comparison of cigarette smoke and ENDS aerosol using a 3D in vitro human respiratory model. Regul Toxicol Pharmacol. 2019;103:314–324. doi: 10.1016/j.yrtph.2019.01.036.
    1. Haswell LE, et al. Reduced biological effect of ENDS aerosol compared to cigarette smoke evaluated in vitro using normalized nicotine dose and RNA-seq-based toxicogenomics. Sci Rep. 2017;7(1):888. doi: 10.1038/s41598-017-00852-y.
    1. Breheny D, et al. The in vitro assessment of a novel vaping technology. Toxicol Rep. 2020;7:1145–1156. doi: 10.1016/j.toxrep.2020.08.016.
    1. Jay J, et al. Five-day changes in biomarkers of exposure among adult smokers after completely switching from combustible cigarettes to a nicotine-salt pod system. Nicotine Tob Res. 2019;22(8):1285–1293. doi: 10.1093/ntr/ntz206.
    1. Hatsukami DK, et al. A randomized clinical trial examining the effects of instructions for electronic cigarette use on smoking-related behaviors and biomarkers of exposure. Nicotine Tob Res. 2020;22(9):1524–1532. doi: 10.1093/ntr/ntz233.
    1. Smith DM, et al. Differences in exposure to nicotine, tobacco-specific nitrosamines, and volatile organic compounds among electronic cigarette users, tobacco smokers, and dual users from three countries. Toxics. 2020 doi: 10.3390/toxics8040088.
    1. Akiyama Y, Sherwood N. Systematic review of biomarker findings from clinical studies of electronic cigarettes and heated tobacco products. Toxicol Rep. 2021;8:282–294. doi: 10.1016/j.toxrep.2021.01.014.
    1. Goniewicz ML, et al. Exposure to nicotine and selected toxicants in cigarette smokers who switched to electronic cigarettes: a longitudinal within-subjects observational study. Nicotine Tob Res. 2017;19(2):160–167. doi: 10.1093/ntr/ntw160.
    1. O'Connell G, et al. Reductions in biomarkers of exposure (BoE) to harmful or potentially harmful constituents (HPHCs) following partial or complete substitution of cigarettes with electronic cigarettes in adult smokers. Toxicol Mech Methods. 2016;26(6):443–454. doi: 10.1080/15376516.2016.1196282.
    1. Round EK, et al. Biomarkers of tobacco exposure decrease after smokers switch to an ENDS or nicotine gum. Nicotine Tob Res. 2019;21(9):1239–1247. doi: 10.1093/ntr/nty140.
    1. Erythropel HC, et al. Differences in flavourant levels and synthetic coolant use between USA, EU and Canadian Juul products. Tob Control. 2020;30:453–455. doi: 10.1136/tobaccocontrol-2019-055500.
    1. Mallock N, et al. Trendy e-cigarettes enter Europe: chemical characterization of JUUL pods and its aerosols. Arch Toxicol. 2020;94(6):1985–1994. doi: 10.1007/s00204-020-02716-3.
    1. CDC. ENDS or vaping products visual dictionary. . Last accessed 04 Jan 2021
    1. Leventhal AM, et al. Effect of exposure to ENDS with salt vs free-base nicotine on the appeal and sensory experience of vaping: a randomized clinical trial. JAMA Netw Open. 2021;4(1):e2032757–e2032757. doi: 10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2020.32757.
    1. O'Connell G, et al. A randomised, open-label, cross-over clinical study to evaluate the pharmacokinetic profiles of cigarettes and ENDS with nicotine salt formulations in US adult smokers. Intern Emerg Med. 2019;14(6):853–861. doi: 10.1007/s11739-019-02025-3.
    1. Russell C, et al. Changing patterns of first e-cigarette flavor used and current flavors used by 20,836 adult frequent e-cigarette users in the USA. Harm Reduct J. 2018;15(1):33. doi: 10.1186/s12954-018-0238-6.
    1. Gravely S, et al. The association of ENDS flavors with satisfaction, enjoyment, and trying to quit or stay abstinent from smoking among regular adult vapers from Canada and the United States: findings from the 2018 ITC four country smoking and vaping survey. Nicotine Tob Res. 2020;22(10):1831–1841. doi: 10.1093/ntr/ntaa095.
    1. Robertson L, et al. Dual use of electronic nicotine delivery systems (ENDS) and smoked tobacco: a qualitative analysis. Tob Control. 2019;28:13–19. doi: 10.1136/tobaccocontrol-2017-054070.
    1. Simonavicius E, et al. What factors are associated with current smokers using or stopping ENDS use? Drug Alcohol Depend. 2017;173:139–143. doi: 10.1016/j.drugalcdep.2017.01.002.
    1. Zhuang Y-L, et al. Long-term ENDS use and smoking cessation: a longitudinal study with US population. Tob Control. 2016;25:i90–i95. doi: 10.1136/tobaccocontrol-2016-053096.
    1. Czoli CD, et al. Biomarkers of exposure among “dual users” of tobacco cigarettes and electronic cigarettes in Canada. Nicotine Tob Res. 2019;21(9):1259–1266. doi: 10.1093/ntr/nty174.
    1. National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine (NASEM); Health and Medicine Division; Board on Population Health and Public Health Practice; Committee on the Review of the Health Effects of Electronic Nicotine Delivery Systems; Eaton DL, Kwan LY, Stratton K (eds) (2018) Public Health Consequences of ENDS. Washington (DC): National Academies Press (US). The National Academies of SCIENCES ENGINEERING MEDICINE. Available from: . Accessed 6 Aug 2021
    1. Kaur G, et al. Immunological and toxicological risk assessment of ENDS. Eur Respir Rev. 2018;27(147):170119. doi: 10.1183/16000617.0119-2017.
    1. FDA (2012) Harmful and potentially harmful constituents in tobacco products and tobacco smoke; established list US department of health and human services. Federal Register - The Daily Journal of the United States Government 77(64):20034–20037
    1. Czekala L, et al. The in vitro ToxTracker and Aneugen Clastogen Evaluation extension assay as a tool in the assessment of relative genotoxic potential of e-liquids and their aerosols. Mutagenesis. 2021;36(2):129–142. doi: 10.1093/mutage/geaa033.
    1. Hatsukami DK, et al. Clinical trials methods for evaluation of potential reduced exposure products. Cancer Epidemiol Biomark Prev. 2009;18(12):3143–3195. doi: 10.1158/1055-9965.EPI-09-0654.
    1. Caponnetto P, et al. Non-inferiority trial comparing cigarette consumption, adoption rates, acceptability, tolerability, and tobacco harm reduction potential in smokers switching to heated tobacco products or electronic cigarettes: study protocol for a randomized controlled trial. Contemporary Clin Tr Commun. 2020;17:100518–100518. doi: 10.1016/j.conctc.2020.100518.
    1. Gale N, et al. Changes in biomarkers of exposure on switching from a conventional cigarette to tobacco heating products: a randomized, controlled study in healthy Japanese subjects. Nicotine Tob Res. 2018;21(9):1220–1227. doi: 10.1093/ntr/nty104.
    1. FDA (2019) Premarket tobacco product applications for electronic nicotine delivery systems (ENDS). Docket number: FDA-2015-D-2496. . Last accessed 11 Feb 2021
    1. ICH (2016). E6 (R2) Good clinical practice. Last accessed 11 Feb 2021
    1. Benowitz NL, et al. Nicotine chemistry, metabolism, kinetics and biomarkers. Handb Exp Pharmacol. 2009;192:29–60. doi: 10.1007/978-3-540-69248-5_2.
    1. Carmella SG, et al. Effects of smoking cessation on eight urinary tobacco carcinogen and toxicant biomarkers. Chem Res Toxicol. 2009;22(4):734–741. doi: 10.1021/tx800479s.
    1. Gregg EO, et al. Urinary biomarkers of smokers’ exposure to tobacco smoke constituents in tobacco products assessment: a fit for purpose approach. Biomarkers. 2013;18(6):467–486. doi: 10.3109/1354750X.2013.821523.
    1. Hecht SS. Human urinary carcinogen metabolites: biomarkers for investigating tobacco and cancer. Carcinogenesis. 2002;23(6):907–922. doi: 10.1093/carcin/23.6.907.
    1. Hecht SS, et al. Applying tobacco carcinogen and toxicant biomarkers in product regulation and cancer prevention. Chem Res Toxicol. 2010;23(6):1001–1008. doi: 10.1021/tx100056m.
    1. US Department of Health and Human Services (2014) The health consequences of smoking–50 years of progress: a report of the surgeon general. Atlanta, GA US Department of Health and Human Services, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, National Center for Chronic Disease Prevention and Health Promotion, Office on Smoking and Health
    1. Yuki D, et al. Assessment of the exposure to harmful and potentially harmful constituents in healthy Japanese smokers using a novel tobacco vapor product compared with conventional cigarettes and smoking abstinence. Regul Toxicol Pharmacol. 2018;96:127–134. doi: 10.1016/j.yrtph.2018.05.001.
    1. FDA (2013) Bioanalytical method validation guidance for industry. Docket number FDA-2013-D-1020. . Last accessed 12 Feb 2021
    1. FDA (2020) 21 CFR part 58 good laboratory practice for nonclinical laboratory studies. . Last accessed 12 Feb 2021
    1. EMA (2009) Guideline on bioanalytical method validation. . Last accessed 12 Feb 2021
    1. D'Ruiz CD, et al. Reductions in biomarkers of exposure, impacts on smoking urge and assessment of product use and tolerability in adult smokers following partial or complete substitution of cigarettes with electronic cigarettes. BMC Public Health. 2016;16:543–543. doi: 10.1186/s12889-016-3236-1.
    1. Shahab L, et al. Nicotine, carcinogen, and toxin exposure in long-term ENDS and nicotine replacement therapy users: a cross-sectional study. Ann Intern Med. 2017;166(6):390–400. doi: 10.7326/M16-1107.
    1. McRobbie H, et al. Effects of switching to electronic cigarettes with and without concurrent smoking on exposure to nicotine, carbon monoxide, and acrolein. Cancer Prev Res (Phila) 2015;8(9):873–878. doi: 10.1158/1940-6207.CAPR-15-0058.
    1. Goniewicz ML, et al. Comparison of nicotine and toxicant exposure in users of electronic cigarettes and combustible cigarettes. JAMA Netw Open. 2018;1(8):e185937–e185937. doi: 10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2018.5937.
    1. Simms L, et al. The use of human induced pluripotent stem cells to screen for developmental toxicity potential indicates reduced potential for non-combusted products, when compared to cigarettes. Curr Res Toxicol. 2020;1:161–173. doi: 10.1016/j.crtox.2020.11.001.
    1. Yingst JM, et al. Nicotine absorption profile among regular users of a pod-based electronic nicotine delivery system. JAMA Netw Open. 2019;2(11):e1915494–e1915494. doi: 10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2019.15494.
    1. Sakamaki-Ching S, et al. Correlation between biomarkers of exposure, effect and potential harm in the urine of electronic cigarette users. BMJ Open Respir Res. 2020;7(1):e000452. doi: 10.1136/bmjresp-2019-000452.

Source: PubMed

3
Se inscrever