A randomized controlled study in healthy participants to explore the exposure continuum when smokers switch to a tobacco heating product or an E-cigarette relative to cessation

A Scoping Review of Behavioural Studies on Heated Tobacco Products

Heated tobacco products (HTPs) are electronic devices that heat tobacco sticks to temperatures much lower than those which cause pyrolysis and combustion in cigarettes. While this electrical heating causes the formation of an inhalable aerosol which contains nicotine, the aerosol from HTPs contains significantly fewer and lower levels of the harmful and potentially harmful chemicals found in cigarette smoke. As a result, HTP use potentially conveys reduced risks to health compared to cigarette smoking. While this relative reduction in individual health risk is becoming clearer, what is less certain is the impact of HTPs on overall population‑level health, taking into account both the potential positive impact on adult smokers who completely switch to using HTPs and any unintended impacts such as use by tobacco non‑users and particularly by youth. The aim of this scoping review was to collate and evaluate the published scientific evidence to date, with a cut‑off of 1 January 2024, investigating the impact of HTPs on population‑level health. This evaluation suggests that HTP use is almost exclusively observed among those with a history of cigarette smoking, and there is a growing body of evidence for the ability of HTPs to provide support for adult smokers to transition away from cigarette smoking, in the absence of any significant "gateway" into tobacco use initiation. Many studies have reported a significant degree of dual use of cigarettes and HTPs, and efforts to assess the reasons for such patterns of use, whether these provide overall exposure reductions, and whether dual use acts as a bridge towards a complete transition away from cigarette smoking, requires further investigation. In addition, correction of the widespread and increasing misperceptions of HTPs among adult smokers is recommended to promote HTP uptake as a potentially less harmful alternative to smoking in this population.

Document analysis of the Foundation for a Smoke-Free World's scientific outputs and activities: a case study in contemporary tobacco industry agnogenesis

BACKGROUND

Tobacco corporation Philip Morris International launched the Foundation for a Smoke-Free World (FSFW), a purportedly independent scientific organisation, in 2017. We aimed to systematically investigate FSFW's activities and outputs, comparing these with previous industry attempts to influence science, as identified in the recently developed typology of corporate influence on science, the Science for Profit Model (SPM).

DESIGN

We prospectively collected data on FSFW over a 4-year period, 2017-2021, and used document analysis to assess whether FSFW's activities mirror practices tobacco and other industries have historically used to shape science in their own interests. We used the SPM as an analytical framework, working deductively to search for use of the strategies it identifies, and inductively to search for any additional strategies.

RESULTS

Marked similarities between FSFW's practices and previous corporate attempts to influence science were observed, including: producing tobacco industry-friendly research and opinion; obscuring industry involvement in science; funding third parties which denigrate science and scientists that may threaten industry profitability; and promoting tobacco industry credibility.

CONCLUSIONS

Our paper identifies FSFW as a new vehicle for agnogenesis, indicating that, over 70 years since the tobacco industry began to manipulate science, efforts to protect science from its interference remain inadequate. This, combined with growing evidence that other industries are engaging in similar practices, illustrates the urgent need to develop more robust systems to protect scientific integrity.

Comparative toxicological assessment of cigarettes and new category products via an in vitro multiplex proteomics platform

Cigarette smoking is a risk factor for several diseases such as cancer, cardiovascular disease (CVD), and chronic obstructive pulmonary diseases (COPD), however, the underlying mechanisms are not fully understood. Alternative nicotine products with reduced risk potential (RRPs) including tobacco heating products (THPs), and e-cigarettes have recently emerged as viable alternatives to cigarettes that may contribute to the overall strategy of tobacco harm reduction due to the significantly lower levels of toxicants in these products' emissions as compared to cigarette smoke. Assessing the effects of RRPs on biological responses is important to demonstrate the potential value of RRPs towards tobacco harm reduction. Here, we evaluated the inflammatory and signaling responses of human lung epithelial cells to aqueous aerosol extracts (AqE) generated from the 1R6F reference cigarette, the glo™ THP, and the Vype ePen 3.0 e-cigarette using multiplex analysis of 37 inflammatory and phosphoprotein markers. Cellular exposure to the different RRPs and 1R6F AqEs resulted in distinct response profiles with 1R6F being the most biologically active followed by glo™ and ePen 3.0. 1R6F activated stress-related and pro-survival markers c-JUN, CREB1, p38 MAPK and MEK1 and led to the release of IL-1α. glo™ activated MEK1 and decreased IL-1β levels, whilst ePen 3.0 affected IL-1β levels but had no effect on the signaling activity compared to untreated cells. Our results demonstrated the reduced biological effect of RRPs and suggest that targeted analysis of inflammatory and cell signaling mediators is a valuable tool for the routine assessment of RRPs.

The Product Science of Electrically Heated Tobacco Products: An Updated Narrative Review of the Scientific Literature

Heated tobacco products represent a novel category of tobacco products in which a tobacco consumable is heated to a temperature that releases nicotine from the tobacco leaf but not to a temperature sufficient to cause combustion. Heated tobacco products may therefore have the potential to be a less harmful alternative for adult smokers who would otherwise continue to smoke cigarettes, as their use should result in exposure to substantially fewer and lower levels of toxicants. This update represents a two-year extension to our previous narrative review, which covered peer-reviewed journal articles published up to August 31, 2021. The scientific evidence published between 2021 and 2023 continues to indicate that aerosols produced from heated tobacco products contain fewer and substantially lower levels of harmful and potentially harmful constituents and that these observed reductions consistently translate to reduced biological effects in both in vitro and in vivo toxicological studies. Biomarker and clinical data from studies in which product use is controlled within a clinical setting continue to suggest changes in levels of biomarkers of exposure, biomarkers of potential harm, and clinical endpoints indicating the potential for reduced harm with switching to exclusive use of heated tobacco products in adult smokers. Overall, the available peer-reviewed scientific evidence continues to indicate that heated tobacco products offer promise as a potentially less harmful alternative to cigarettes, and as such, the conclusions of our original narrative review remain valid.

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.

Exposure to Tobacco-Specific Nitrosamines Among People Who Vape, Smoke, or do Neither: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

INTRODUCTION

Smoking exposes people to high levels of Tobacco-Specific Nitrosamines (TSNAs), which include potent carcinogens. We systematically reviewed TSNA exposure between people smoking, vaping, and doing neither.

AIMS AND METHODS

Databases were searched between August 2017-March 2022, using vaping-related terms. Peer-reviewed articles reporting TSNA metabolites (NNAL, NNN, NAB, and NAT) levels in bio-samples among adults exclusively vaping, exclusively smoking, or doing neither were included. Where possible, meta-analyses were conducted.

RESULTS

Of 12 781 identified studies, 22 were included. TSNA levels fell substantially when people who smoke switched to vaping in longitudinal studies and were lower among people who vaped compared to smoked in cross-sectional studies. Levels of TSNAs were similar when comparing people who switched from smoking to vaping, to those who switched to no use of nicotine products, in longitudinal studies. Levels were higher among people who vaped compared to people who neither vaped nor smoked in cross-sectional studies.When comparing people who vaped to smoked: pooled urinary NNAL was 79% lower across three randomized controlled trials and 96% lower across three cross-sectional studies; pooled NAB was 87% lower and NAT 94% lower in two cross-sectional studies. When comparing people who neither vaped nor smoked to people who vaped, pooled urinary NNAL was 80%, NAB 26%, and NAT 27% lower in two cross-sectional studies. Other longitudinal data, and NNN levels could not be pooled.

CONCLUSIONS

Exposure to all TSNAs was lower among people who vaped compared to people who smoked. Levels were higher among people who vaped compared to people who neither vaped nor smoked.

IMPLICATIONS

As well as TSNAs, there are many other toxicant exposures from smoking and vaping that can increase the risk of disease. However, it is likely that the reduced exposure to TSNAs from vaping relative to smoking reduces the risk to health of those who use vaping products to quit smoking. Future high-quality research, with robust definitions of exclusive vaping and smoking, and accounting for TSNAs half-lives, is needed to fully assess exposure to TSNAs among people who vape.

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.

Human abuse liability assessment of e-cigarettes: Why, what and how?

Cigarette smoking is the world's leading cause of preventable death and disease. Alternative nicotine products such as e-cigarettes have tobacco harm reduction potential, by providing smokers with an alternative form of nicotine delivery but with either the reduced presence or absence of the numerous harmful chemicals found in combustible cigarette smoke. One aspect of importance in determining the potential of e-cigarettes to provide a viable alternative to combustible cigarettes for smokers is their ability to cause dependence, also known as their abuse liability. E-cigarettes with little or no abuse liability would be unlikely to be used as a substitute for cigarettes, whereas at least some degree of abuse liability is acknowledged as supportive both to aiding cigarette substitution or complete cessation and to preventing relapse. Given this link between abuse liability and substitution efficacy, human studies assessing the abuse liability of e-cigarettes are important to determine their true harm reduction potential. In this review, the concept of tobacco product abuse liability is discussed, along with the primary elements-pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics (subjective effects)-that need to be assessed to determine abuse liability. The review also presents a number of human abuse liability study design considerations and discusses what existing studies in the literature tell us about the abuse liability and harm reduction potential of e-cigarettes.

Biomarkers of exposure and potential harm in exclusive users of electronic cigarettes and current, former, and never smokers

Electronic cigarette (EC) aerosol emissions generally contain fewer and lower concentrations of harmful and potentially harmful constituents, compared with cigarette smoke. Further studies are needed to establish whether decreased emissions translate to reduced health risks for EC users. In a cross-sectional study, biomarkers of exposure (BoE) to certain tobacco smoke toxicants and biomarkers of potential harm (BoPH), associated with biological processes linked to the potential development of smoking-related diseases and oxidative stress, were assessed in solus Vuse ECs users and current, former, and never smokers. In total, 213 participants were enrolled, and smoking status was confirmed by urinary cotinine, exhaled carbon monoxide, and N-(2-cyanoethyl)valine levels (EC users and former smokers only). During confinement participants used their usual product (EC or cigarette) as normal and BoE and BoPHs were assessed via blood, 24-h urine, and physiological assessment. Significantly lower levels of all urinary BoE; MHBMA, HMPMA, 3-HPMA, NNN, 3-OH-B[a]P, S-PMA, NNAL (all p < 0.0001), and TNeq (p = 0.0074) were observed in EC users when compared with smokers. Moreover, significantly lower levels were observed in EC users for 3 of the 7 BoPH measured, carboxyhaemoglobin (p < 0.0001), soluble intercellular adhesion molecule-1 (p = 0.0028), and 11-dehydrothromboxane B2 (p = 0.0012), when compared with smokers. As compared with smokers, solus Vuse EC users have significantly lower exposure to tobacco toxicants for the BoE, and 3 BoPH measured. These results add to the weight of evidence supporting EC as part of a tobacco harm reduction strategy.

An assessment of nicotine pharmacokinetics and subjective effects of the pulze heated tobacco system compared with cigarettes

Nicotine delivery and subjective effects are determinants of the ability of potentially less harmful tobacco products such as heated tobacco products (HTPs) to support adult smokers in switching away from cigarettes, and therefore to support tobacco harm reduction. This open-label, randomised, crossover, clinical study in 24 healthy adult smokers study assessed nicotine pharmacokinetics and subjective effects of the Pulze Heated Tobacco System (HTS; Pulze HTP device and three iD stick variants-Intense American Blend, Regular American Blend and Regular Menthol) compared with subjects' usual brand cigarettes (UBC). C_max and AUC_t were highest for UBC and significantly lower for each Pulze HTS variant. C_max and AUC_t were significantly higher for Intense American Blend compared with Regular American Blend, while AUC_t was significantly higher for Intense American Blend compared with Regular Menthol. Median T_max was lowest (i.e., nicotine delivery was fastest) for subjects' usual brand cigarettes and similar across the iD stick variants, although no between-product differences were statistically significant. All study products reduced urges to smoke; this effect was greatest for cigarettes although this was not statistically significant. Product evaluation scores for each Pulze HTS variant in the domains of 'satisfaction', 'psychological reward' and 'relief' were similar, and lower than those for UBC. These data demonstrate that the Pulze HTS effectively delivers nicotine and generates positive subjective effects, including satisfaction and reduced urge to smoke. This supports the conclusion that the Pulze HTS may be an acceptable alternative to cigarettes for adult smokers while having a lower abuse liability than cigarettes.

Assessment of biomarkers of exposure and potential harm, and physiological and subjective health measures in exclusive users of nicotine pouches and current, former and never smokers

Background: Oral nicotine pouches (NPs) are smokeless, tobacco-free products that have a potential role in tobacco harm reduction strategies.Methods: In a cross-sectional study in Sweden/Denmark, several recognised biomarkers of potential harm (BoPHs) linked to smoking-related diseases/their initiating biological processes, and biomarkers of exposure (BoEs) to tobacco/tobacco smoke toxicants were compared among exclusive adult users of Velo NPs and current/former/never smokers. Over 24 h, participants used their usual product (Velo NP or cigarette) as normal, and BoEs/BoPHs were assessed via blood/24-h urine/exhaled breath/physiological assessments.Results: Among the primary endpoints, total NNAL (16.9 ± 29.47 vs 187.4 ± 228.93 pg/24 h), white blood cell count (5.59 ± 1.223 vs 6.90 ± 1.758 × 10⁹/L), and COHb (4.36 ± 0.525 vs 8.03 ± 2.173% saturation) were significantly lower among Velo users than among smokers (91%, 19% and 46% lower, respectively, all P < 0.0001), while fractional exhaled NO, previously shown to be lower in smokers, was significantly higher (23.18 ± 17.909 vs 11.20 ± 6.980 ppb) among Velo users (107% higher, P < 0.0001). Furthermore, sICAM-1 tended to be lower (185.9 ± 42.88 vs 204.5 ± 64.85 ng/mL) among Velo users than smokers (9% lower). Several secondary endpoints, including six BoEs (3-HPMA (246.7 ± 91.07 vs 1165.7 ± 718.35 μg/24 h), 3-OH-B[a]P (82.4 ± 217.58 vs 258.3 ± 190.20 pg/24 h), HMPMA (135.1 ± 77.85 vs 368.8 ± 183.15 μg/24 h), MHBMA (0.22 ± 0.166 vs 3.39 ± 2.943 μg/24 h), S-PMA (0.10 ± 0.059 vs 3.53 ± 2.736 µg/24 h) and total NNN (7.5 ± 24.84 vs 9.7 ± 5.93 ng/24 h)), were significantly lower among Velo users (78.8%, 68.1%, 63.4%, 93.5%, 97.2% and 22.7% lower, respectively, P < 0.0001-0.0011), while total nicotine equivalents was significantly higher among Velo users (22.6 ± 12.69 vs 12.1 ± 7.92 mg/24 h, P < 0.0001), although Velo user levels are comparable to those previously reported among oral tobacco users, and Velo user and smoker mean levels were similar in Denmark.Conclusion: As compared with smokers, exclusive users of Velo NPs have significantly less exposure to tobacco toxicants and more favourable BoPHs associated with initiating biological processes of smoking-related diseases.International Standard Registered Clinical Trial number: ISRCTN16988167.

Sales of Electronic Nicotine Delivery Systems (ENDS) and Cigarette Sales in the USA: A Trend Break Analysis

Electronic nicotine delivery systems (ENDS) are a potentially lower-risk tobacco product which could help smokers switch completely away from cigarettes. However, the lack of strong evidence to date of a measurable, population-level effect on reducing smoking has generated skepticism about ENDS' potential benefits. This study examines whether increased US ENDS sales have been associated with reduced cigarette sales. Retail data on weekly per-capita cigarette and ENDS purchases in the USA during 2014-2019 were obtained from a national sample of brick-and-mortar retail outlets. Trends in cigarette sales were modeled before (2014-2016) ENDS had a substantial market share, and, after adjusting for macroeconomic factors, projected into the post-period (2017-2019). Actual cigarette sales were lower than projected sales (by up to 16% across the post-period), indicating a substantial "cigarette shortfall" in the post-period. To explore whether general (i.e., inclusive of potentially many mechanisms) substitution by ENDS can explain the cigarette shortfall, its association with per-capita ENDS volume sales was examined. Higher ENDS sales were significantly associated with a greater cigarette shortfall: for every additional per-capita ENDS unit, cigarette sales were 1.4 packs-per-capita lower than expected (B = 1.4, p < .0001). Error correction models which account for spurious correlation yielded similar results. These findings support ENDS serving as a substitute for cigarettes (through potentially many mechanisms including cigarette price), causing cigarette consumption to decline. Since ENDS potentially pose lower risk than cigarettes, this general substitution effect suggests that risk-proportionate tobacco regulation could mitigate the tobacco-related health burden.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s10603-022-09533-4.

Chemical and in vitro toxicological comparison of emissions from a heated tobacco product and the 1R6F reference cigarette

It has previously been found that, compared with cigarette smoke, the aerosols generated by heated tobacco products contain fewer and lower harmful and potentially harmful constituents (HPHCs) and elicit lower biological activity in in vitro models and lower smoking-related exposure biomarker levels in clinical studies. It is important to accumulate such scientific evidences for heated tobacco products with a novel heating system, because different heating system may affect the quantitative aspect of the amount of HPHCs and the qualitative aspect of the biological activity of the aerosol generated. Here, the chemical properties of, and toxicological responses to aerosols emitted by DT3.0a, a new heated tobacco product with a novel heating system, and cigarette smoke (CS) were compared, using chemical analyses, in vitro battery (standardized genotoxicity and cytotoxicity) assays, and mechanistic (ToxTracker and two-dimensional cell culture) assays. Regular- and menthol-flavored DT3.0a and standard 1R6F reference cigarettes were tested. Selected HPHC yields were lower in DT3.0a aerosol than 1R6F CS. The genotoxicity-related assays indicated that DT3.0a aerosol was not genotoxic, regardless of metabolic activation. The other biological assays indicated that less cytotoxicity induction and oxidative stress response were elicited by DT3.0a aerosol compared with 1R6F CS. Similar results were found for both regular and menthol DT3.0a. Like previous reports for heated tobacco products with other heating systems, the results of this study indicated that DT3.0a aerosols have chemical and biological properties less likely to be harmful than 1R6F CS.

Biomarkers of Exposure and Potential Harm in Exclusive Users of Nicotine Pouches and Current, Former, and Never Smokers: Protocol for a Cross-sectional Clinical Study

Background

Tobacco harm reduction (THR) aims to reduce the health burden of cigarettes by encouraging smokers to switch to using alternative tobacco or nicotine products. Nicotine pouches (NPs) are smokeless, tobacco-free, oral products that may be beneficial as part of a THR strategy.

Objective

This 2-center, cross-sectional confinement study conducted in Denmark and Sweden aimed to determine whether biomarkers of exposure (BoEs) to tobacco toxicants and biomarkers of potential harm (BoPHs) in exclusive users of NPs show favorable differences compared with current smokers.

Methods

Participants were healthy NP users (target n=100) and current, former, or never smokers (target n=40 each), as confirmed by urinary cotinine and exhaled carbon monoxide concentrations. During a 24-hour confinement period, participants were asked to use their usual product (NP or cigarette) as normal, and BoEs and BoPHs were measured in blood and 24-hour urine samples, with compliance determined using anabasine, anatabine, and N-(2-cyanoethyl)valine. BoEs and BoPHs were compared between NP users and current, former, and never smokers. Urinary total 4-(methylnitrosamino)-1-(3-pyridyl)-1-butanol (BoE to nicotine-derived nitrosamine ketone) and urinary 8-epi-prostaglandin F2α type III, exhaled nitric oxide, blood carboxyhemoglobin, white blood cell count, soluble intercellular adhesion molecule-1, and high-density lipoprotein cholesterol (BoPHs) were evaluated as primary outcomes. Other measures included urinary 11-dehydrothromboxane B2, forced expiratory volume, carotid intima-media thickness, self-reported quality of life, and oral health.

Results

The results of this study were received in mid-2022 and will be published in late 2022 to early 2023.

Conclusions

The results of this study will provide information on toxicant exposure and biomarkers associated with the development of smoking-related diseases among users of NPs compared with smokers, as well as on the potential role of NPs in THR.

Trial Registration

International Standard Randomised Controlled Trial Number (ISRCTN) ISRCTN16988167; https://www.isrctn.com/ISRCTN16988167

International Registered Report Identifier (IRRID)

DERR1-10.2196/39785

Changes in biomarkers of exposure and biomarkers of potential harm after 360 days in smokers who either continue to smoke, switch to a tobacco heating product or quit smoking

The aim of this study was to investigate whether biomarkers of exposure (BoE) and potential harm (BoPH) are modified when smokers either continue to smoke or switch from smoking cigarettes to exclusive use of a tobacco heating product (THP) in an ambulatory setting over the period of a year, and to compare any changes with smokers who quit tobacco use completely and with never smokers' biomarker levels. Participants in this year-long ambulatory study were healthy smokers with a self-reported low intent to quit assigned either to continue smoking or switch to a THP; a group of smokers with a self-reported high intent to quit who abstained from tobacco use; and a group of never smokers. Various BoE and BoPH related to oxidative stress, cardiovascular and respiratory diseases and cancer were assessed at baseline and up to 360 days. Substantial and sustained reductions in BoE levels were found at 360 days for both participants who switched from smoking to THP use and participants who quit smoking, in many cases the reductions being of a similar order for both groups. The never smoker group typically had lower levels of the measured BoEs than either of these groups, and much lower levels than participants who continued to smoke. Several BoPHs were found to change in a favourable direction (towards never smoker levels) over the year study for participants who completely switched to THP or quit, while BoPHs such as soluble intercellular adhesion molecule-1 were found to change in an unfavourable direction (away from never smoker levels) in participants who continued to smoke. Our findings, alongside chemical and toxicological studies undertaken on the THP used in this study, lead to the conclusion that smokers who would have otherwise continued to smoke and instead switch entirely to the use of this THP, will reduce their exposure to tobacco smoke toxicants and as a consequence are reasonably likely to reduce disease risks compared to those continuing to smoke.

Designing Studies to Inform Tobacco Harm Reduction: Learnings From an Oral Nicotine Pouch Actual Use Pilot Study

Background

Introduction of new tobacco products in the United States, including those that may be lower on the risk continuum than traditional combustible cigarettes, requires premarket authorization by the US Food and Drug Administration and information on the potential impact of the products on consumer behaviors. Efficient recruitment and data capture processes are needed to collect relevant information in a near-to-real-world environment.

Objective

The aim of this pilot study was to develop and test a protocol for an actual use study of a new tobacco product. The product included in this study was a commercially available oral nicotine pouch. Through the process of study design and execution, learnings were garnered to inform the design, execution, analysis, and report writing of future full-scale actual use studies with tobacco products.

Methods

A small sample (n=100) of healthy adult daily smokers of 7 or more cigarettes per day were recruited to participate in an 8-week prospective observational study conducted at 4 geographically dispersed sites in the United States. A smartphone-based customized electronic diary (eDiary) was employed to capture daily tobacco product use, including 1 week of baseline smoking and 6 weeks during which participants were provided with oral nicotine pouches for use as desired.

Results

Online screening procedures with follow-up telephone interviews and on-site enrollment were successfully implemented. Of 100 participants, 97 completed the study, with more than half (59/99, 60%) identifying as dual- or poly-users of cigarettes and other types of tobacco products at baseline. There was more than 90% (91-93/99, 92%-94%) compliance with daily eDiary reporting, and the majority (92/99, 93%) of participants expressed satisfaction with the study processes. Product use data from the eDiary indicated that after an initial period of trial use, pouches per day increased among those continuing to use the products, while per day average cigarette consumption decreased for 82% (79/97) of all study participants. At the end of the week 6, 16% (15/97) of participants had reduced their cigarette consumption by more than half.

Conclusions

The design of this study, including recruiting, enrollment, eDiary use, and oversight, was successfully implemented through the application of a detailed protocol, a user-friendly eDiary, electronically administered questionnaires, and remote monitoring procedures. High-resolution information was obtained on prospective changes in tobacco product use patterns in the context of availability of a new tobacco product. Future, larger actual use studies will provide important evidence supporting the role that alternatives to combustible cigarettes may play in smoking reduction and/or cessation and lowering the population health burden of tobacco and nicotine-containing products.

Evaluation of behavioural, chemical, toxicological and clinical studies of a tobacco heated product glo™ and the potential for bridging from a foundational dataset to new product iterations

Background

Tobacco Heating Products (THPs) are tobacco products that heat rather than burn tobacco with temperatures less than 350 °C. Because of this operating principle, they produce substantially fewer and lower levels of tobacco smoke toxicants than combustible cigarette smoke produced when tobacco is burnt, which occurs at much higher temperatures of around 900 °C. This paper analyses data on a THP, glo™, and assesses whether its use would result in reduced health risks compared to the health risks of smoking cigarettes. It also looks at the possibility of bridging datasets across the different variants of the glo™ product.

Methods

The approach is to consider whether datasets from behavioural, chemical, toxicological and clinical studies provide consistent findings of reductions in toxicant exposure with glo™ use by subjects who switch completely from smoking cigarettes to using glo™ and whether these reductions are similar to those who stop smoking cigarettes without switching to glo™ or any other tobacco or nicotine product. We also examine the similarities and differences of different versions of the glo™ product and benchmark it against a THP from another manufacturer.

Results

The studies indicate that the use of the glo™ results in substantial and prolonged reductions in toxicant exposure for smokers who switch to glo™ completely. A long-term clinical study shows substantial reductions in toxicant exposure over a period of time, similar to reduction of some biomarkers of exposure found following smoking cessation without switching to glo™ or any other tobacco product, and biomarkers of potential harm trending in a favourable manner for both groups that switch to glo™ and that quit all tobacco and nicotine use. Data suggests that all iterations of glo™ result in substantial reductions in toxicant exposure compared to smoking cigarettes and that bridging across datasets is feasible.

Conclusions

Given the accumulated scientific data summarised in this paper, and particularly the findings from a long-term clinical study, the data demonstrate that glo™ is a reduced exposure product compared to combustible cigarettes and is reasonably deemed to reduce the risk of smoking-related diseases and supports the conclusion that smokers who would have otherwise continued to smoke and instead switch entirely to THP glo™ use, will reduce their relative risk of developing smoking-related diseases as compared to continued smoking. The extent of reduction in risk compared to continuing to smoke is likely to vary by smoking-related disease and by an individuals' smoking history, other risk factors and an individual's susceptibility to disease. Use of the THP will present some level of increased health risk as compared to cessation of tobacco and nicotine products and will cause dependence. As long as the principles of heat-not-burn are maintained, THP use will result in substantially reduced exposure to smoke toxicants as compared to continued conventional cigarette smoking. It is possible to use bridging or read across to apply these conclusions to new iterations of the glo™ product, extending the utility and validity of the evidence generated through study of prior iterations.

A randomised, crossover, clinical study to assess nicotine pharmacokinetics and subjective effects of the BIDI® stick ENDS compared with combustible cigarettes and a comparator ENDS in adult smokers

BACKGROUND

Nicotine pharmacokinetic assessments of electronic nicotine delivery systems (ENDS) are crucial to understand their ability to provide an alternative to cigarette smoking. Subjective effects data also strongly contribute to this understanding. The BIDI® Stick is a disposable ENDS product which contains 59 mg/ml nicotine benzoate salt and various flavours.

METHODS

In this study, we assessed nicotine pharmacokinetics and subjective effects of 6 flavour variants of BIDI® Stick ENDS in adult smokers, compared to cigarettes and a comparator ENDS product. During each of eight study visits, 18 volunteer smoker subjects randomly used one of either their usual brand (UB) of cigarette, a BIDI® Stick ENDS, or a comparator ENDS (JUUL 59 mg/ml nicotine with Virginia Tobacco flavour), during both controlled (10 puffs, 30 s apart) and ad libitum (60 min) puffing sessions. Blood samples were collected at various time points and subjective effects questionnaires were administered.

RESULTS

Mean [SD] plasma nicotine Cmax 0-120 was not significantly different between BIDI® Stick ENDS with any flavour (range 15.3 [9.90] ng/ml for BIDI® Stick Winter to 17.6 [9.00] ng/ml for BIDI® Stick Classic) and UB cigarettes (16.2 [9.17] ng/ml). Mean [SD] AUC0-120 (range 569.7 [327.29] to 628.6 [408.99]  min*ng/ml for BIDI® Stick ENDS and 747.1 [325.48]  min*ng/ml for UB cigarettes) and median Tmax 0-120 (range 5-7 min for all BIDI® Stick ENDS and UB cigarettes) values were also not significantly different between BIDI® Stick ENDS and UB cigarettes, while subjective effects measures were also similar between BIDI® Stick ENDS and UB cigarettes. Mean [SD] plasma nicotine Cmax 0-120, AUC0-120, and median Tmax 0-120 were 6.8 [4.13] ng/ml, 243.6 [179.04] min*ng/ml, and 5 min, respectively, for JUUL ENDS. These values were significantly different compared with those for all BIDI® Stick ENDS and UB cigarettes for both Cmax 0-120 and AUC0-120 but not for Tmax 0-120.

CONCLUSIONS

BIDI® Stick ENDS delivered nicotine to users comparably to their UB combustible cigarette and higher than JUUL ENDS, and also elicited similar subjective effects such as satisfaction and relief. Thus, the BIDI® Stick ENDS may be a satisfying alternative to cigarettes among current smokers and may support their transitioning away from cigarette smoking.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov (identifier number NCT05072925).