Biomarkers of Potential Harm among Adult Cigarette and Smokeless Tobacco Users in the PATH Study Wave 1 (2013-2014): A Cross-sectional Analysis

Assessing the Relationship between Biomarkers of Exposure and Biomarkers of Potential Harm: PATH Study Wave 1 (2013 to 2014)

BACKGROUND

The adequacy of biomarkers of potential harm (BOPH) for assessing tobacco products was explored based on their ability to distinguish tobacco use from non-use, change with cessation, and to show biological gradient.

METHODS

The sample included individuals with biomarker data in wave 1 of the Population Assessment of Tobacco Health study who never used tobacco, currently smoke cigarettes exclusively, used to smoke cigarettes exclusively (quit in past 12 months), currently use smokeless tobacco exclusively, and currently use e-cigarettes exclusively. We compared BOPH levels between groups and assessed the relationships between log-transformed biomarkers of exposure [BOE; total nicotine equivalents including seven nicotine metabolites (TNE-7), 4-(methylnitrosamino)-1-(3-pyridyl)-1-butanonol (NNAL), N-acetyl-S-(2-cyanoethyl)-L-cysteine, 1-hydroxypyrene, cadmium, and serum cotinine (SCOT)], and BOPH [high-sensitivity C-reactive protein (hs-CRP), interleukin-6 (IL-6), fibrinogen, soluble intercellular adhesion molecule-1 (sICAM-1), and 8-isoprostane].

RESULTS

Among people who smoke, both sICAM-1 and 8-isoprostane distinguished smoking from non-use and were associated with all six BOE. Among people who use smokeless tobacco, 8-isoprostane was associated with TNE-7 and NNAL whereas hs-CRP was associated with SCOT. Among people who use e-cigarettes, no associations between BOPH and BOE were observed.

CONCLUSIONS

Both sICAM-1 and 8-isoprostane may be useful for assessing the use or changes in use of some tobacco products. Studies examining their predictive validity could further strengthen our understanding of these two biomarkers.

IMPACT

We found that two biomarkers of potential harm, soluble intercellular adhesion molecule-1 and 8-isoprostane, may have utility in studies assessing the potential harm of tobacco use in absence of long-term epidemiological studies.

Harm perceptions across vaping product features: An on-line cross-sectional survey of adults who smoke and/or vape in the United Kingdom

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Vaping products are diverse with a wide variety of features, and popular products change rapidly. This study examined the features and types of vaping products that people who smoke and/or vape perceive contribute to the health harms of vaping.

DESIGN, SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS

This was a cross-sectional survey co-designed with adults who smoked/vaped and pre-registered. An on-line survey (November 2022) was used of a convenience sample of adults in the United Kingdom who smoked and/or vaped (n = 494).

MEASUREMENTS

As primary outcomes, respondents were asked to select any of 15 vaping product features they perceived might have any effect on the health harms of vaping (for each: selected, not selected). Independent variables were smoking/vaping status (smoke and vape; vape, formerly smoked; vape, never regularly smoked; smoke, do not currently vape); relative vaping harm perceptions [less harmful than smoking (accurate), equally/more harmful than smoking or do not know/refused (other)]. Binary logistic regressions were used to compare outcomes by current vaping/smoking status and relative harm perceptions, adjusting for age and sex.

FINDINGS

Most people (54.7%) selected between one and three features. The most frequently selected were nicotine concentration (62.2%) and amount of e-liquid consumed (59.1%), followed by nicotine type (e.g. salt or freebase; 33.0%), source/purchase location (25.3%), flavours (24.7%), temperature to heat e-liquid (21.1%), heat produced by device (20.9%), e-liquid brand (20.9%), amount of emissions (18.6%), device type (e.g. disposable, pod, tank; 17.2%), material of tank (17.0%), power/wattage (13.0%), device brand (8.1%), device size (4.1%) and device weight (2.4%). Higher nicotine concentrations, more e-liquid and salt (versus freebase) nicotine were perceived to confer greater harms. Disposables were perceived as slightly more harmful than reusable devices. There were few differences by current vaping/smoking status and between those with accurate (versus other) harm perceptions of vaping relative to smoking (P > 0.05 for most contrasts, adjusting for age and sex).

CONCLUSIONS

Certain features and types of vaping products [higher nicotine concentrations, more e-liquid consumed and salt (versus freebase) nicotine] were perceived to confer greater health harms among a sample of UK adults who smoked and/or vaped. Findings are consistent with pervasive misperceptions that nicotine is a major cause of harm, although e-liquid volume is likely to contribute to harms.

Biomarkers of potential harm in people switching from smoking tobacco to exclusive e-cigarette use, dual use or abstinence: secondary analysis of Cochrane systematic review of trials of e-cigarettes for smoking cessation

AIMS

This study aims to compare biomarkers of potential harm between people switching from smoking combustible cigarettes (CC) completely to electronic cigarettes (EC), continuing to smoke CC, using both EC and CC (dual users) and using neither (abstainers), based on behaviour during EC intervention studies.

DESIGN

Secondary analysis following systematic review, incorporating inverse variance random-effects meta-analysis and effect direction plots.

SETTING

This study was conducted in Greece, Italy, Poland, the United Kingdom and the United States.

PARTICIPANTS

A total of 1299 adults smoking CC (nine studies) and provided EC.

MEASUREMENTS

Measurements were conducted using carbon monoxide (CO) and 26 other biomarkers.

FINDINGS

In pooled analyses, exhaled CO (eCO) was lower in EC versus EC + CC [mean difference (MD) = -4.40 parts per million (p.p.m.), 95% confidence interval (CI) = -12.04 to 3.24, two studies] and CC (MD = -9.57 p.p.m., 95% CI = -17.30 to -1.83, three studies). eCO was lower in dual users versus CC only (MD = -1.91 p.p.m., 95% CI = -3.38 to -0.45, two studies). Magnitude rather than direction of effect drove substantial statistical heterogeneity. Effect direction plots were used for other biomarkers. Comparing EC with CC, 12 of 13 biomarkers were significantly lower in EC users, with no difference for the 13th. Comparing EC with dual users, 12 of the 25 biomarkers were lower for EC, and five were lower for dual use. For the remaining eight measures, single studies did not detect statistically significant differences, or the multiple studies contributing to the outcome had inconsistent results. Only one study provided data comparing dual use with CC; of the 13 biomarkers measured, 12 were significantly lower in the dual use group, with no statistically significant difference detected for the 13th. Only one study provided data on abstainers.

CONCLUSIONS

Switching from smoking to vaping or dual use appears to reduce levels of biomarkers of potential harm significantly.

Use of Traditional Smokeless, Snus, and Dissolvable Tobacco Among U.S. Youth

INTRODUCTION

Snus, dissolvable, and traditional smokeless tobacco product use is often amalgamated in youth epidemiologic research despite differences across these products. Prevalence, trends, and correlates of U.S. youth use across different classes of oral tobacco products are unknown.

METHODS

Using 2011-2020 National Youth Tobacco Survey (N=193,933) data, the authors tested for cross-year linear and quadratic trends in the weighted prevalence of ever and current use of traditional smokeless tobacco, snus, and dissolvable tobacco. Multivariable logistic regressions estimated the demographic and tobacco use factors associated with the use of different oral tobacco products in 2020. Analyses were conducted in 2022.

RESULTS

During 2011-2020, there were declines in the prevalence of ever use of traditional smokeless tobacco (11.0% to 5.6%; linear trend, p<0.0001) and snus (5.2% to 2.4%; p<0.0001) but no change in ever dissolvable tobacco use (0.8%-1.2%). In 2020, an estimated 1,546,000 U.S. youth ever used traditional smokeless tobacco (7.7% high school, 3.0% middle school), 662,000 ever used snus (high school: 3.5%, middle school: 1.0%), and 326,000 ever used dissolvables (high school: 1.5%, middle school: 0.8%). In 2020, females and non-Hispanic Blacks and Hispanics had lower smokeless or snus ever use odds than males and non-Hispanic Whites, respectively, whereas sexual minorities (than heterosexuals) or those speaking a language other than English at home were more likely to report ever use of dissolvable tobacco. Flavored tobacco use was common, particularly for dissolvable current users (72.8% used any flavor).

CONCLUSIONS

Differences in the epidemiology of oral tobacco use across product types among U.S. youth suggest that oral tobacco products should be disaggregated in future research and policy strategies.

Dietary Antioxidants and Lung Cancer Risk in Smokers and Non-Smokers

Smoking is considered a major risk factor in the development of lung diseases worldwide. Active smoking and secondhand (passive) smoke (SHS) are related to lung cancer (LC) risk. Oxidative stress (OS) and/or lipid peroxidation (LP) induced by cigarette smoke (CS) are found to be involved in the pathogenesis of LC. Meta-analyses and other case-control/prospective cohort studies are inconclusive and have yielded inconsistent results concerning the protective role of dietary vitamins C and E, retinol, and iron intake against LC risk in smokers and/or non-smokers. Furthermore, the role of vitamins and minerals as antioxidants with the potential in protecting LC cells against CS-induced OS in smokers and non-smokers has not been fully elucidated. Thus, this review aims to summarize the available evidence reporting the relationships between dietary antioxidant intake and LC risk in smokers and non-smokers that may be used to provide suggestions for future research.

The Correlation of Swedish Snus, Nicotine Pouches and Other Tobacco Products with Oral Mucosal Health and Salivary Biomarkers

In society, tobacco products, such as e-cigarettes, and smokeless tobacco products, such as snus and nicotine pouches, are becoming more attractive. There is still a lack of information regarding the effects of these products on the oral mucosa and oral saliva biomarkers. The aim of this study is to evaluate oral mucosa and the presence of inflammatory biomarkers IL-6, IL-1, IL-8, TNF alpha and LRG-1 in saliva. Respondents were divided in four groups based on their tobacco product usage. Oral examination was carried out, saliva samples were taken, and the detection of IL-6, IL-8, IL-1, TNF alpha and LRG-1 levels in saliva was carried out. Out of the tobacco users, 30.8% were snus users, 48.7% were cigarette users and 20.5% were e-cigarette users. The control group was composed of respondents who did not use any tobacco products. E-cigarettes were used more by women, but snus was used more by men. Mucosal changes were seen in the group of snus users, and mucosal changes were only seen in men who had used 5–10 tobacco units per day for 5–10 years. Increased IL-6 levels in saliva were detected in respondents who also experienced mucosal changes. Mucosal changes were white, leathery and localized at the site where snus sachets were placed. Saliva, as an easily available biofluid, could be used as a first tool to detect potentially precancerous signs, but the LRG1 marker cannot be used as a prognostic marker.

Understanding heterogeneity among individuals who smoke cigarettes and vape: assessment of biomarkers of exposure and potential harm among subpopulations from the PATH Wave 1 Data

Introduction

People who both smoke cigarettes and vape are often considered as a homogenous group even though multiple subgroups may exist. We examined biomarkers of exposure (BOE) and biomarkers of potential harm (BOPH) to differentiate between subgroups of people who smoke and vape based on PATH Study Wave 1 (2013–2014) data.

Methods

We compared people who only smoke cigarettes everyday (Group A, n = 2442) and people who only vape everyday (Group C, n = 169) against people who smoke and vape segmented into subgroups of people who frequently smoke and vape (Group B1, n = 169), frequently smoke and infrequently vape (Group B2, n = 678), frequently vape and infrequently smoke (Group B3, n = 57), and infrequently smoke and vape (Group B4, n = 66). Eighteen BOEs (representing exposure to TSNAs, nicotine, heavy metals, PAHs, and volatile organic compounds) and four BOPHs (representing inflammation and oxidative stress) were compared within the subgroups.

Results

Levels of many BOEs/BOPHs were higher among Group B2 relative to Groups B1, B3, and B4. Compared to Group A, many BOEs were significantly lower in Groups B3 (15/18) and B4 (17/18), and some BOEs were higher among B2 (4/18). Compared to Group C, significantly lower BOEs were observed for Group B4 (2/18).

Conclusions

Overall, the levels of BOEs and BOPHs in people who smoke and vape are associated with frequency of cigarette smoking. Our findings indicate that not all people who smoke and vape are the same, and tobacco product use frequency should be considered when categorizing people who smoke and vape.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12954-022-00673-x.

Associations of Smokeless Tobacco Use With Cardiovascular Disease Risk: Insights From the Population Assessment of Tobacco and Health Study

INTRODUCTION

Cigarette smoking is strongly associated with the development of cardiovascular disease (CVD). However, evidence is limited as to whether smokeless tobacco (ST) use is associated with CVD.

AIMS AND METHODS

Using data from 4347 adults in the Population Assessment of Tobacco and Health Study (2013-2014), we compared geometric mean concentrations of CVD-related harm biomarkers and biomarkers of exposure among exclusive ST users and exclusive cigarette smokers-in relation to recent nicotine exposure-and never tobacco users, adjusting for age, sex, race/ethnicity, income, body mass index, and CVD. Biomarker levels among exclusive ST users who were former established cigarette smokers were compared with exclusive cigarette smokers.

RESULTS

Compared with cigarette smokers, ST users had significantly higher concentrations of total nicotine equivalents (TNE) but lower concentrations of inflammatory (high-sensitivity C-reactive protein, interleukin-6, intercellular adhesion molecule, fibrinogen) and oxidative stress (8-isoprostane) biomarkers (all p < .05). Biomarker levels among ST users were similar to never smokers. ST users who were former cigarette smokers had lower levels of inflammatory and oxidative stress biomarkers and biomarkers of exposure (cadmium, lead, 1-hydroxypyrene, acrylonitrile, and acrolein), compared with cigarettes smokers (p < .05), despite having higher TNE levels (p < .05). Among cigarette smokers, but not among ST users, inflammatory biomarkers and TNE were highly correlated.

CONCLUSIONS

ST use is not associated with increases in biomarkers of CVD-related harm and exposure, compared with never smokers, despite exposure to nicotine at levels higher than those observed among cigarette smokers. These findings support the concept that increases in CVD risk among cigarette smokers is caused primarily by constituents of tobacco smoke other than nicotine.

IMPLICATIONS

Despite having higher levels of nicotine and compared with exclusive cigarette smokers, exclusive ST users (including those who were former cigarette smokers) had significantly lower concentrations of inflammatory and oxidative stress biomarkers, comparable to levels observed among never tobacco users. These findings suggest that increases in CVD risk among cigarette smokers is caused primarily by tobacco constituents other than nicotine and that switching to ST is likely associated with lower CVD risk.