(→Cancer / Tumors: adding links, citations, etc) |
|||
| Line 51: | Line 51: | ||
==Cancer / Tumors== | ==Cancer / Tumors== | ||
2021: | ===2021: [https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S2213260021000229 Effect of an electronic nicotine delivery system with 0, 8, or 36 mg/mL liquid nicotine versus a cigarette substitute on tobacco-related toxicant exposure: a four-arm, parallel-group, randomised, controlled trial]=== | ||
*Use of an ENDS with cigarette-like nicotine delivery can reduce exposure to a major pulmonary carcinogen, NNAL, even with concurrent smoking | |||
*Citation: Caroline O Cobb, Jonathan Foulds, Miao-Shan Yen, Susan Veldheer, Alexa A Lopez, Jessica M Yingst, Christopher Bullen, Le Kang, Thomas Eissenberg, Sophia I. Allen, Phoebe Brosnan, Christopher Bullen, Nadia Chowdhury, Caroline O. Cobb, Thomas Eissenberg, Jonathan Foulds, Jacob T. Graham, Erin Hammett, Sharilee Hrabovsky, Breianna L. Hummer, Le Kang, Courtney Lester, Alexa A. Lopez, John P. Richie, Christopher Sciamanna, Shumei Sun, Thokozeni Lipato, Susan Veldheer, Miao-Shan Yen, Jessica M. Yingst, Effect of an electronic nicotine delivery system with 0, 8, or 36 mg/mL liquid nicotine versus a cigarette substitute on tobacco-related toxicant exposure: a four-arm, parallel-group, randomised, controlled trial, The Lancet Respiratory Medicine, Volume 9, Issue 8, 2021, Pages 840-850, ISSN 2213-2600, doi:10.1016/S2213-2600(21)00022-9. | |||
*Acknowledgement: Funding: National Institutes of Health, US Food and Drug Administration. | |||
2020: Tobacco-Specific Nitrosamines (NNAL, NNN, NAT, and NAB) Exposures in the US Population Assessment of Tobacco and Health (PATH) Study Wave 1 (2013–2014) | ===2021: [https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0147651321005844 Comparison of biological and transcriptomic effects of conventional cigarette and electronic cigarette smoke exposure at toxicological dose in BEAS-2B cells]=== | ||
Among established, every day, exclusive tobacco product users, the geometric mean urinary NNAL concentration was | *In conclusion, our study indicated that the cytotoxicity of e-cigarette was far less than conventional cigarette at equivalent nicotine content in BEAS-2B cells. | ||
highest for smokeless tobacco users | *[https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0147651321005844/pdfft?md5=b55ada68191068d5852865963f26fe0a&pid=1-s2.0-S0147651321005844-main.pdf PDF Version] | ||
followed by all types of combustible tobacco product users | *Citation: Lilan Wang, Yao Wang, Jianwen Chen, Xue-Min Yang, Xing-Tao Jiang, Peiqing Liu, Min Li, Comparison of biological and transcriptomic effects of conventional cigarette and electronic cigarette smoke exposure at toxicological dose in BEAS-2B cells, Ecotoxicology and Environmental Safety, Volume 222, 2021, 112472, ISSN 0147-6513, doi:10.1016/j.ecoenv.2021.112472. | ||
poly tobacco users | *Acknowledgement: At the time of the study, XM Yang and XT Jiang are employees of Shenzhen RELX Tech. This work was supported by the National Natural Science Foundation of China (31970699), the Guangdong Basic and Applied Basic Research Foundation (2021A1515010766 and 2019A1515011030), the Guangdong Provincial Key Laboratory of Construction Foundation (2019B030301005), the Key-Area Research and Development Program of Guangdong Province (2020B1111110003), and the National Major Special Projects for the Creation and Manufacture of New Drugs (2019ZX09301104). | ||
and e-cigarette product users ( | |||
===2020: [https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s00204-020-02924-x Cancer potencies and margin of exposure used for comparative risk assessment of heated tobacco products and electronic cigarettes aerosols with cigarette smoke]=== | |||
*Even if they should not be considered as risk-free products, HTPs and ECs lead to an appreciable risk reduction in comparison to cigarettes, both for cancer and non-cancer diseases. According to the current knowledge, and more specifically to the data presented here, HTPs and ECs might be considered as an acceptable reduced risk substitute for cigarettes for legal-age smokers who would otherwise continue smoking cigarettes. | |||
*[https://link.springer.com/content/pdf/10.1007/s00204-020-02924-x.pdf PDF Version] | |||
*Citation: Rodrigo, G., Jaccard, G., Tafin Djoko, D. et al. Cancer potencies and margin of exposure used for comparative risk assessment of heated tobacco products and electronic cigarettes aerosols with cigarette smoke. Arch Toxicol 95, 283–298 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00204-020-02924-x | |||
*Acknowledgement: All authors are employees of Philip Morris International. Philip Morris International is the sole source of funding and | |||
sponsor of this research. | |||
===2020: [https://academic.oup.com/ntr/article/23/3/573/5876659 Tobacco-Specific Nitrosamines (NNAL, NNN, NAT, and NAB) Exposures in the US Population Assessment of Tobacco and Health (PATH) Study Wave 1 (2013–2014)]=== | |||
*Among established, every day, exclusive tobacco product users, the geometric mean urinary NNAL concentration was highest for smokeless tobacco users, followed by all types of combustible tobacco product users, then poly tobacco users, and lowest in e-cigarette product users. | |||
*[https://scholar.google.com/scholar_url?url=https://academic.oup.com/ntr/article-pdf/23/3/573/36276384/ntaa110.pdf&hl=en&sa=T&oi=ucasa&ct=ufr&ei=GyYmYcXkPIzyyAS6-KLoCw&scisig=AAGBfm38_SwihU_Foeq33GMoSbv072H20g PDF Version] | |||
*Citation: Baoyun Xia, PhD, Benjamin C Blount, PhD, Tonya Guillot, MPH, Christina Brosius, MPH, Yao Li, BS, Dana M Van Bemmel, PhD MPH, Heather L Kimmel, PhD, Cindy M Chang, PhD MPH, Nicolette Borek, PhD, Kathryn C Edwards, PhD, Charlie Lawrence, PhD, Andrew Hyland, PhD, Maciej L Goniewicz, PhD PharmD, Brittany N Pine, BS, Yang Xia, PhD, John T Bernert, B Rey De Castro, ScD, John Lee, BS, Justin L Brown, MPH, Stephen Arnstein, MS, Diane Choi, BS, Erin L Wade, BS, Dorothy Hatsukami, PhD, Gladys Ervies, PhD, Angel Cobos, BS, Keegan Nicodemus, BS, Dana Freeman, BS, Stephen S Hecht, PhD, Kevin Conway, PhD, Lanqing Wang, PhD, Tobacco-Specific Nitrosamines (NNAL, NNN, NAT, and NAB) Exposures in the US Population Assessment of Tobacco and Health (PATH) Study Wave 1 (2013–2014), Nicotine & Tobacco Research, Volume 23, Issue 3, March 2021, Pages 573–583, https://doi.org/10.1093/ntr/ntaa110 | |||
*Acknowledgement: This manuscript is supported with Federal funds from the National Institute on Drug Abuse, National Institutes of Health, and the Center for Tobacco Products, Food and Drug Administration, Department of Health and Human Services, under contract to Westat (contract nos. HHSN271201100027C and HHSN271201600001C) and through an interagency agreement between the FDA Center for Tobacco Products and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Maciej L. Goniewicz receives fees for serving on an advisory board from Johnson & Johnson and grant support from Pfizer | |||
2020: Effect of Pod e-Cigarettes vs Cigarettes on Carcinogen Exposure Among African American and Latinx Smokers | 2020: Effect of Pod e-Cigarettes vs Cigarettes on Carcinogen Exposure Among African American and Latinx Smokers | ||
| Line 125: | Line 137: | ||
Versus Cigarette Smokers (PDF 6 pages) | Versus Cigarette Smokers (PDF 6 pages) | ||
Conclusion: “With respect to the compounds analyzed here, e-cigarettes have a more favorable toxicity profile than tobacco cigarettes.” | Conclusion: “With respect to the compounds analyzed here, e-cigarettes have a more favorable toxicity profile than tobacco cigarettes.” | ||
<br> | |||
==Cardiovascular== | ==Cardiovascular== | ||
edits