Author:
Poussin Carine,Titz Bjoern,Xiang Yang,Baglia Laurel,Berg Rachel,Bornand David,Choukrallah Mohammed-Amin,Curran Timothy,Dijon Sophie,Dossin Eric,Dulize Remi,Etter Doris,Fatarova Maria,Medlin Loyse Felber,Haiduc Adrian,Kishazi Edina,Kolli Aditya R.,Kondylis Athanasios,Kottelat Emmanuel,Laszlo Csaba,Lavrynenko Oksana,Eb-Levadoux Yvan,Nury Catherine,Peric Dariusz,Rizza Melissa,Schneider Thomas,Guedj Emmanuel,Calvino Florian,Sierro Nicolas,Guy Philippe,Ivanov Nikolai V.,Picavet Patrick,Spinelli Sherry,Hoeng Julia,Peitsch Manuel C.
Abstract
AbstractCigarette smoking is a major preventable cause of morbidity and mortality. While quitting smoking is the best option, switching from cigarettes to non-combustible alternatives (NCAs) such as e-vapor products is a viable harm reduction approach for smokers who would otherwise continue to smoke. A key challenge for the clinical assessment of NCAs is that self-reported product use can be unreliable, compromising the proper evaluation of their risk reduction potential. In this cross-sectional study of 205 healthy volunteers, we combined comprehensive exposure characterization with in-depth multi-omics profiling to compare effects across four study groups: cigarette smokers (CS), e-vapor users (EV), former smokers (FS), and never smokers (NS). Multi-omics analyses included metabolomics, transcriptomics, DNA methylomics, proteomics, and lipidomics. Comparison of the molecular effects between CS and NS recapitulated several previous observations, such as increased inflammatory markers in CS. Generally, FS and EV demonstrated intermediate molecular effects between the NS and CS groups. Stratification of the FS and EV by combustion exposure markers suggested that this position on the spectrum between CS and NS was partially driven by non-compliance/dual use. Overall, this study highlights the importance of in-depth exposure characterization before biological effect characterization for any NCA assessment study.
Funder
Philip Morris International is the sole source of funding and sponsor of this research.
Publisher
Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Reference60 articles.
1. Farsalinos, K. E. & Le Houezec, J. Regulation in the face of uncertainty: the evidence on electronic nicotine delivery systems (e-cigarettes). Risk. Manag. Healthc. Policy 8, 157–167. https://doi.org/10.2147/RMHP.S62116 (2015).
2. US Department of Health and Human Services. The Health Consequences of Smoking–50 Years of Progress: A Report of the Surgeon General (2014).
3. Royal College of Physicians. Fifty years since smoking and health : progress, lessons and priorities for a smoke-free UK : papers from a conference held in March 2012 to mark 50 years since the publication of the RCP report Smoking and health. Royal College of Physicians (2012).
4. Royal College of Physicians of London. Tobacco Advisory, G. Nicotine without smoke: tobacco harm reduction. Royal College of Physicians of London (2016).
5. Benowitz, N. L. Nicotine addiction. N. Eng. J. Med. 362, 2295–2303; https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMra0809890 (2010).