CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 60

Assessing modified risk tobacco and nicotine products: Description of the scientific framework and assessment of a closed modular electronic cigarette

Murphy, James, Gaca, Marianna, Lowe, Frazer, Minet, Emmanuel, Breheny, Damien, Prasad, Krishna, Camacho, Oscar, Fearon, Ian M. +4 more·2017·Regulatory Toxicology and Pharmacology
DOI 10.1016/j.yrtph.2017.09.008
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.yrtph.2017.09.008

Cites

3 of 3 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • It has been proposed that smokers who switch completely to alternative nicotine delivery products instead of continuing to smoke could potentially reduce their relative risks of disease.

    “In the past decade, alternative nicotine delivery products such as e-cigarettes or tobacco heating products have been developed, and it has been proposed that smokers who switch completely to these products instead of continuing to smoke could potentially reduce their relative risks of disease [16, 17].”

    From A Randomised Study to Investigate the Nicotine Pharmacokinetics of Oral Nicotine Pouches and a Combustible Cigarette (2022) · cites this paper as [16]

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 45

  1. Alderman, S.L., Song, C., Moldoveanu, S.C., Cole, S.K., 2014. Particle size distribution of e-cigarette aerosols and the relationship to Cambridge filter pad collection efficiency. Beitr€ age zur Tab. Int. 26, 4.
  2. Banerjee, A., Waters, D., Camacho, O.M., Minet, E., 2015. Quantification of plasma microRNAs in a group of healthy smokers, ex-smokers and non-smokers and correlation to biomarkers of tobacco exposure. Biomarkers 20 (2), 123e131.
  3. Banerjee, A., Haswell, L.E., Baxter, A., Parmar, A., Azzopardi, D., Corke, S., Thorne, D., Adamson, J., Mushonganono, J., Gaca, M.D., Minet, E.F., 2017. Differential gene expression using RNA-seq profiling in a reconstituted airway epithelium exposed to conventional cigarette smoke or electronic cigarette aerosols. Appl Vitro Toxicol 3 (1), 84e98.
  4. Berghmans, T., Ameye, L., Willems, L., Paesmans, M., Mascaux, C., Lafitte, J.J., Meert, A.P., Scherpereel, A., Cortot, A.B., CsToth, I., Dernies, T., Toussaint, L., Leclercq, N., Sculier, J.P., For the european lung cancer working party, 2013. Identification of microRNA-based signatures for response and survival for non- small cell lung cancer treated with cisplatin-vinorelbine A ELCWP prospective study. Lung Cancer 82 (2), 340e345.
  5. Breheny, D., Oke, O., Pant, K., Gaça, M., 2017. The comparative tumour promotion assessment of e-cigarette and cigarettes using the in vitro Bhas 42 cell trans- formation assay. Environ. Mol. Mutagen. 58 (4), 190e198.
  6. BSI, 2015. PAS 54115 Vaping products, including electronic cigarettes, formulations, e-shisha and directly-related products e Manufacture, importation, testing and labelling e Guide. http://www.bsigroup.com/en-GB/about-bsi/media-centre/ press-releases/2015/july/E-cigarettes-guidance-published/. (Accessed 20 February 2017).
  7. Burns, D.M., Dybing, E., Gray, N., Hecht, S., Anderson, C., Sanner, T., O'Connor, R., Djordjevic, M., Dresler, C., Hainaut, P., Jarvis, M., Opperhuizen, A., Straif, K., 2008. Mandated lowering of toxicants in cigarette smoke: a description of the World Health Organization TobReg proposal. Tob. Control 17, 132e141. http:// dx.doi.org/10.1136/tc.2007.024158. · DOI
  8. Campbell, J., Van Landingham, C., Crowell, S., Gentry, R., Kaden, D., Fiebelkorn, S., Loccisano, A., Clewell, H., 2015. A preliminary regional PBPK model of lung metabolism for improving species dependent descriptions of 1,3-butadiene and its metabolites. Chemico-Biological Interact. 238 (1), 102e110. Cancer Research UK, 2014. Cancer mortality by age. http://www.cancerresearchuk. org/cancer-info/cancerstats/mortality/cancerdeaths/. (Accessed 20 February 2017).
  9. Cancer Research UK, 2017. E-cigarettes Safer than Smoking Says Long-term Study (online) Available at: http://www.cancerresearchuk.org/about-us/cancer-news/ press-release/2017-02-06-e-cigarettes-safer-than-smoking-says-long-term- study. (Accessed 20 February 2017).
  10. Costigan, S., Meredith, C., 2015. An approach to ingredient screening and toxico- logical risk assessment of flavours in formulations. Regul. Toxicol. Pharmacol. 72 (2), 361e369.
  11. D'Ruiz, C.D., Graff, D.W., Robinson, E., 2016. 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 16, 543. http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/ s12889-016-3236-1. · DOI
  12. Dittrich, D.J., Fiebledorn, R.T., Bevan, M.J., Rushforth, D., Murphy, J.J., Ashley, M., McAdam, K.G., Liu, C., Proctor, C.J., 2014. Approaches for the Design of Reduced Toxicant Emission Cigarettes, vol. 3. Springer Plus, p. 374. European Food Safety Authority (EFSA), 2006. EFSA/WHO International Conference with Support of ILSI Europe on Risk Assessment of Compounds that Are Both Genotoxic and Carcinogenic. European Medicines Agency, 2014. Guideline on Similar Biological Medicinal Products. Committee for Medicinal Products for Human Use (CHMP)/437/04 Rev 1. European Medicines Agency, 2016. Guideline on the Qualification and Reporting of Physiologically Based Pharmacokinetic (PBPK) Modelling and Simulation EMA/ CHMP/458101/2016. European Parliament and the Council of the European Union Tobacco Products Directive., (2014). 2014/40/EU. http://ec.europa.eu/health/tobacco/docs/dir_ 201440_en.pdf. (Accessed 20 February 2017).
  13. Farmen, R.H., Newland, K.E., Nachi, R., Kafonek, C.J., Islam, R., 2014b. The analysis of isotopically labelled propylene glycol in e-cigarettes. In: Tobacco Science Research Conference, 69 th Meeting. https://celerion.com/wordpress/wp- content/uploads/2015/01/Celerion_2014-TSRC_Propylene-Glycol.pdf. (Accessed 20 February 2017).
  14. Farsalinos, K.E., Polosa, R., 2014. Safety evaluation and risk assessment of electronic cigarettes as tobacco cigarette substitutes: a systematic review. Ther. Adv. Drug Saf. 5 (2), 67e86.
  15. Fearon, I.M., Eldridge, A., Gale, N., Shepperd, C.J., McEwan, M., Camacho, O.M., Nides, M., McAdam, K., Proctor, C., 2016. E-cigarette nicotine delivery: data and learnings from pharmacokinetic studies. Am. J. Health Behav. 41 (1), 16e32.
  16. Gregg, E., Williamson, J., Proctor C, 'Reilly, D., 2008. A proposed framework for PREP assessment. In: Proceedings of the Annual Meeting of the Society for Research on Nicotine and Tobacco.
  17. Gregg, E.O., Minet, E., McEwan, M., 2013. Urinary biomarkers of smokers' exposure to tobacco smoke constituents in tobacco products assessment: a fit for purpose approach. Biomarkers 18 (6), 467e486.
  18. Hajek, P., Etter, J.F., Benowitz, N., Eissenberg, T., McRobbie, H., 2014. Electronic cigarettes: review of use, content safety, effects on smokers and potential for harm and benefit. Addiction 109, 1801e1810.
  19. Han, S.G., Pant, K., Bruce, S.W., Gairola, C.G., 2004. An assay method for the pre- diction of tumor promoting potential of chemicals by the use of Bhas 42 cells. Mutat. Res. 557 (2), 191e202.
  20. Institute of Medicine, IOM, 2012. Scientific Standards for Studies on Modified Risk Tobacco Products. The National Academies Press, Washington, DC.
  21. Iskandar, A.R., Gonzalez-Suarez, I., Majeed, S., Marescotti, D., Sewer, A., Xiang, Y., Leroy, P., Guedj, E., Mathis, C., Schaller, J.-P., Vanscheeuwijck, P., Frentzel, S., Martin, F., Ivanov, N.V., Peitsch, M.C., Hoeng, J., 2017. A framework for in vitro systems toxicology assessment of e-liquids. Toxicol. Mech. Methods 26 (6), 392e416.
  22. Kulasekaran, A., Proctor, C., Papadopoulou, E., Shepperd, C.J., Guyer, R., Gandek, B., Ware Jr., J.E., 2015. Preliminary evaluation of a new German translated tobacco quality of life impact tool to discriminate between healthy current and former smokers and to explore the effect of switching smokers to a reduced toxicant prototype cigarette. Nicotine Tob. Res. 17 (12), 1456e1464.
  23. Lowe, F., Luettich, K., Talikka, M., Hoang, V., Haswell, L., Hoeng, J., Gaça, M., 2017. Development of an adverse outcome pathway for the onset of hypertension by perturbation of endothelial nitric oxide bioavailability and oxidative stress. Appl. vitro Toxicol 3 (1), 131e148.
  24. Luettich, K., Talikka, M., Lowe, F., Haswell, L., Park, J., Gaça, M., Hoeng, J., 2016. The adverse outcome pathway for oxidative stress-mediated EGFR activation lead- ing to decreased lung function. Appl. vitro Toxicol 3 (1), 99e109.
  25. Maunders, H., Patwardhan, S., Phillips, J., Clack, A., Richter, A., 2007. Human bron- chial epithelial cell transcriptome: gene expression changes following acute exposure to whole cigarette smoke in vitro. Am J Physiology -Lung Cell. Mol. Physiology 292 (5), L1248eL1256.
  26. Murphy, J., 2017. Assessing the risk of e-cigarettes, 21. Pan European Networks: Government, pp. 52e55.
  27. National Research Council, 2007. Toxicity Testing in the 21 st Century: a Vision and a Strategy. The national academies press, Washington DC. http://dx.doi.org/ 10.17226/11970. · DOI
  28. Neilson, L., Mankus, C., Thorne, D., Jackson, G., DeBay, J., Meredith, C., 2015. Development of an in vitro cytotoxicity model for aerosol exposure using 3D reconstructed human airway tissue; application for assessment of e-cigarette aerosol. Toxicol Vitro 29 (7), 1952e1962. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.tiv.2015.05. 018. (Accessed 20 February 2017). · DOI
  29. Nutt, D.J., Phillips, L.D., Balfour, D., Curran, H.V., Dockrell, M., Foulds, J., Fagerstrom, K., Letlape, K., Milton, A., Polosa R,$Ramsey, J., Sweanor, D., 2014. Estimating the harms of nicotine-containing products using the MCDA approach. Eur. J. Addict. Res. 20 (5), 218e225. OECD, 1997a. Test No. 471: Bacterial Reverse Mutation Test, OECD Guidelines for the Testing of Chemicals, Section 4: Health Effects. OECD Publishing. OECD, 1997b. Test No, 476. In Vitro Mammalian Cell Gene Mutation Test, OECD Guidelines for the Testing of Chemicals, Section 4: Health Effects. OECD Publishing. OECD, 2010. Test No. 487. In Vitro Mammalian Cell Micronucleus Test, OECD Guidelines for the Testing of Chemicals, Section 4: Health Effects. OECD Publishing.
  30. Polosa, R., Morijaria, J.B., Caponnetto, P., Caruso, M., Campagna, D., Amaradio, M.D., Ciampi, G., Russo, C., Fisichella, A., 2016a. Persisting long term benefits of smoking abstinence and reduction in asthmatic smokers who have switched to electronic cigarettes. Discov. Med. 21 (114), 99e108.
  31. Polosa, R., Morijaria, J.B., Caponnetto, P., Prosperini, U., Russo, C., Pennisi, A., Bruno, C.M., 2016b. Evidence for harm reduction in COPD smokers who switch to electronic cigarettes. Respir. Res. 17 (1), 166.
  32. Proctor, C.J., 2015. Lessons from clinical studies using biomarkers of exposure to assess toxicant exposure. In: Presentation at Biomarkers of Tobacco Exposure: a Public Workshop. Washington DC, 3rd-4th Aug 2015.
  33. Proctor, C.J., 2016. Utility of Biomarkers of Biological Effect as End-points for the Disease Relevant Assessment of Novel Tobacco and Nicotine Products as Potentially Reduced Risk Products Presentation at Biomarkers of Biological Ef- fect. A public workshop Session 5 FDA/CTP Scientific Workshop Washington 5th April 2016.
  34. Proctor, C.J., Shepperd, C.J., McAdam, K., Eldridge, A., Meredith, C., 2014. Integrating chemical, toxicological and clinical research to assess the potential of reducing health risks associated with cigarette smoking through reducing toxicant emissions. Rec. Adv. Tob. Sci. 1e34, 68th Tobacco Science Research Conference.
  35. Puntmann, V.O., 2009. How-to guide on biomarkers: biomarker definitions, vali- dation and applications with examples from cardiovascular disease. Postgrad. Med. J. 85 (1008), 538e545.
  36. Rabe, K.F., Begh e, B., Luppi, F., Fabbri, L.M., 2007. Update in chronic obstructive pulmonary disease 2006. Am. J. Resp. Crit. Care 175 (12), 1222e1232.
  37. Rodgman, A., Perfetti, T.A., 2013. The Chemical Components of Tobacco and Tobacco Smoke. CRC Press, New York.
  38. Roemer, E., Schramke, H., Weiler, H., Buettner, A., Kausche, S., Weber, S., Berges, A., Stueber, M., Muench, M., Trelles-Sticken, E., Pype, J., Kohlgrueber, K., Voelkel, H., Wittke, S., 2012. Mainstream smoke chemistry and in vitro and in vivo toxicity of the reference cigarettes 3R4F and 2R4F. Beitr€ age zur Tab. Int. 25 (1), 12e30.
  39. Shahab, L., Goniewicz, M.L., Blount, B.C., Brown, J., McNeill, A., Alwis, K.U., Feng, J., Wang, L., West, R., 2017. Nicotine, carcinogen, and toxin exposure in long-term e-cigarette and nicotine replacement therapy users: a cross-sectional study. Ann. Int. Med. http://dx.doi.org/10.7326/M-16-1107. · DOI
  40. Stratton, K., Shetty, P., Wallace, R., Bondurant, S., Committee to Assess the Science Base for Tobacco Harm Reduction; Board on Health Promotion and Disease Prevention; Institute of Medicine, 2001. Clearing the Smoke: Assessing the Science Base for Tobacco Harm Reduction. National Academy Press, Washing- ton, DC.
  41. Taylor, M., Carr, T., Oke, T., Jaunky, T., 2016. E-cigarette aerosols induce lower oxidative stress in vitro when compared to tobacco smoke. Toxicol. Mech. Methods 26 (6), 465e476.
  42. Teichert, A., Brossard, P., Felber Medlin, L., Sandalic, L., Franzon, M., Wynne, C., Laugesen, M., Lüdicke, F., 2017. Evaluation of nicotine pharmacokinetics and subjective effects following use of a novel nicotine delivery system. Nicotine Tob. Res. 1e8. http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/ntr/ntx093. · DOI
  43. Vansickel, A.R., Weaver, M.F., Eissenberg, T., 2012. Clinical laboratory assessment of the abuse liability of an electronic cigarette. Addiction 107 (8), 1493e1500.
  44. Villeneuve, D.L., Crump, D., Garcia-Reyero, N., 2014. Adverse outcome pathway (AOP) development I: strategies and principles. Toxicol. Sci. 142 (2), 312e320.
  45. Weitkunat, E., Lee, P.N., Baker, G., Sponsielle-Wang, Z., Gonz alez-Zuloeta Ladd, A.M., Lüdicke, F., 2017. A novel approach to assess the population health impact of introducing a modified risk tobacco product. Regul. Toxicol. Pharmacol. 72 (1), 89e93.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Murphy, J., Gaca, M., Lowe, F., Minet, E., Breheny, D., Prasad, K., Camacho, O., Fearon, I. M., Liu, C., Wright, C., McAdam, K., & Proctor, C.
ORCID
Lowe, Frazer
Venue
Regulatory Toxicology and Pharmacology
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2017-11
Volume
90
Pages
342-357
ISSN
0273-2300
DOI
10.1016/j.yrtph.2017.09.008
Cited by
60
References
3
Language
en
Licence
Funders
  • Public Health England
  • European Medicines Agency
  • Cancer Research UK (RCP 2016)

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review