Comparison between electronic cigarette refill liquid and nicotine on metabolic parameters in rats.

AIMS: Nicotine is known to promote body weight loss and to disturb glucose homeostasis and lipoprotein metabolism. Electronic cigarettes, as a substitute to nicotine, are becoming increasingly popular, although there is no evidence regarding their safety. Considering the dearth of information about e-cigarette toxicity, the present study was designed to compare nicotine alone to e-liquid with or without nicotine on metabolic parameters in Wistar rats. MAIN METHODS: For this purpose, e-liquid with or without nicotine and nicotine alone (0.5mg/kg of body weight) were administered intra-peritoneally during 28 days. KEY FINDINGS: Our results show a significant decrease in food and energy intake after nicotine or e-liquid with nicotine exposure, when compared to control or e-liquid without nicotine. Analysis of lipid status identified a significant decrease in cholesterol and LDL levels in e-cigarette groups, suggesting an improvement in lipid profile. Interestingly, e-liquid without nicotine induced hyperglycemia which is negatively correlated to hepatic glycogen level, acting like nicotine alone. Furthermore, an increase in liver biomarkers was observed in all treated groups. qRT-PCR analysis showed GSK3ß up-regulation in e-liquid with nicotine as well as, surprisingly, in e-liquid without nicotine exposure. In contrast, PEPCK genes were only up-regulated in e-liquid with nicotine. SIGNIFICANCE: While some features observed in rats may not be observed in human smokers, most of our data are consistent with, e-liquid per se i.e. without nicotine, not being neutral from a metabolic stand point since disrupting glucose homeostasis in rats.

Psoriasis is associated with increased Framingham ten-year risk score for coronary heart disease in Tunisians.

BACKGROUND: To assess the ten-year cardiovascular risk for coronary heart disease (CHD) in psoriatic patients and to test the impact of psoriasis severity and duration on cardiovascular risk. METHODS: A case-control study included 202 adult psoriatic patients and 202 controls. RESULTS: Risk CHD was estimated using the Framingham risk score algorithm. Patients had a higher ten-year Framingham risk score (13.62 +/- 11.86 vs. 9.23 +/- 8.04; p = 0.002) than controls. In addition, a high risk score and a very high risk score (> 40%) were more frequent in psoriatic patients compared with controls (p = 0.043 and p < 0.001, respectively). According to the severity of psoriasis, the ten-year cardiovascular risk increases progressively and significantly (11.84 +/- 10.08; 15.59 +/- 11.79 and 16.92 +/- 14.13 for mild, moderate and severe psoriasis, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: Psoriatic patients have significantly greater risks of developing coronary heart disease than controls in relationship with psoriasis comorbidities such as hypertension, diabetes, dyslipidemia, inflammation and probably with psoriasis itself.