Profiling the Acute Effects of Modified Risk Products: Evidence from the SUR-VAPES (Sapienza University of Rome-Vascular Assessment of Proatherosclerotic Effects of Smoking) Cluster Study.

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: Modified risk products (MRP) are promoted as a safer alternative to traditional combustion cigarettes (TCC) in chronic smokers. Evidence for their lower hazardous profile is building, despite several controversies. Yet, it is unclear whether individual responses to MRP differ among consumers. We hypothesized that different clusters of subjects exist in terms of acute effects of MRP. RECENT FINDINGS: Pooling data from a total of 60 individuals, cluster analysis identified at least three clusters (labelled 1 to 3) of subjects with different electronic vaping cigarettes (EVC) effects and at least two clusters (labelled 4 to 5) of subjects with different heat-not-burn cigarettes (HNBC) effects. Specifically, oxidative stress, platelet aggregation, and endothelial dysfunction after EVC were significantly different cluster-wise (all p < 0.05), and oxidative stress and platelet aggregation after HNBC were significantly different (all p < 0.05). In particular, subjects belonging to Cluster 1 appeared to have less detrimental responses to EVC usage than subjects in Cluster 2 and 3, as shown by non-significant changes in flow-mediated dilation (FMD) and less marked increase in Nox2-derived peptide (NOX). Conversely, those assigned to Cluster 3 had the worst reaction in terms of changes in FMD, NOX, and P-selectin. Furthermore, individuals belonging to Cluster 4 responded unfavorably to both HNBC and EVC, whereas those in Cluster 5 interestingly showed less adverse results after using HNBC than EVC. Results for main analyses were consistent employing different clusters, tests, and bootstrap. Individual responses to MRP differ and smokers aiming at using EVC or HNBC as a risk reduction strategy should consider trying different MRP aiming at finding the one which is less detrimental, with subjects resembling those in Cluster 1 preferably using EVC and those resembling Cluster 5 preferably using HNBC.

Vaping Cardiovascular Health Risks: an Updated Umbrella Review.

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: Modified risk products (MRP) such as electronic vaping cigarettes (EVC) and heat-not-burn cigarettes (HNBC) are alternatives to traditional combustion cigarettes (TCC) with an expanding consumer base. Yet, their cardiovascular health risks are still unclear. We aimed to summarize the evidence base on this topic by conducting an updated umbrella review. RECENT FINDINGS: We identified 7 systematic reviews, totaling 183 studies and reports, ranging from in vitro and in animal studies to clinical studies in apparently healthy volunteers and patients at risk of cardiovascular disease. Overall, acute EVC use was associated with several toxic effects at molecular, cellular, tissue, organ, and system level. In addition, EVC impacted adversely on blood pressure (BP) management, caused tachycardia, and worsened arterial stiffness. Finally, EVC use was associated with an increased risk of adverse clinical events, including atrial fibrillation and myocardial infarction, even if the causal link is still debated. Most reviews highlighted that the detrimental impact of EVC was of lesser magnitude of that of TCC. In addition, the differential impact of liquids and nicotine was not clearly disentangled. Finally, no review included studies on HNBC. SUMMARY: The present umbrella review suggests that EVC, and likely HNBC, despite clearly causing an increase in overall cardiovascular risk, may represent a temporary lesser evil than TCC in a risk-reduction or risk-modification strategy, aiming for eventual abstinence from all tobacco or nicotine products.