Nicotine pharmacokinetics of electronic cigarettes: A pooled data analysis from the literature.

Several regulatory initiatives around the world restrict the amount of nicotine permitted in electronic cigarette liquids in an attempt to reproduce the nicotine delivery of combusted tobacco products, such as cigarettes, and or reduce the risk of consumers absorbing too much nicotine into their body at one time. Such an approach, however, assumes that (i) there is a strong correlation between the levels of nicotine in electronic cigarette liquids and nicotine intake into the body and (ii) that this correlation holds true across the various different types of electronic cigarette devices currently available on the market. In order to test these hypotheses, this study examines the available scientific literature on nicotine intake from electronic cigarettes, as measured by levels in the blood. Analysis of the published data reveals that nicotine absorption into the body is influenced by a combination of many factors, including electronic cigarette liquid composition, user behavior and device characteristics. Notably, it was observed that open-tank (refillable) electronic cigarettes, which often enable users to vary device power, can deliver high nicotine levels to consumers, sometimes at greater doses than a conventional tobacco cigarette, even at the lower nicotine liquid concentrations typically available. For electronic cigarettes to be viable alternative choices to smoking, they should provide consumers with an equally satisfying experience, including in terms of nicotine absorption into the body. Therefore, any regulation seeking to restrict the amount of nicotine in electronic cigarette liquids should take all the factors influencing nicotine intake into account.

Comparative and cumulative quantitative risk assessments on a novel heated tobacco product versus the 3R4F reference cigarette.

Novel tobacco products that heat rather than burn tobacco (heated tobacco products or HTPs) have been shown to produce lower levels of harmful and potentially harmful constituents than conventional combusted cigarettes. The present study uses a quantitative risk assessment approach to compare non-cancer and cancer risk estimates for emissions generated by an HTP with smoke from a reference cigarette (3R4F). Fifty-four analytes were evaluated from the HTP aerosol and the 3R4F cigarette smoke. Emissions were generated using the ISO and the Health Canada Intense smoking regimes. The measured values were extrapolated to define a conservative exposure assumption for per day use and lifetime use based on an estimated maximum usage level of 400 puffs per day i.e., approximately 8 HTP tobacco capsules or 40 combustible cigarettes. Non-cancer and cancer risk estimates were calculated using these exposure assumptions for individual and per health outcome domains based on toxicological reference values derived by regulatory and/or public health agencies. The results of this assessment showed a reduction of non-cancer and cancer risk estimates by more than 90 % for the HTP versus the 3R4F cigarette, regardless of the smoking regime.

Assessment of priority tobacco additives per the requirements of the EU Tobacco Products Directive (2014/40/EU): Part 1: Background, approach, and summary of findings.

This paper is part of a series of 3 publications and describes the non-clinical and clinical assessment performed to fulfill the regulatory requirement per Art. 6 (2) of the EU Tobacco Products Directive 2014/40/EU; under which Member States shall require manufacturers and importers of cigarettes and roll-your-own tobacco containing an additive that is included in the priority list established by Commission Implementing Decision (EU) 2016/787 to carry out comprehensive studies. The Directive requires manufacturers and importers of cigarettes and Roll Your Own tobacco to examine for each additive whether it; contributes to and increases the toxicity or addictiveness of tobacco products to a significant or measurable degree; if it leads to a characterizing flavor of the product; if it facilitates inhalation or nicotine uptake, and if it results in the formation of CMR (carcinogenic, mutagenic and reprotoxic) constituents and if these substances increase the CMR properties of the respective tobacco product to a significant or measurable degree. This publication gives an overview on comprehensive smoke chemistry, in vitro toxicity, and human clinical studies commissioned by the members of the Priority Additives Tobacco Consortium to independent Contract Research Organizations (CROs) where the emissions of test cigarettes containing priority additives were compared to emissions emerging from an additive-free reference cigarette. Whilst minor changes in smoke chemistry parameters were observed when comparing emissions from test cigarettes with emissions from additive-free reference cigarettes, only two of the additives (sorbitol and guar gum) tested led to significant increases in a limited number of smoke constituents. These changes were not observed when sorbitol or guar gum were tested in a mixture with other priority additives. None of the priority additives resulted in increases in in vitro toxicity (Ames, Micronucleus, Neutral Red Uptake) or led to changes in smoking behavior or absorption (rate or amount) of nicotine measured during the human clinical study as compared to the additive-free reference cigarette.