DNA adducts are central in the mechanism of carcinogenesis by genotoxic agents. We compared levels of a DNA adduct of acrolein, a genotoxic carcinogen found in e-cigarette vapor, in oral cell DNA of e-cigarette users and non-users of any tobacco or nicotine product. E-Cigarette users and non-users visited our clinic once monthly for 6 months, and oral brushings and urine samples were collected. For this study, we analyzed oral cell DNA adducts from three monthly visits in e-cigarette users and non-users as confirmed by urinary cyanoethyl mercapturic acid and total nicotine equivalents. DNA was isolated from the oral brushings and analyzed by a validated liquid chromatography-nanoelectrospray ionization-high resolution tandem mass spectrometry method for the acrolein DNA adduct 8R/S-3-(2'-deoxyribos-1'-yl)-5,6,7,8-tetrahydro-8- hydroxypyrimido [1,2-a]purine-10-(3H)-one (ɣ-OH-Acr-dGuo). The median value of this DNA adduct in the e-cigarette users was 179 fmol/µmol dGuo (range 5.0 - 793 fmol/µmol dGuo) while that for non-users was 21.0 fmol/µmol dGuo (range 5.0 - 539 fmol/µmol dGuo), p = 0.001. These results demonstrate for the first time that e-cigarette users have elevated levels of a carcinogen-DNA adduct in their oral cells.

Cigarette smoking is an established risk factor for oral cancer. The health effects of e-cigarettes are still under investigation but may disturb oral cavity homeostasis and cause lung and cardiovascular diseases. Carcinogens and toxicants in tobacco products and e-cigarettes may damage DNA, resulting in the formation of apurinic/apyrimidinic (AP) sites and initiation of the carcinogenic process. In this study, we optimized a liquid chromatography-nanoelectrospray ionization-high-resolution tandem mass spectrometry method to analyze AP sites in buccal cell DNA of 35 nonsmokers, 30 smokers, and 30 e-cigarette users. AP sites in ecigarette users (median 3.3 per 10 7 nts) were significantly lower than in smokers (median 5.7 per 10 7 nts) and nonsmokers (median 6.0 per 10 7 nts). AP sites in smokers were not significantly different from nonsmokers (p > 0.05). The e-cigarette vaporizing solvents propylene glycol and glycerin were tested and did not protect against AP site formation in in vitro control and carcinogen exposed rat liver homogenates. However, propylene glycol may inhibit bacteria in oral cells, resulting in reduced inflammation and related effects, and reduced AP site levels in e-cigarette user DNA. This is the first study to examine AP site formation in e-cigarette users and to evaluate AP sites in human oral cell DNA.

Introduction Because 30% of cigarettes sold in the United States are characterized as menthol cigarettes, it is important to understand how menthol preference may affect the impact of a nicotine reduction policy. Methods In a recent trial, non-treatment-seeking smokers were randomly assigned to receive very low nicotine cigarettes (VLNC; 0.4 mg nicotine/g tobacco) or normal nicotine cigarettes (NNC; 15.5 mg/g) for 20 weeks. On the basis of preference, participants received menthol or non-menthol cigarettes. We conducted multivariable regression analyses to examine whether menthol preference moderated the effects of nicotine content on cigarettes per day (CPD), breath carbon monoxide (CO), urinary total nicotine equivalents (TNE), urinary 2-cyanoethylmercapturic acid (CEMA), and abstinence. Results At baseline, menthol smokers (n = 346) reported smoking fewer CPD (14.9 vs. 19.2) and had lower TNE (52.8 vs. 71.6 nmol/mg) and CO (17.7 vs. 20.5 ppm) levels than non-menthol smokers (n = 406; ps < .05). At week 20, significant interactions indicated that menthol smokers had smaller treatment effects than non-menthol smokers for CPD (–6.4 vs. –9.3), TNE (ratio of geometric means, 0.22 vs. 0.10) and CEMA (ratio, 0.56 vs. 0.37; ps < .05), and trended toward a smaller treatment effect for CO (–4.5 vs. –7.3 ppm; p = .06). Odds ratios for abstinence at week 20 were 1.88 (95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.8 to 4.4) for menthol and 9.11 (95% CI = 3.3 to 25.2) for non-menthol VLNC smokers (p = .02) relative to the NNC condition. Conclusions Although menthol smokers experienced reductions in smoking, toxicant exposure, and increases in quitting when using VLNC cigarettes, the magnitude of change was smaller than that observed for non-menthol smokers. Implications Results of this analysis suggest that smokers of menthol cigarettes may respond to a nicotine reduction policy with smaller reductions in smoking rates and toxicant exposure than would smokers of non-menthol cigarettes.

Introduction Cannabis and tobacco couse is common and could expose users to higher levels of toxicants. No studies have examined biomarkers of toxicant exposure in cousers of cannabis and cigarettes, compared with cigarette smokers (CS). Aims and Methods Adult daily CS were recruited from 10 US sites for a study of reduced nicotine cigarettes. In this analysis of baseline data, participants were categorized as either cousers of cannabis and tobacco (cousers; N = 167; urine positive for 11-nor-9-carboxy-Δ 9-tetrahydrocannnabinol and self-reported cannabis use ≥1×/week), or CS (N = 911; negative urine and no self-reported cannabis use). Participants who did not meet either definition (N = 172) were excluded. Self-reported tobacco and cannabis use and tobacco and/or combustion-related biomarkers of exposure were compared between groups. Results Compared to CS, cousers were younger (couser Mage = 38.96, SD = 13.01; CS Mage = 47.22, SD = 12.72; p < .001) and more likely to be male (cousers = 67.7%, CS = 51.9%, p < .001). There were no group differences in self-reported cigarettes/day, total nicotine equivalents, or breath carbon monoxide, but cousers had greater use of non-cigarette tobacco products. Compared to CS, cousers had higher concentrations of 3-hydroxypropylmercapturic acid, 2-cyanoethylmercapturic acid, S-phenylmercapturic acid, 3-hydroxy-1-methylpropylmercapturic acid (ps < .05), and phenanthrene tetraol (p < .001). No biomarkers were affected by number of cannabis use days/week or days since last cannabis use during baseline (ps > .05). Conclusions Cousers had higher concentrations of biomarkers of exposure than CS, but similar number of cigarettes per day and nicotine exposure. Additional studies are needed to determine whether cannabis and/or alternative tobacco products are driving the increased toxicant exposure. Implications Cousers of cannabis and tobacco appear to be exposed to greater levels of harmful chemicals (ie, volatile organic compounds and polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons), but similar levels of nicotine as CS. It is unclear if the higher levels of toxicant exposure in cousers are due to cannabis use or the increased use of alternative tobacco products compared with CS. It is important for studies examining biomarkers of exposure among CS to account for cannabis use as it may have a significant impact on outcomes. Additionally, further research is needed examining exposure to harmful chemicals among cannabis users.

BACKGROUND Cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) reduces mortality and improves outcomes in appropriately selected patients with heart failure (HF); however, response may vary.OBJECTIVE We sought to correlate 6-month CRT response assessed by clinical composite score (CCS) and left ventricular end-systolic volume index (LVESVi) with longer-term mortality and HF-related hospitalizations.METHODS Individual patient data from 5 prospective CRT studies-Multicenter InSync Randomized Clinical Evaluation (MIRACLE), Multicenter InSync ICD Randomized Clinical Evaluation (MIRACLE ICD), InSync III Marquis, predictors of response to cardiac resynchronization therapy (PROSPECT), and Adaptive CRT-were pooled. Classification of CRT response status using CCS and LVESVi were made at 6 months. Kaplan-Meier analyses were used to assess time to mortality. Cox proportional hazards regression models were used to compute hazard ratios (HRs) for the 3 levels of CRT response: improved, stabilized, and worsened. Adjusted models controlled for baseline factors known to influence both CRT response and mortality. HF-related hospitalization was compared between CRT response categories using incidence rate ratios. RESULTS Among a total of 1603 patients, 1426 and 1165 were evaluated in the CCS and LVESVi outcome assessments, respectively. Mortality was significantly lower for patients in the improved (CCS: HR 0.22; 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.15-0.31; LVESVi: HR 0.40; 95% CI 0.27-0.60) and stabilized (CCS: HR 0.38; 95% CI 0.24-0.61; LVESVi: HR 0.41; 95% CI 0.25-0.68) groups than in the worsened group for both measures after adjusting for potential confounders.CONCLUSION Patients with a worsened CRT response status have a high mortality rate and HF-related hospitalizations. Stabilized patients have a more favorable prognosis than do worsened patients and thus should not be considered CRT nonresponders.