BackgroundElectronic cigarette (EC) aerosols contain unique compounds in addition to toxicants and carcinogens traditionally found in tobacco smoke. Studies are warranted to understand the public health risks of ECs.ObjectiveThe aim of this study was to determine the genotoxicity and the mechanisms induced by EC aerosol extracts on human oral and lung epithelial cells.MethodsCells were exposed to EC aerosol or mainstream smoke extracts and DNA damage was measured using the primer anchored DNA damage detection assay (q-PADDA) and 8-oxo-dG ELISA assay. Cell viability, reactive oxygen species (ROS) and total antioxidant capacity (TAC) were measured using standard methods. mRNA and protein expression were evaluated by RT-PCR and western blot, respectively.ResultsEC aerosol extracts induced DNA damage in a dose-dependent manner, but independently of nicotine concentration. Overall, EC aerosol extracts induced significantly less DNA damage than mainstream smoke extracts, as measured by q-PADDA. However, the levels of oxidative DNA damage, as indicated by the presence of 8-oxo-dG, a highly mutagenic DNA lesion, were similar or slightly higher after exposure to EC aerosol compared to mainstream smoke extracts. Mechanistically, while exposure to EC extracts significantly increased ROS, it decreased TAC as well as the expression of 8-oxoguanine DNA glycosylase (OGG1), an enzyme essential for the removal of oxidative DNA damage.ConclusionsExposure to EC aerosol extracts suppressed the cellular antioxidant defenses and led to significant DNA damage. These findings emphasize the urgent need to investigate the potential long-term cancer risk of exposure to EC aerosol for vapers and the general public.

Cancer survivors are at increased risk for comorbid conditions, and acceptance of healthy behaviors may reduce dysfunction and improve long-term health. Ultimately, opportunities exist for clinicians to promote lifestyle changes that may improve the length and quality of life of their patients.

No abstract

Objectives: We measured biomarkers of exposure among American Indian (AI) ENDS users, smokers, and dual users. Methods: Urine was analyzed for total nicotine equivalents (TNE) and 4-(methylnitrosamino)-1-(3-pyridyl)-1-butanol(NNAL). Expired-air carbon monoxide (CO) was collected. Two analyses were performed. "CO analysis" included smokers and dual users whose CO was ≥ 6 ppm and ENDS users whose CO was < 6 ppm. "NNAL analysis" included smokers and dual users whose NNAL was ≥ 47.3 pg/mg, and ENDS users whose NNAL was < 47.3 pg/mg. Biomarkers were summarized by geometric means (GM) and compared with nonparametric tests. Results: In both analyses, TNE was no different across the groups, and NNAL and CO were lower in ENDS users. In the NNAL analysis the GM of NNAL was 261.4, 6.1, and 228.0 pg/mg among smokers, ENDS users, and dual users (p < .001). Also in the NNAL analysis, the GM of CO was 14.7, 2.4, and 16.8 ppm among smokers, ENDS users, and dual users (p < .001).

Hypothesis:The objective was to investigate the prevalence of spin in abstracts of systematic reviews and meta-analyses covering the treatment of tinnitus. We hypothesized that spin would be present in these articles and a significant relationship would exist between spin usage and extracted study characteristics. Background: Spin, the misrepresentation of study findings, can alter a clinician's interpretation of a study's results, potentially affecting patient care. Previous work demonstrates that spin is present in abstracts of randomized clinical trials. Methods: Using a cross-sectional analysis, we conducted a systematic search using MEDLINE and Embase databases on June 2, 2020, for systematic reviews focused on tinnitus treatment. Investigators performed screening and data extraction in a masked, duplicate fashion. Results: Forty systematic reviews met inclusion criteria, and spin was identified in four of them. Spin in abstracts most frequently occurred when conclusions claimed the beneficial effect of the experimental treatment despite high risk of bias in primary studies (n ¼ 3). The other form of spin found was the conclusion claims safety based on nonstatistically significant results with a wide confidence interval (n ¼ 1). There was no significant association between spin and any of our extracted study characteristics. Conclusion: Spin was observed in 10% of abstracts of systematic reviews and meta-analyses covering the treatment of tinnitus. Although this percentage may be small, we recommend that medical journals provide a more detailed framework for abstract structure and require the inclusion of risk of bias assessment results in abstracts to prevent the incorporation of spin.