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.

译文

审查目的:在慢性吸烟者中,改良风险产品(MRP)可以作为传统燃烧卷烟(TCC)的更安全替代品而推广。尽管存在一些争议,但其危害性较低的证据正在建立。但是,目前尚不清楚消费者对MRP的个人反应是否有所不同。我们假设就MRP的急性影响而言存在不同的受试者群体。
最近的发现:收集来自总共60个个体的数据,进行聚类分析,发现至少三个聚类(标记为1至3)的受试者具有不同的电子烟(EVC)效果,并且至少两个聚类(标记为4至5)的受试者具有不同的电子烟。不同的不燃热卷烟(HNBC)效果。具体来说,EVC后的氧化应激,血小板聚集和内皮功能紊乱呈簇状显着不同(均p << 0.05),HNBC后的氧化应激和血小板聚集均显着不同(均p << 0.05)。特别是,属于簇1的受试者似乎比簇2和3的受试者对EVC的使用具有较少的有害反应,如血流介导的扩张(FMD)的无显着变化和Nox2衍生肽的明显增加( NOX)。相反,就FMD,NOX和P-选择素的变化而言,分配给第3组的反应最差。此外,属于群集4的个体对HNBC和EVC的反应都较差,而有趣的是,属于群集5的个体使用HNBC后的不良反应比EVC少。采用不同的聚类,测试和引导程序,主要分析的结果一致。个体对MRP的反应各不相同,以吸烟者为目标,使用EVC或HNBC作为降低风险的策略,应考虑尝试不同的MRP,以寻找危害较小的个体,受试者类似于集群1的受试者,最好使用EVC,而集群5的受试者,最好使用EVC HNBC。

+1
+2
100研值 100研值 ¥99课程
检索文献一次
下载文献一次

去下载>

成功解锁2个技能,为你点赞

《SCI写作十大必备语法》
解决你的SCI语法难题!

技能熟练度+1

视频课《玩转文献检索》
让你成为检索达人!

恭喜完成新手挑战

手机微信扫一扫,添加好友领取

免费领《Endnote文献管理工具+教程》

微信扫码, 免费领取

手机登录

获取验证码
登录