4.7 Article

A six-month systems toxicology inhalation/cessation study in ApoE- / - mice to investigate cardiovascular and respiratory exposure effects of modified risk tobacco products, CHTP 1.2 and THS 2.2, compared with conventional cigarettes

Journal

FOOD AND CHEMICAL TOXICOLOGY
Volume 126, Issue -, Pages 113-141

Publisher

PERGAMON-ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.fct.2019.02.008

Keywords

Cigarette smoking; Lung; Emphysema; Inflammation; Omics; Modified-risk tobacco products (MRTP)

Funding

  1. Philip Morris International

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Smoking is one of the major modifiable risk factors in the development and progression of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) and cardiovascular disease (CVD). Modified-risk tobacco products (MRTP) are being developed to provide substitute products for smokers who are unable or unwilling to quit, to lessen the smoking-related health risks. In this study, the ApoE(-/-) mouse model was used to investigate the impact of cigarette smoke (CS) from the reference cigarette 3R4F, or aerosol from two potential MRTPs based on the heat-not-burn principle, carbon heated tobacco product 1.2 (CHTP1.2) and tobacco heating system 2.2 (THS 2.2), on the cardiorespiratory system over a 6-month period. In addition, cessation or switching to CHTP1.2 after 3 months of CS exposure was assessed. A systems toxicology approach combining physiology, histology and molecular measurements was used to evaluate the impact of MRTP aerosols in comparison to CS. CHTP1.2 and THS2.2 aerosols, compared with CS, demonstrated lower impact on the cardiorespiratory system, including low to absent lung inflammation and emphysematous changes, and reduced atherosclerotic plaque formation. Molecular analyses confirmed the lower engagement of pathological mechanisms by MRTP aerosols than CS. Both cessation and switching to CHTP1.2 reduced the observed CS effects to almost sham exposure levels.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available