评估新一代烟草制品和传统卷烟的尼古丁药代动力学:系统综述和荟萃分析。

IF 3 2区 医学 Q2 PUBLIC, ENVIRONMENTAL & OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH
Yue Cao, Xinru Liu, Zhongyi Hu, Jiaxuan Li, Xi Chen, Yuming Xiong, Fangzhen Zheng, Jianqiang Zhang, Lin Zhang, Xiaona Liu
{"title":"评估新一代烟草制品和传统卷烟的尼古丁药代动力学:系统综述和荟萃分析。","authors":"Yue Cao, Xinru Liu, Zhongyi Hu, Jiaxuan Li, Xi Chen, Yuming Xiong, Fangzhen Zheng, Jianqiang Zhang, Lin Zhang, Xiaona Liu","doi":"10.1093/ntr/ntae199","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Introduction: </strong>New-generation tobacco products (NGPs) hold promises as modified-risk alternatives to conventional cigarettes (CCs), given their comparable characteristics. This study investigated the nicotine pharmacokinetics (PK) of NGPs, encompassing closed pod systems, refillable e-cigarettes (ECs), and heated tobacco products (HTPs), in comparison to CCs through systematic review and meta-analysis.</p><p><strong>Aims and methods: </strong>A comprehensive search was conducted on PubMed, Embase, and Web of Science for articles published between January 2013 and July 2023. Maximum nicotine concentration (Cmax), time to peak concentration (Tmax), and total nicotine exposure (area under the concentration-time curve, AUC) were extracted to evaluate nicotine delivery PK. Random effects meta-analyses were performed to determine pooled standardized mean differences, facilitating a comparison of PK profiles between NGPs and CCs. Subgroup analyses exploring flavors and nicotine concentrations across NGPs, and CCs were also conducted.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The meta-analysis incorporated 30 articles with 2728 participants. Cmax and AUC were significantly lower for NGPs, while Tmax demonstrated statistical similarity compared to CCs. Among three NGPs, Cmax, and AUC were lower for closed pod systems and refillable ECs. In HTPs, Cmax was statistically similar while AUC was lower compared to CCs. Tmax was statistically similar in closed pod systems and HTPs compared to that of CCs. No significant difference was observed in the comparisons of PK between each type of NGPs versus CCs.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>NGPs delivered less nicotine than CCs but reached Cmax over a similar timeframe, indicating that NGPs may serve as modified-risk alternatives with lower nicotine delivery to CCs for craving relief and smoking cessation.</p><p><strong>Implications: </strong>This study suggested that NGPs, such as the closed pod systems, the refillable ECs, and the HTPs, delivered either lower or comparable nicotine levels and achieved peak nicotine concentration at a similar rate as CCs. Our findings carry implications that NGPs can serve as modified-risk nicotine alternatives to CCs in helping smokers manage cravings and potentially quit smoking, thereby highlighting their value in the field of tobacco harm reduction.</p>","PeriodicalId":19241,"journal":{"name":"Nicotine & Tobacco Research","volume":" ","pages":"783-793"},"PeriodicalIF":3.0000,"publicationDate":"2025-04-22","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Assessing Nicotine Pharmacokinetics of New-Generation Tobacco Products and Conventional Cigarettes: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.\",\"authors\":\"Yue Cao, Xinru Liu, Zhongyi Hu, Jiaxuan Li, Xi Chen, Yuming Xiong, Fangzhen Zheng, Jianqiang Zhang, Lin Zhang, Xiaona Liu\",\"doi\":\"10.1093/ntr/ntae199\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Introduction: </strong>New-generation tobacco products (NGPs) hold promises as modified-risk alternatives to conventional cigarettes (CCs), given their comparable characteristics. This study investigated the nicotine pharmacokinetics (PK) of NGPs, encompassing closed pod systems, refillable e-cigarettes (ECs), and heated tobacco products (HTPs), in comparison to CCs through systematic review and meta-analysis.</p><p><strong>Aims and methods: </strong>A comprehensive search was conducted on PubMed, Embase, and Web of Science for articles published between January 2013 and July 2023. Maximum nicotine concentration (Cmax), time to peak concentration (Tmax), and total nicotine exposure (area under the concentration-time curve, AUC) were extracted to evaluate nicotine delivery PK. Random effects meta-analyses were performed to determine pooled standardized mean differences, facilitating a comparison of PK profiles between NGPs and CCs. Subgroup analyses exploring flavors and nicotine concentrations across NGPs, and CCs were also conducted.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The meta-analysis incorporated 30 articles with 2728 participants. Cmax and AUC were significantly lower for NGPs, while Tmax demonstrated statistical similarity compared to CCs. Among three NGPs, Cmax, and AUC were lower for closed pod systems and refillable ECs. In HTPs, Cmax was statistically similar while AUC was lower compared to CCs. Tmax was statistically similar in closed pod systems and HTPs compared to that of CCs. No significant difference was observed in the comparisons of PK between each type of NGPs versus CCs.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>NGPs delivered less nicotine than CCs but reached Cmax over a similar timeframe, indicating that NGPs may serve as modified-risk alternatives with lower nicotine delivery to CCs for craving relief and smoking cessation.</p><p><strong>Implications: </strong>This study suggested that NGPs, such as the closed pod systems, the refillable ECs, and the HTPs, delivered either lower or comparable nicotine levels and achieved peak nicotine concentration at a similar rate as CCs. Our findings carry implications that NGPs can serve as modified-risk nicotine alternatives to CCs in helping smokers manage cravings and potentially quit smoking, thereby highlighting their value in the field of tobacco harm reduction.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":19241,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Nicotine & Tobacco Research\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"783-793\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":3.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-04-22\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Nicotine & Tobacco Research\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1093/ntr/ntae199\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"PUBLIC, ENVIRONMENTAL & OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Nicotine & Tobacco Research","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1093/ntr/ntae199","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"PUBLIC, ENVIRONMENTAL & OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

导言:新一代烟草制品(NGPs)具有与传统卷烟(CCs)相似的特性,因此有望成为传统卷烟(CCs)的改良风险替代品。本研究通过系统综述和荟萃分析,研究了NGPs与CCs相比的尼古丁药代动力学(PK),NGPs包括封闭式吊舱系统、可充装电子烟(ECs)和加热烟草制品(HTPs):在 PubMed、Embase 和 Web of Science 上对 2013 年 1 月至 2023 年 7 月间发表的文章进行了全面检索。提取最大尼古丁浓度(Cmax)、达到峰值浓度的时间(Tmax)和尼古丁总暴露量(浓度-时间曲线下面积,AUC),以评估尼古丁递送PK。随机效应荟萃分析确定了汇集的标准化均值差异(SMD),有助于比较 NGP 和 CC 的 PK 曲线。此外,还进行了分组分析,探讨了不同 NGP 和 CC 的口味和尼古丁浓度:荟萃分析纳入了 30 篇文章,共有 2728 人参与。NGPs的Cmax和AUC明显低于CCs,而Tmax与CCs相比则显示出统计学上的相似性。在三种 NGPs 中,封闭式吊舱系统和可再充装的 ECs 的 Cmax 和 AUC 较低。在 HTPs 中,与 CCs 相比,Cmax 在统计学上相似,而 AUC 较低。与 CC 相比,封闭式吊舱系统和 HTP 的 Tmax 在统计学上相似。在每种 NGPs 与 CCs 的 PK 比较中未观察到明显差异:结论:NGPs的尼古丁释放量低于CCs,但在相似的时间范围内达到Cmax,表明NGPs可作为尼古丁释放量低于CCs的低风险替代品,用于缓解渴望和戒烟:本研究表明,NGPs(如封闭式烟嘴系统、可充装电子烟和 HTPs)可提供较低或相当的尼古丁水平,并以与 CCs 相似的速度达到尼古丁浓度峰值。我们的研究结果表明,NGPs可作为CCs的改良风险尼古丁替代品,帮助吸烟者控制烟瘾并有可能戒烟,从而凸显了其在烟草减害领域的价值。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Assessing Nicotine Pharmacokinetics of New-Generation Tobacco Products and Conventional Cigarettes: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.

Introduction: New-generation tobacco products (NGPs) hold promises as modified-risk alternatives to conventional cigarettes (CCs), given their comparable characteristics. This study investigated the nicotine pharmacokinetics (PK) of NGPs, encompassing closed pod systems, refillable e-cigarettes (ECs), and heated tobacco products (HTPs), in comparison to CCs through systematic review and meta-analysis.

Aims and methods: A comprehensive search was conducted on PubMed, Embase, and Web of Science for articles published between January 2013 and July 2023. Maximum nicotine concentration (Cmax), time to peak concentration (Tmax), and total nicotine exposure (area under the concentration-time curve, AUC) were extracted to evaluate nicotine delivery PK. Random effects meta-analyses were performed to determine pooled standardized mean differences, facilitating a comparison of PK profiles between NGPs and CCs. Subgroup analyses exploring flavors and nicotine concentrations across NGPs, and CCs were also conducted.

Results: The meta-analysis incorporated 30 articles with 2728 participants. Cmax and AUC were significantly lower for NGPs, while Tmax demonstrated statistical similarity compared to CCs. Among three NGPs, Cmax, and AUC were lower for closed pod systems and refillable ECs. In HTPs, Cmax was statistically similar while AUC was lower compared to CCs. Tmax was statistically similar in closed pod systems and HTPs compared to that of CCs. No significant difference was observed in the comparisons of PK between each type of NGPs versus CCs.

Conclusions: NGPs delivered less nicotine than CCs but reached Cmax over a similar timeframe, indicating that NGPs may serve as modified-risk alternatives with lower nicotine delivery to CCs for craving relief and smoking cessation.

Implications: This study suggested that NGPs, such as the closed pod systems, the refillable ECs, and the HTPs, delivered either lower or comparable nicotine levels and achieved peak nicotine concentration at a similar rate as CCs. Our findings carry implications that NGPs can serve as modified-risk nicotine alternatives to CCs in helping smokers manage cravings and potentially quit smoking, thereby highlighting their value in the field of tobacco harm reduction.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Nicotine & Tobacco Research
Nicotine & Tobacco Research 医学-公共卫生、环境卫生与职业卫生
CiteScore
8.10
自引率
10.60%
发文量
268
审稿时长
3-8 weeks
期刊介绍: Nicotine & Tobacco Research is one of the world''s few peer-reviewed journals devoted exclusively to the study of nicotine and tobacco. It aims to provide a forum for empirical findings, critical reviews, and conceptual papers on the many aspects of nicotine and tobacco, including research from the biobehavioral, neurobiological, molecular biologic, epidemiological, prevention, and treatment arenas. Along with manuscripts from each of the areas mentioned above, the editors encourage submissions that are integrative in nature and that cross traditional disciplinary boundaries. The journal is sponsored by the Society for Research on Nicotine and Tobacco (SRNT). It publishes twelve times a year.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信