Sophie Braznell, Sarah Dance, Jamie Hartmann-Boyce, Anna Gilmore
{"title":"加热烟草制品对潜在危害和不良事件生物标志物的影响:一项系统综述和荟萃分析。","authors":"Sophie Braznell, Sarah Dance, Jamie Hartmann-Boyce, Anna Gilmore","doi":"10.1136/tc-2024-059000","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>To systematically review available data on the effects of heated tobacco products (HTPs) on biomarkers of potential harm (BoPH) and adverse events, including comparison to cigarettes, e-cigarettes and smoking abstinence.</p><p><strong>Data sources: </strong>Web of Science, Scopus, MedRxiv, ClinicalTrials.gov, ICTRP database and HTP manufacturer libraries were searched from January 2010 to December 2024.</p><p><strong>Study selection: </strong>Included studies were interventional clinical trials of any design that measured BoPH or adverse events in adults assigned a marketed HTP and another assigned either cigarettes, e-cigarettes or smoking abstinence.</p><p><strong>Data extraction: </strong>Two reviewers independently extracted data into a predesigned form and assessed risk of bias using Cochrane's Risk of Bias tool version 1.</p><p><strong>Data synthesis: </strong>BoPH data were synthesised using effect direction plots. A random-effects model was used to calculate pooled risk ratios for adverse event data. 40 studies (10 independent, 29 industry-affiliated and 1 of unclear affiliation) were included. Only nine studies lasted longer than 5 days. 19 involved using the intervention just once. Risk of bias was high for 32 studies and unclear for 8. Data on 143 BoPH indicated short-term HTP use had mixed effects compared with cigarettes, e-cigarettes and smoking abstinence. The rate of adverse event reporting was not significantly different between HTP and any comparator group.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Despite a growing evidence base, significant limitations hinder interpretation of the data, which do not yet provide clear indication of harm or benefit, even compared with cigarettes. Longer, better quality studies independent of tobacco industry funding are needed to determine the health impacts of HTPs.</p>","PeriodicalId":23145,"journal":{"name":"Tobacco Control","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":4.0000,"publicationDate":"2025-04-29","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Impact of heated tobacco products on biomarkers of potential harm and adverse events: a systematic review and meta-analysis.\",\"authors\":\"Sophie Braznell, Sarah Dance, Jamie Hartmann-Boyce, Anna Gilmore\",\"doi\":\"10.1136/tc-2024-059000\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>To systematically review available data on the effects of heated tobacco products (HTPs) on biomarkers of potential harm (BoPH) and adverse events, including comparison to cigarettes, e-cigarettes and smoking abstinence.</p><p><strong>Data sources: </strong>Web of Science, Scopus, MedRxiv, ClinicalTrials.gov, ICTRP database and HTP manufacturer libraries were searched from January 2010 to December 2024.</p><p><strong>Study selection: </strong>Included studies were interventional clinical trials of any design that measured BoPH or adverse events in adults assigned a marketed HTP and another assigned either cigarettes, e-cigarettes or smoking abstinence.</p><p><strong>Data extraction: </strong>Two reviewers independently extracted data into a predesigned form and assessed risk of bias using Cochrane's Risk of Bias tool version 1.</p><p><strong>Data synthesis: </strong>BoPH data were synthesised using effect direction plots. A random-effects model was used to calculate pooled risk ratios for adverse event data. 40 studies (10 independent, 29 industry-affiliated and 1 of unclear affiliation) were included. Only nine studies lasted longer than 5 days. 19 involved using the intervention just once. Risk of bias was high for 32 studies and unclear for 8. Data on 143 BoPH indicated short-term HTP use had mixed effects compared with cigarettes, e-cigarettes and smoking abstinence. The rate of adverse event reporting was not significantly different between HTP and any comparator group.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Despite a growing evidence base, significant limitations hinder interpretation of the data, which do not yet provide clear indication of harm or benefit, even compared with cigarettes. Longer, better quality studies independent of tobacco industry funding are needed to determine the health impacts of HTPs.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":23145,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Tobacco Control\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":4.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-04-29\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Tobacco Control\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1136/tc-2024-059000\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"PUBLIC, ENVIRONMENTAL & OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Tobacco Control","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1136/tc-2024-059000","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"PUBLIC, ENVIRONMENTAL & OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
摘要
目的:系统回顾加热烟草制品(HTPs)对潜在危害生物标志物(BoPH)和不良事件影响的现有数据,包括与香烟、电子烟和戒烟的比较。数据来源:Web of Science, Scopus, MedRxiv, ClinicalTrials.gov, ICTRP数据库和http制造商库,检索时间为2010年1月至2024年12月。研究选择:纳入的研究是任何设计的干预性临床试验,测量BoPH或不良事件的成年人被分配到市场上的HTP,另一个被分配到香烟、电子烟或戒烟。数据提取:两位审稿人独立地将数据提取到预先设计的表格中,并使用Cochrane的风险偏倚工具版本1评估偏倚风险。数据综合:采用效应方向图综合BoPH数据。采用随机效应模型计算不良事件数据的合并风险比。纳入了40项研究(10项独立研究,29项行业相关研究和1项不明确关联研究)。只有9项研究持续时间超过5天。其中19人只使用了一次干预措施。32项研究的偏倚风险较高,8项研究的偏倚风险不明确。143 BoPH的数据表明,与香烟、电子烟和戒烟相比,短期使用HTP的效果好坏参半。不良事件报告率在HTP组和任何比较组之间无显著差异。结论:尽管证据基础越来越多,但重大的局限性阻碍了对数据的解释,这些数据尚未提供明确的危害或益处,甚至与香烟相比。需要进行独立于烟草业资助的更长时间、更高质量的研究,以确定高温烟草制品对健康的影响。
Impact of heated tobacco products on biomarkers of potential harm and adverse events: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Objective: To systematically review available data on the effects of heated tobacco products (HTPs) on biomarkers of potential harm (BoPH) and adverse events, including comparison to cigarettes, e-cigarettes and smoking abstinence.
Data sources: Web of Science, Scopus, MedRxiv, ClinicalTrials.gov, ICTRP database and HTP manufacturer libraries were searched from January 2010 to December 2024.
Study selection: Included studies were interventional clinical trials of any design that measured BoPH or adverse events in adults assigned a marketed HTP and another assigned either cigarettes, e-cigarettes or smoking abstinence.
Data extraction: Two reviewers independently extracted data into a predesigned form and assessed risk of bias using Cochrane's Risk of Bias tool version 1.
Data synthesis: BoPH data were synthesised using effect direction plots. A random-effects model was used to calculate pooled risk ratios for adverse event data. 40 studies (10 independent, 29 industry-affiliated and 1 of unclear affiliation) were included. Only nine studies lasted longer than 5 days. 19 involved using the intervention just once. Risk of bias was high for 32 studies and unclear for 8. Data on 143 BoPH indicated short-term HTP use had mixed effects compared with cigarettes, e-cigarettes and smoking abstinence. The rate of adverse event reporting was not significantly different between HTP and any comparator group.
Conclusions: Despite a growing evidence base, significant limitations hinder interpretation of the data, which do not yet provide clear indication of harm or benefit, even compared with cigarettes. Longer, better quality studies independent of tobacco industry funding are needed to determine the health impacts of HTPs.
期刊介绍:
Tobacco Control is an international peer-reviewed journal covering the nature and consequences of tobacco use worldwide; tobacco''s effects on population health, the economy, the environment, and society; efforts to prevent and control the global tobacco epidemic through population-level education and policy changes; the ethical dimensions of tobacco control policies; and the activities of the tobacco industry and its allies.