Dataset Information

Instigators of COVID-19 in Immune Cells are Increased in Tobacco Cigarette Smokers and Electronic Cigarette Vapers Compared to Non-smokers.

ABSTRACT:

Introduction

SARS-CoV-2, the virus responsible for the COVID-19 pandemic, gains entry into the host cell when its Spike protein is cleaved by host proteases TMPRSS2 and furin, thereby markedly increasing viral affinity for its receptor, angiotensin-converting enzyme-2(ACE2). In rodent and diseased human lungs, tobacco cigarette(TCIG) smoke increases ACE2, but the effect of electronic cigarette vaping(ECIG) is unknown. It is unknown whether nicotine (in both TCIGs and ECIGs) or non-nicotine constituents unique to TCIG smoke increase expression of key proteins in COVID-19 pathogenesis.

Methods

Immune (CD45+) cells collected before the pandemic in otherwise healthy young people, including TCIG-smokers(n=9), ECIG-vapers(n=12) or non-smokers(NS) (n=12) were studied. Using flow cytometry, expression of key proteins in COVID-19 pathogenesis were compared among these groups.

Results

TCIG-smokers and ECIG-vapers had similar smoking or vaping burdens as indicated by similar plasma cotinine levels. TCIG-smokers compared to NS had a significantly increased percentage of cells that were positive for ACE2 (10-fold, p<0.001), TMPRSS2 (5-fold, p<0.001) and ADAM17 (2.5-fold, p<0.001). Additionally, the mean fluorescence intensity (MFI) consistently showed greater mean ACE2 (2.2-fold, p<0.001), TMPRSS2 (1.5-fold, p<0.001), furin (1.1-fold, p<0.05) and ADAM17 (2-fold, p<0.001) in TCIG-smokers compared to NS. In ECIG-vapers, furin MFI was increased (1.15-fold, p<0.05) and TMPRSS2 MFI tended to be increased (1.1-fold, p=0.077) compared to NS.

Conclusions

The finding that key instigators of COVID-19 infection are lower in ECIG-vapers compared to TCIG-smokers is intriguing and warrants additional investigation to determine if switching to ECIGs is an effective harm reduction strategy. However, the trend towards increased proteases in ECIG-vapers remains concerning.

Implications

This is the first human study to report a marked increase in proteins critical for COVID-19 infection, including ACE2, TMPRSS2 and ADAM17, in immune cells from healthy tobacco cigarette smokers without lung disease compared to e-cigarette vapers and non-smokers. These findings warrant additional investigation to determine if switching to electronic cigarettes may be an effective harm reduction strategy in smokers addicted to nicotine who are unable or unwilling to quit, The increase in proteases in electronic cigarette vapers remains concerning.

SUBMITTER: Kelesidis T

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8513409 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundNicotine-containing electronic cigarette (e-cig) use has become widespread. However, understanding the biological impact of e-cigs compared with smoking on the lung is needed. There are major gaps in knowledge for chronic effects and for an etiology to recent acute lung toxicity leading to death among vapers.MethodsWe conducted bronchoscopies in a cross-sectional study of 73 subjects (42 never-smokers, 15 e-cig users, and 16 smokers). Using bronchoalveolar lavage and brushings, we examined lung inflammation by cell counts, cytokines, genome-wide gene expression, and DNA methylation.ResultsThere were statistically significant differences among never-smokers, e-cig users, and smokers for inflammatory cell counts and cytokines (FDR q < 0.1). The e-cig users had values intermediate between smokers and never-smokers, with levels for most of the biomarkers more similar to never-smokers. For differential gene expression and DNA methylation, e-cig users also more like never-smokers; many of these genes corresponded to smoking-related pathways, including those for xenobiotic metabolism, aryl hydrocarbon receptor signaling, and oxidative stress. Differentially methylated genes were correlated with changes in gene expression, providing evidence for biological effects of the methylation associations.ConclusionsThese data indicate that e-cigs are associated with less toxicity than cigarettes for smoking-related pathways. What is unknown may be unique effects for e-cigs not measured herein, and a comparison of smokers completely switching to e-cigs compared with former smokers. Clinical trials for smokers switching to e-cigs who undergo serial bronchoscopy and larger cross-sectional studies of former smokers with and without e-cig use, and for e-cigs who relapse back to smoking, are needed.ImpactThese data can be used for product regulation and for informing tobacco users considering or using e-cigs. What is unknown may be unique effects for e-cigs not measured herein, and clinical trials with serial bronchoscopy underway can demonstrate a direct relationship for changes in lung biomarkers.

Project description:BackgroundThere is considerable debate about the benefits and risks of electronic cigarettes (ECs). To better understand the risk-benefit ratio of ECs, more information is needed about net nicotine consumption and toxicant exposure of cigarette smokers switching to ECs.MethodsForty cigarette smokers (?1 year of smoking) interested in switching to ECs but not necessarily quitting smoking were enrolled in a 4-week observational study and provided an e-Go C non-variable battery and refillable atomizers and choice of eight flavors in 12 or 24 mg nicotine dosage. Measurement of urinary cotinine (metabolite of nicotine), 4-(methylnitrosamino)-1-(3-pyridyl)-1-butanol (NNAL; a pulmonary carcinogen), and eight volatile organic compounds (VOCs) that are toxic tobacco smoke constituents was conducted at baseline and week 4.ResultsAll participants with follow-up data (92.5%) reported using the study EC. Of the 40 smokers, 16 reported no cigarettes at week 2 (40%) and six continued to report no cigarettes at week 4 (15%). Change in nicotine intake over the 4 weeks was non-significant (p = .90). Carbon monoxide (p < .001), NNAL (p < .01) and metabolites of benzene (p < .01) and acrylonitrile (p = .001) were significantly decreased in the study sample. Smokers switching exclusively to ECs for at least half of the study period demonstrated significant reductions in metabolites of ethylene oxide (p = .03) and acrylamide (p < .01).ConclusionSmokers using ECs over 4 weeks maintained cotinine levels and experienced significant reductions in carbon monoxide, NNAL, and two out of eight measured VOC metabolites. Those who switched exclusively to ECs for at least half of the study period significantly reduced two additional VOCs.ImplicationsThis study extends current literature by measuring change in smoking dependence and disease-associated biomarkers, NNAL and a panel of eight common VOCs that are toxic tobacco smoke constituents in smokers who switch to ECs. The findings support the idea of harm reduction, however some levels of toxicant exposure are still of clinical concern, particularly for dual users. Extrapolation of these results must be careful to separate the different toxic exposure results for exclusive switchers versus dual cigarette + EC users, and not to equate harm reduction with the idea that using ECs is harmless.

Project description:BackgroundE-cigarettes are increasingly being viewed, incorrectly, as more harmful than cigarettes. This may discourage smokers from switching to e-cigarettes. One potential explanation for these increasingly harmful attitudes is conflicting information presented in the media and online, and from public health bodies.Aims and methodsIn this prospectively registered online study, we aimed to examine the impact of conflicting public health information on smokers' and vapers' e-cigarette harm perceptions. Daily UK smokers who do not vape (n = 334) and daily UK vapers (n = 368) were randomized to receive either: (1) a consistent harm reduction statement from two different public health bodies (Harm Reduction), (2) a consistent negative statement about e-cigarette harms from two different public health bodies (Negative), (3) a harm reduction statement from one public health body and a negative statement from another (Conflict), and (4) a statement of the risks of smoking followed by a harm reduction statement from one public health body and a negative statement from another (Smoking Risk + Conflict). Participants then answered questions regarding their perceptions of e-cigarette harm.ResultsThe Negative condition had the highest e-cigarette harm perceptions, significantly higher than the Smoking Risk + Conflict condition (MD = 5.4, SE = 1.8, p < .016, d = 0.3 [CI 0.73 to 10.04]), which did not differ from the Conflict condition (MD = 1.5, SE = 1.8, p = .836, d = 0.1 [CI -3.14 to 6.17]). The Conflict condition differed from the Harm Reduction condition, where harm perceptions were lowest (MD = 5.4, SE = 1.8, p = .016, d = 0.3 [CI 0.74 to 10.07]).ConclusionsThese findings are the first to demonstrate that, compared to harm reduction information, conflicting information increases e-cigarette harm perceptions amongst vapers, and smokers who do not vape.ImplicationsThis research provides the first empirical evidence that conflicting information increases smokers' and vapers' e-cigarette harm perceptions, compared to harm reduction information. This may have a meaningful impact on public health as e-cigarette harm perceptions can influence subsequent smoking and vaping behavior. Conflicting information may dissuade smokers, who have the most to gain from accurate e-cigarette harm perceptions, from switching to e-cigarettes. These findings indicate that public health communications that are consensus-based can lower harm perceptions of e-cigarettes, and have the potential to reduce morbidity and mortality attributable to tobacco smoking.