Professor Riccardo Polosa - E-Cigarette Summit 2014
-
Upload
neil-mclaren -
Category
Health & Medicine
-
view
369 -
download
5
Transcript of Professor Riccardo Polosa - E-Cigarette Summit 2014
Prof Riccardo Polosa
Director
Institute of Internal Medicine and Clinical Immunology
University of Catania
Conflict of interest – Riccardo Polosa
• Professor of Internal Medicine supported by the University of Catania, Italy
• Scientific advisor for LIAF (Italian acronym for Italian Anti Smoking League)
• Research grant
• Pharma industry (Pfizer, GSK, Novartis)
• E-cig industry (Arbi Group Srl)
• Consultancy role
• Global Health Alliance for treatment of tobacco dependence
• Pfizer
• ECITA (Electronic Cigarette Industry Trade Association, in the UK)
Lectures fees from E-cig industry and trade associations (including FIVAPE
in France and FIESEL in Italy) were entirely donated to vaper advocacy
organizations
Clinical Studies of e-Cigarettes:
What we have learned so far
Prof. Riccardo Polosa
Institute of Internal Medicine
Centre for the Prevention and Cure of Tabagism
University of Catania - ITALY
E-Cigarette Summit | 13 Nov 2014 | London
• RCTs
– Subjective effects
– Physiological effects
• Uncontrolled studies
– Subjective effects
– Physiological effects
• Laboratory studies
– Subjective effects
– Physiological effects
OUTLINE
Bullen C, et al. Tob Control. 2010;19(2):98-103.
Reduction in tobacco withdrawal symptoms:
Desire to smoke
Bullen C, et al. Tob Control. 2010;19(2):98-103.
2.1 ng/ml
Serum
Nicotine
Levels
Reduction in tobacco withdrawal symptoms:
Desire to smoke
Comparisons of change in desire to smoke
and other withdrawal symptoms from baseline
between 0 and 16 mg nicotine e-cigs
Bullen C, et al. Tob Control. 2010;19(2):98-103.
Vansickel AR, et al. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev. 2010;19:1945-53
Reduction in tobacco withdrawal symptoms:
QSU and craving ratings
Important factors when interpreting EC data
Findings with the product under investigation
cannot be extended to other models
Craving control – 2° generation ECs
#
*
#
Adriaens K et al. IJERPH 2014
8 weeks
Craving control – 2° generation ECs
#
*
#
Adriaens K et al. IJERPH 2014
8 weeks
Craving control – 2° generation ECs
#
*
#
Adriaens K et al. IJERPH 2014
8 weeks
Working Memory (Trigram WM Task)
* *
*
* p < 0.01 compared to nicotine
Learning Points
• EC can reduce craving and (to a lesser
extent) nicotine withdrawal symptoms
• Effect on craving more “ritual” dependent
• Effect on withdrawal symptoms more
nicotine dependent
• Nicotine EC can prevent the memory
decrement
Randomised Controlled Trials
• ‘Categoria’ 24mg nicotine EC vs. 18mg nicotine EC vs. no nicotine EC
• 300 smokers (unwilling to quit)
• 1 year abstinence rates: 13%, 9% and 4%
• good tolerability
(Caponnetto et al. Plos One 2013)
• ‘Elusion’ 16mg nicotine EC vs. nicotine patch vs. no nicotine EC
• 657 smokers (motivated to quit)
• 6 month abstinence rates: 7.3%, 5.8% and 4.1%
• good tolerability
(Bullen et al. Lancet 2013)
STUDY ASSESSMENTS
Procedure BL Visit
Wk2 Wk4 Wk6 Wk8 Wk10 Wk12 Wk24 Wk52
Visit 1 Visit 2 Visit 3 Visit 4 Visit 5 Visit 6 Visit 7 Visit 8 Visit 9
Informed consent
X
Sociodemografic factors X
Medical history X
Drug history X
Physical examination X X X X
Vital signs – HR & BP X X X X X X X X X
Weight - Kg X X X X
Smoking Hx X
BDI and BAI X
FTND X
S M O K E
C H A R T
eCO X X X X X X X X X
GN-SBQ X
NO and spirometry X X X X X X
Saliva collection for cotinine X X
Give Study Diary X X X X X X
Collect Study Diary X X X X X X
Craving/VAS X X X X X X X X X
MNWS (past 2 weeks) X X X X X X X X X
MNWS (past 24 hrs) X X X X X X X X X
Adverse events X X X X X X X X X
E-cig training and dispense of E-cig kit
X
Dispense study cartridges X X X X X X
Cartridges use record X X X X X X
Smokers’ preference X X X
Exploring the harm reduction/reversal potential (e.g.
reduction in biomarker known to be used as proxy for
risk prediction in CVD)
No changes in resting systolic BP
(separately for each continuous phenotype)
Long effect of smoking abstinence/reduction
on BP and HR in smokers switching to ECs
Submitted for publication
2013 ESH/ESC criteria for “high normal”
Modelling new strategies for harm reversal
n = 86 in ECLAT
n = 59 in ECLAT
Cut-off level
Long effect of smoking abstinence/reduction
on BP and HR in smokers switching to ECs
SBP changes at Week 52 from baseline
Long effect of smoking abstinence/reduction
on BP and HR in smokers switching to ECs
SBP changes at Week 52 from baseline
Harm
Reversal!
BLOOD PRESSURE CONTROL IN E-CIG USERS K. Farsalinos et al. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2014
(N = 2162)
Dual users Single users
Learning Points
• Smoking abstinence by using ECs may lower elevated systolic BP
• Decreases were reported also in reducers
• ECs may be a helpful alternative to cigarettes in smokers with elevated BP
Flouris AD, et al.
Inhal Toxicol. 2013
baseline
3 min after
60 min after
Effects on user health:
spirometry
• RCTs in healthy smokers have shown that ECs are
effective and safe
• No data about EC use among vulnerable populations,
including people with asthma
• We investigated changes in subjective and objective
asthma outcomes as well as safety in smoking
asthmatics who switched to EC.
No significant differences between Pre-Baseline and Baseline Assessments
EC use in smoking asthmatics
1st F/up Visit
Assessment Timepoints
Baseline Pre-Baseline
Fo
rce
d E
xp
ira
tory
Vo
lum
e in 1
se
co
nd
(L
)
3.0
3.2
3.4
3.6
3.8
2nd F/up Visit
**
FEV1
Improvement from baseline at 12 months
p=0.005 mean increase of 100mls
Harm
Reversal!
Regular EC use
Fo
rce
d V
ita
l C
ap
acity (
L)
3.8
4.0
4.2
4.4
4.6
4.8
1st F/up Visit
Assessment Timepoints
Baseline Pre-Baseline
2nd F/up Visit
**
FVC
Improvement from baseline at 12 months
p=0.006 mean increase of 150mls
Harm
Reversal!
Regular EC use
FE
F2
5-7
5 (
L/s
ec)
2.4
2.6
2.8
3.0
3.2
3.4
1st F/up Visit
Assessment Timepoints
Baseline Pre-Baseline
2nd F/up Visit
**
***
FEF25-75
Improvement from baseline at 6 and 12 months
p=0.006 mean increase of 250mls/sec
p=0.001 mean increase of 360mls/sec
Harm
Reversal!
Regular EC use
Pre-Baseline
Me
tha
cho
line
PC
20
(m
g/m
L)
1.0
1.5
2.0
2.5
3.0
3.5
Baseline 2nd F/up Visit
1st F/up Visit
Assessment Timepoints
**
Methacholine PC20
Improvement from baseline at 12 months
p=0.003 mean increase of 1.2 DD
Harm
Reversal!
Regular EC use
AC
Q s
co
res
1.2
1.4
1.6
1.8
2.0
2.2
2.4
1st F/up Visit
Assessment Timepoints
Baseline Pre-Baseline
2nd F/up Visit
***
***
Juniper’s ACQ
Improvement from baseline at 6, 12 months
p=0.001 mean decrease of 0.43
p=0.001 mean decrease of 0.56
Harm
Reversal!
Regular EC use
Smoking habit and
asthma exacerbations
Parameter Baseline 1st follow-up visit
(6 months ± 1)
2nd follow-up visit
(12 months ± 2)
p value to
Baseline
p value to
Baseline
Cigarettes/day 21.9 (±4.5) 5.0 (±2.6) <0.001 3.9 (±1.0) <0.001
Exacerbations 1.17 (±0.9) 0.87 (±0.7) 0.296 0.78 (±0.7) 0.153
Frequent exacerbators (≥ 2 exacerbations; n=6)
halved their exacerbations at both follow-up visits
Safety and Tolerability
• No severe adverse reactions or acute
exacerbations of asthma requiring
hospitalisation/ITU admissions.
• ECs were well tolerated with dry mouth
and throat irritation occasionally reported.
(N = 1173)
(N = 1062)
Dual users Single users
RESPIRATORY SYMPTOMS IN E-CIG USERS K. Farsalinos et al. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2014
(N = 1173)
(N = 1062)
Dual users Single users
RESPIRATORY SYMPTOMS IN E-CIG USERS K. Farsalinos et al. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2014
Learning Points
• EC use improves lung function, respiratory symptoms, subjective asthma outcomes
• Improvements were reported also in dual users
• Exposure to e-vapour in this vulnerable population did not trigger acute symtoms
• ECs are a safe alternative to cigarettes in smokers with chronic airways disease
Additional learning points from
ECLAT
• Abuse potential was relatively low
• Improved sensorial quality (i.e. taste) is key to a
wider adoption
• Efficiency (i.e. switching) can be maximized with
better quality/technology (i.e. improved product
reliability)
No. O
f su
bje
cts
Reducers
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
Week-12 Week-52
Intention-to-treat
Quitters
Week-6 Week-24
Reduction and abstinence rates (%) throughout the study
22.3%
10.3%
10.7% 8.7%
26.9%
73.1%
Using e-cigs
Not using e-cigs
Abuse potential?
Caponnetto et al. Plos One 2013
Quitters
2wk 4wk 6wk 8wk 10wk 24wk 52wk 12wk
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
%
3%
NO nicotine
5.4 mg nicotine
7,2 mg nicotine
Inferior performance of group C compared to group A and B. Driven by what?
Week 6 Week 12
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
Cotinin
e (
ng/m
l)
Group A Group B Group C Group A Group B Group C
Saliva cotinine levels in quitters
among study groups
Group A: 24 mg/ml nicotine
Group B: 18 mg/ml nicotine
Group C: no nicotine Is it nicotine? I do not think so!
Ordinary concentration threshold
for regular smokers
Score
Q1 Q2 Q3
Group C
Group B
Group A
Week-24
Q1 Q2 Q3
Week-52
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
Q1 Q2 Q3
Week-12
”how much do you rate this EC compared to your own brand?”
Participants’ liking of the product V
AS
sco
re
VAS from 0 to 10 points (0 = being ‘completely unsatisfied’, 10 being = ‘fully satisfied’)
COMPLAINTS/CONCERNS
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
C: no nic
B: medium nic
A: high nic
CONS, W-12 N
o.
tim
es r
eport
ed
poor taste heavy bulky mulfunctions
p=0.002
…or is it taste? I do think so!
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
C: no nic
B: medium nic
A: high nic
CONS, W-12 N
o.
tim
es r
eport
ed
poor taste discomfort heavy bulky mulfunctions
p=0.002
p=0.02
COMPLAINTS/CONCERNS
Best results – an act of balance
Aroma
Nicotine levels Liquidware Hardware
Reliability
Convenience
User satisfaction/appeal
E-Cig: a product in (fast) evolution
ECLAT was planned in the 2009 when
E-cig technology was in its infancy
The future A.D. 2009
Future studies will have to focus on
improved technology and
overall customer satisfaction
A.D. 2014
Improved product reliability
Better taste
More nicotine delivery
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
50% reduction 80% reduction abstinence reduction+abstinence failure
cig
ali
ke
cig
ali
ke
cig
ali
ke
cig
ali
ke
cig
ali
ke
Success rates at 6 months: Cigalikes vs PVs
Combined data: Polosa, et al. BMC Public Health 2011 and Polosa, et al. BMC Public Health 2014
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
50% reduction 80% reduction abstinence reduction+abstinence failure
cig
ali
ke
cig
ali
ke
cig
ali
ke
cig
ali
ke
cig
ali
ke
2°
ge
ne
rati
on
PV
s
2°
gen
era
tio
n P
Vs
2°
gen
era
tio
n P
Vs
2°
gen
era
tio
n P
Vs
2°
ge
ne
rati
on
PV
s
Combined data: Polosa, et al. BMC Public Health 2011 and Polosa, et al. BMC Public Health 2014
Success rates at 6 months: Cigalikes vs PVs
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
50% reduction 80% reduction abstinence reduction+abstinence failure
cig
ali
ke
cig
ali
ke
cig
ali
ke
cig
ali
ke
cig
ali
ke
2°
ge
ne
rati
on
PV
s
2°
gen
era
tio
n P
Vs
2°
gen
era
tio
n P
Vs
2°
gen
era
tio
n P
Vs
2°
ge
ne
rati
on
PV
s
Combined data: Polosa, et al. BMC Public Health 2011 and Polosa, et al. BMC Public Health 2014
Success rates at 6 months: future gen models
Future generation model image
Acknowledgments