Altria conducts toxicology studies on propylene glycol aerosol in animals

Status
Not open for further replies.

Bill Godshall

Executive Director<br/> Smokefree Pennsylvania
ECF Veteran
Apr 2, 2009
5,171
13,288
67
Altria may soon begin marketing e-cigarettes, as the two researchers who wrote the manuscript of the following study (abstract below) work for Altria.

ScienceDirect - Toxicology : Non-clinical safety and pharmacokinetic evaluations of propylene glycol aerosol in Sprague-Dawley rats and Beagle dogs

Werley, M. S., P. McDonald, et al. (2011). "Non-clinical safety and pharmacokinetic evaluations of propylene glycol aerosol in Sprague-Dawley rats and Beagle dogs." Toxicology 287(1-3): 76-90.

Abstract
Aerosolized propylene glycol (PG) was generated as log-normally distributed particulate clouds in different concentrations using a novel capillary aerosol generator (CAG) and evaluated in a battery of non-clinical studies intended to assess its potential inhalation and systemic toxicity in 2 species before ICH-compliant "first-time-in-man" studies. Exposures were nose-only in rats, and via face mask with oropharyngeal tube in dogs. The CAG-generated PG aerosol had a mass median aerodynamic diameter (MMAD) of 2.29μm, with a 1.56 geometric standard deviation (GSD) in the rat studies, and a MMAD of 1.34μm (1.45 GSD) in the dog studies, consistent with expected particle size exposures in man. International Congress on Harmonization (ICH) Guidelines were followed, which recommend preliminary non-clinical safety studies using the vehicle and device (CAG-PG) prior to the first human exposure including safety pharmacology, pharmacokinetic (PK) studies, single dose toxicity studies, and repeated dose toxicity studies in two species. In the rat, the only biologically relevant findings included clinical signs of ocular and nasal irritation indicated by minor bleeding around the eyes and nose, and minimal laryngeal squamous metaplasia. This finding is commonly observed in inhalation studies in the rat, and likely related to the unique sensitivity of the tissue, as well as the circuitous airflow pathway through the larynx which increases particle deposition. In the female Beagle dog, treatment-related decreases in hemoglobin, red blood cells and hematocrit were observed in the two highest exposure groups, equivalent to approximately 18 and 60mg/kg/day. In male dogs from the high dose group, similar small decreases, albeit, non-statistically significant decreases were observed in these hematological markers as well. PK studies in rats and dogs showed that the absorption of PG following pulmonary inhalation exposure occurs rapidly, and equilibrium between lung tissue and plasma is achieved quickly. With daily inhalations of PG aerosols, there is evidence of minor tissue accumulation of PG in each species. Inhalation exposure to CAG-generated PG aerosols achieved PG concentrations in the systemic circulation that were similar to those attained via the oral route. Systemic elimination of PG appears to be saturable, presumably via hepatic metabolism. PG elimination in the high dose groups for both species showed terminal plasma and lung concentration-time profiles suggesting a zero-order elimination process. There was no apparent tissue toxicity of the lung, liver and kidney in these studies. Under the conditions of these studies, the NOEL for the rat was determined to be 20mg/kg/day for the 28-day study. In the Beagle dog, the NOEL was approximately 6.05mg/kg/day for the 28-day study. Overall, these studies allowed us to conclude that PG aerosol generated with the capillary aerosol generator could be administered safely in man, with an adequate margin of safety needed to conduct "first-time-in-man" human exposure studies.
 

Vocalek

CASAA Activist
Supporting Member
ECF Veteran
Usually research progresses from cellular findings in a research lab, to trials that involve animal subjects, and then finally to humans. I could swear that I saw research published on PG inhalation with Sprague-Dewy rats several years ago. So this Altria study would be replicating that (which is one measure of the validity of the research -- can it be replicated and give the same or similar results?).

The thing is, that we already have some research on humans inhaling PG. Japanese researchers reported in the Journal of Urban Living and Health Association regarding research on e-cigarettes containing no nicotine “Following the treatment, no abnormal changes in blood pressure, hematological data, or blood chemistry and no severe adverse events were observed.” The subjects used a minimum of 1 cartridge a day for four weeks. SEIKATSUEISEI : Vol. 55 (2011) , No. 1 p.59-64

Of course the ANTZ will trot out the "Well we didn't find out until 15 or 20 years had passed that inhaling smoke would damage one's health, so how do we know that 15 or 20 years of inhaling PG vapor won't have some terrible effect on health?"

My response to that would be, "Let's measure lung function while the person is still smoking. Have the persons switch to vapor and continue to measure lung function once a month. If their lung health gets worse on vaping, you win. If lung health improves on vaping, I win."
 

sqirl1

Super Member
ECF Veteran
Jan 10, 2011
823
328
St. Louis, MO
Of course the ANTZ will trot out the "Well we didn't find out until 15 or 20 years had passed that inhaling smoke would damage one's health, so how do we know that 15 or 20 years of inhaling PG vapor won't have some terrible effect on health?"

My response to that would be, "Let's measure lung function while the person is still smoking. Have the persons switch to vapor and continue to measure lung function once a month. If their lung health gets worse on vaping, you win. If lung health improves on vaping, I win."

yeah there's that, and also the fact that while it wasn't known that cigarettes cause cancer until the 1960s, we have MUCH better medical technology today than we had what 50 years ago, or even 15-20 years ago for that matter. The "oh well we didn't know cigarettes did this that or the other thing until XX date" is a TERRIBLE argument. with today's advances in medical science, we can figure out in a matter of days what it would have taken months or years to figure out 20 or 30 years ago.
 

Vap0rJay

Super Member
ECF Veteran
Mar 22, 2011
358
224
Maryland
Of course the ANTZ will trot out the "Well we didn't find out until 15 or 20 years had passed that inhaling smoke would damage one's health, so how do we know that 15 or 20 years of inhaling PG vapor won't have some terrible effect on health?"

My response to that would be, "Let's measure lung function while the person is still smoking. Have the persons switch to vapor and continue to measure lung function once a month. If their lung health gets worse on vaping, you win. If lung health improves on vaping, I win."

That or you reply to them... "Because I have been inhaling PG vapor into my lungs via my asthma rescue inhaler for close to that long already!?!" and look at the blank stare as you laugh inside.
 
Last edited:

Kurt

Quantum Vapyre
ECF Veteran
Sep 16, 2009
3,433
3,607
Philadelphia
It would be nice to see a similar study for glycerin. And I also seem to recall this being published already...perhaps someone didn't do a good literature search, both researchers and reviewers. Inhaled PG has been used in hospitals for sick-wards going back to the '40s.

So then if there is no significant damage or toxicity, then the sensitivity I and many others have was either not detected in these rats, or the increased consumption of water was not noted. I personally would call something that creates tissue dehydration to the point of chronic sores, achy mouth and chest, a toxicity of sorts. So I would like to see a similar study on glycerin.
 

Vocalek

CASAA Activist
Supporting Member
ECF Veteran
My guess would be that Altria is jumping through the hoops required to introduce a new product to market. PG is already a standard substance with known toxicity and carcinogenity, so those types of tests can probably be skipped.

"Inhalation of the PG vapors appears to present no significant hazard in ordinary applications. "
"PG does not cause sensitization and shows no evidence of being a carcinogen or of being genotoxic"

Propylene Glycol

It proceeds next to testing on animal subjects. If the substance doesn't harm animals, then it proceeds to testing on humans, to prove safety. A pharmaceutical product needs to go through 3 phases of testing on human subjects. FAQ: ClinicalTrials.gov - Clinical Trial Phases

But tobacco products are not pharma products. Here's more info on new tobacco product approval: FDA Tobacco Bill Prevents Ban, Forces Them to Endorse It - Seeking Alpha

Notice the last sentence of the abstract Bill posted:

Overall, these studies allowed us to conclude that PG aerosol generated with the capillary aerosol generator could be administered safely in man, with an adequate margin of safety needed to conduct "first-time-in-man" human exposure studies.

Perhaps the researchers had not seen this study:

"The report of the 3 years' study of the clinical application of the disinfection of air by glycol vapors in a children's convalescent home showed a marked reduction in the number of acute respiratory infections occurring in the wards treated with both propylene and triethylene glycols. Whereas in the control wards 132 infections occurred during the course of the three winters, there were only 13 such instances in the glycol wards during the same period."
http://www.ajph.org/cgi/reprint/36/4/390.pdf

So it isn't exactly "first time in man" unless they are considering direct inhalation to be different from having PG in the air of a room. Yes, we vapers have been directly inhaling PG for several years now, but there were no "human exposure studies" conducted first. That's likely why Eissenberg and other researchers are stating that we constitute an uncontrolled experiment.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.

Users who are viewing this thread