RationaleElectronic cigarettes (ECs) are becoming popular alternatives for smokers, but there has been limited study of their abuse liability.ObjectivesThe objective of this study was to evaluate the abuse liability of three Vuse Solo ECs, ranging from 14 to 36 mg in nicotine content, relative to high- and low-abuse liability comparator products (usual brand combustible cigarettes and nicotine gum, respectively) in a group of 45 EC-naïve smokers.MethodsEnrolled subjects’ ratings of subjective effects and nicotine uptake over 6 h were used to measure abuse liability and pharmacokinetics following in-clinic use of each EC.ResultsUse of Vuse Solo resulted in subjective measures and nicotine uptake that were between those of combustible cigarettes and nicotine gum, although generally closer to nicotine gum. Compared to combustible cigarettes, use of Vuse Solo resulted in significantly lower scores in measures of product liking, positive effects, and intent to use again. These pharmacodynamic findings were consistent with the pharmacokinetic data, showing that cigarettes produced substantially faster and higher levels of nicotine uptake as compared to Vuse Solo and nicotine gum. Vuse Solo resulted in more rapid initial uptake of nicotine compared to nicotine gum, but peak concentration and long-term extent of uptake were not different or were lower with Vuse.ConclusionsCollectively, these findings suggest that Vuse Solo likely has an abuse liability that is somewhat greater than nicotine gum but lower than cigarettes.Trial registration
ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT02269514Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (doi:10.1007/s00213-017-4665-y) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.
Higher levels of exposure to nicotine and some N'-nitrosamines may be observed in MSC, and SMK are exposed to higher levels of combustion-related toxicants. Changes in BioEff consistent with some aspects of inflammation, oxidative stress, and altered lipid metabolism were detected in SMK compared to the non-smoking groups. The biomarker data further improve our understanding of pathophysiological changes and the risk continuum associated with various tobacco products, and could be useful components of future assessments of tobacco products.
A study was conducted to evaluate biomarkers of biological effect and physiological assessments related to cardiovascular disease (CVD) among adult male cigarette smokers (SMK), moist snuff consumers (MSC) and non-consumers of tobacco (NTC). Additionally, biomarkers of tobacco and tobacco smoke exposure (BoE) were measured in spot urines and are reported here. Except for the BoE to nicotine and NNK, BoE were generally greater in SMK compared with MSC, and BoE were generally not different in comparisons of MSC and NTC. Results demonstrated that MSC had lower systemic exposures to many harmful and potentially harmful constituents than SMK, which is consistent with epidemiological data that indicate a differential in CVD risk between these groups.
A randomized, multi-center study of adult cigarette smokers switched to tobacco-heating cigarettes, snus or ultra-low machine yield tobacco-burning cigarettes (50/group) for 24 weeks was conducted. Evaluation of biomarkers of biological effect (e.g. inflammation, lipids, hypercoaguable state) indicated that the majority of consistent and statistically significant improvements over time within each group were observed in markers of inflammation. Consistent and statistically significant differences in pairwise comparisons between product groups were not observed. These findings are relevant to the understanding of biomarkers of biological effect related to cigarette smoking as well as the risk continuum across various tobacco products (ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02061917).
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.