Introduction Electronic cigarettes’ (e-cigarettes) viability as a public health strategy to end smoking will likely be determined by their ability to mimic the pharmacokinetic profile of a cigarette while also exposing users to significantly lower levels of harmful/potentially harmful constituents (HPHCs). The present study examined the nicotine delivery profile of third- (G3) versus second-generation (G2) e-cigarette devices and their users’ exposure to nicotine and select HPHCs compared with cigarette smokers. Methods 30 participants (10 smokers, 9 G2 and 11 G3 users) completed baseline questionnaires and provided exhaled carbon monoxide (eCO), saliva and urine samples. Following a 12-hour nicotine abstinence, G2 and G3 users completed a 2-hour vaping session (ie, 5 min, 10-puff bout followed by ad libitum puffing for 115 min). Blood samples, subjective effects, device characteristics and e-liquid consumption were assessed. Results Smokers, G2 and G3 users had similar baseline levels of cotinine, but smokers had 4 and 7 times higher levels of eCO (p<0.0001) and total 4-(Methylnitrosamino)-1-(3-pyridyl)-1-butanol (i.e., NNAL, p<0.01), respectively, than G2 or G3 users. Compared with G2s, G3 devices delivered significantly higher power to the atomiser, but G3 users vaped e-cigarette liquids with significantly lower nicotine concentrations. During the vaping session, G3 users achieved significantly higher plasma nicotine concentrations than G2 users following the first 10 puffs (17.5 vs 7.3 ng/mL, respectively) and at 25 and 40 min of ad libitum use. G3 users consumed significantly more e-liquid than G2 users. Vaping urges/withdrawal were reduced following 10 puffs, with no significant differences between device groups. Discussion Under normal use conditions, both G2 and G3 devices deliver cigarette-like amounts of nicotine, but G3 devices matched the amount and speed of nicotine delivery of a conventional cigarette. Compared with cigarettes, G2 and G3 e-cigarettes resulted in significantly lower levels of exposure to a potent lung carcinogen and cardiovascular toxicant. These findings have significant implications for understanding the addiction potential of these devices and their viability/suitability as aids to smoking cessation.

Personalized drinking feedback is an evidence-based and increasingly common way of intervening with high-risk college drinking. This article extends an earlier review by Walters and Neighbors (S. T. Walters & C. Neighbors, 2005, Feedback interventions for college alcohol misuse: What, why, and for whom? Addictive Behaviors, 30, 1168–1182) by reviewing the literature of published studies using personalized feedback as an intervention for heavy drinking among college students. This article updates and extends the original review with a more comprehensive and recent set of 41 studies, most of which were not included in the original article. This article also examines within-subject effect sizes for personalized feedback interventions (PFIs) for high-risk alcohol use and examines the content of PFIs more closely to provide insight on the most essential components that will guide the future development of feedback-based interventions. In general, PFIs appear to be reliably effective at reducing harmful alcohol misuse among college students. Some components are almost universally included (i.e., drinking profile and normative comparison), precluding inferences regarding their unique contribution. Significantly larger effect sizes were observed for interventions that included decisional balance, practical costs, and strategies to limit risks. The present research provides an important empirical foundation for determining the relative contribution of individual components and facets in the efficacy of PFIs.

Among vapor store customers in the United States who use electronic nicotine delivery devices to stop smoking, vaping longer, using newer-generation devices and using non-tobacco and non-menthol flavored e-liquid appear to be associated with higher rates of smoking cessation.

No abstract

HIV treatment requires lifelong adherence to medication regimens that comprise inconvenient scheduling, adverse side effects, and lifestyle changes. Antiretroviral adherence and treatment fatigue have been inextricably linked. Adherence in HIV-infected populations has been well investigated; however, little is known about treatment fatigue. This review examines the current state of the literature on treatment fatigue among HIV populations and provides an overview of its etiology and potential consequences. Standard systematic research methods were used to gather published papers on treatment fatigue and HIV. Five databases were searched using PRISMA criteria. Of 1,557 studies identified, 21 met the following inclusion criteria: (a) study participants were HIV-infected, (b) participants were prescribed antiretroviral medication, (c) the article referenced treatment fatigue, (d) the article was published in a peer-reviewed journal, and (e) text was available in English. Only seven articles operationally defined treatment fatigue, with three themes emerging throughout the definitions: (1) pill burden, (2) loss of desire to adhere to the regimen, and (3) nonadherence to regimens as a consequence of treatment fatigue. Based on these studies, treatment fatigue may be defined as “decreased desire and motivation to maintain vigilance in adhering to a treatment regimen among patients prescribed long-term protocols.” The cause and course of treatment fatigue appear to vary by developmental stage. To date, only structured treatment interruptions have been examined as an intervention to reduce treatment fatigue in children and adults. No behavioral interventions have been developed to reduce treatment fatigue. Further, only qualitative studies have examined treatment fatigue conceptually. Studies designed to systematically assess treatment fatigue are needed. Increased understanding of the course and duration of treatment fatigue is expected to improve adherence interventions, thereby improving clinical outcomes for individuals living with HIV.

It appears that a campus-wide tobacco ban is a well-accepted and effective prevention method for smoking. This study lends considerable support for efforts towards smoke-free campuses.

Introduction Electronic cigarettes (e-cigarettes) have the potential to significantly reduce exposure to harmful constituents associated with cigarette smoking when smokers completely substitute cigarettes with e-cigarettes. This study examined patterns of e-cigarette and cigarette use, and extent of toxicant exposure, if smokers were instructed and incentivized to completely switch to e-cigarettes compared to instructions to use the product ad libitum. Aims and Methods US adult daily smokers (n = 264; 49.2% female; Mage = 47.0), uninterested in quitting smoking immediately, were recruited from Minneapolis, MN, Columbus, OH, and Buffalo, NY. Participants were randomized to 8 weeks of instructions for (1) ad libitum use of e-cigarettes (AD-E), (2) complete substitution of cigarettes with e-cigarettes (CS-E), (3) complete substitution of cigarettes with nicotine gum or lozenge (CS-NRT), or (4) continue smoking of usual brand cigarettes (UB). Participants were incentivized for protocol compliance, including complete switching in the CS-E and CS-NRT groups. Outcome variables were cigarette smoking rate and tobacco-related biomarkers of exposure. Results Smokers in the CS-E and CS-NRT groups showed lower rates of smoking and lower exposure to carbon monoxide, tobacco carcinogens, and other toxicants than smokers in the AD-E group. In general, no significant differences were observed between CS-E versus CS-NRT or between AD-E versus UB for most biomarkers. Significantly higher 7-day point prevalence smoke-free rates were observed for CS-E versus CS-NRT. Conclusions Smokers instructed and incentivized to completely switch to e-cigarettes resulted in lower smoking rates and greater reductions in exposures to harmful chemicals than smokers instructed to use the product ad libitum. Implications Smokers instructed to completely substitute e-cigarettes for cigarettes displayed significantly lower levels of smoking and biomarkers of exposure to carcinogens and toxicants, compared to smokers instructed to use e-cigarettes ad libitum and similar levels as smokers instructed to completely substitute with nicotine replacement therapies. Furthermore, a higher rate of complete switching was achieved with e-cigarettes versus nicotine replacement therapies. Approaches to maximize complete substitution with e-cigarettes are an important area for future research.

Among a small convenience sample of unmotivated cigarette smokers, EC experimentation and 1 week of ad libitum use increased readiness and confidence to quit regular cigarettes and reduced regular cigarette smoking.