Abuse liability assessment of an electronic cigarette in combustible cigarette smokers.

Abstract

Under certain conditions, electronic cigarettes (e-cigs) can deliver nicotine to and suppress tobacco abstinence symptoms in cigarette smokers. Growing popularity of e-cigs raises abuse liability concerns. This study's purpose was to compare the abuse liability of an e-cig (1.5 Ohm, 3.3 V) filled with 36 mg/mL or 0 mg/mL nicotine to an Food and Drug Administration (FDA)-approved nicotine inhaler (IN) and participants' own brand (OB) of cigarettes. Smokers (N ϭ 24) completed four sessions in which they completed the multiple-choice procedure, and plasma nicotine concentration and subjective effects were measured. Mean (SD) multiple-choice procedure crossover point was $0.87 (1.0) for the 36-mg/mL nicotine e-cig and $0.96 (1.2) for the 0-mg/mL e-cig, significantly higher than the IN mean of $0.32 (0.6) but significantly lower than the OB cigarette mean of $1.42 (1.4). Ten puffs from an own-brand cigarette increased mean plasma nicotine concentration from 3.55 (2.8) to 13.64 (9.8) ng/mL, as compared to an increase from 3.16 (1.8) to 8.51 (5.4) ng/mL for the 36-mg/mL e-cig. The 36-mg/mL e-cig reduced nicotine abstinence symptoms more than the 0-mg/mL e-cig, and both e-cigs were rated as more reinforcing than the inhaler but less reinforcing than participants' OB cigarettes (ps Ͻ .05). Results suggest that the e-cig examined had higher abuse liability than the IN but lower than combustible cigarettes. These data and methods may be useful for policymakers by revealing how e-cig abuse liability compares to tobacco/nicotine products with abuse liability profiles that are well established.

Acute effects of JUUL and IQOS in cigarette smokers

“…The method for this VCU IRB-approved study was similar to that reported elsewhere 8 9. Briefly, community volunteers aged 18–55 who smoked > 10 cigarettes daily and with expired air carbon monoxide (CO) > 15 ppm at screening and who reported no JUUL or IQOS experience were recruited to complete three, ~4 hour, Latin-square ordered sessions that were each preceded by 12 hours of nicotine/tobacco abstinence (verified with CO < 10 ppm and baseline plasma nicotine concentration <5.0 ng/mL8 10). Sessions differed by product used: JUUL (tobacco or mint flavour pod), IQOS (tobacco or menthol) or OB cigarette (OB; JUUL and IQOS flavours were matched to OB).…”

“…Product use consisted of one 10-puff ‘directed’ bout (30 s interpuff interval) and, after 25 min rest, a 90 min ad libitum bout. Blood was sampled via a catheter placed in a forearm vein before and immediately after each bout, heart rate and blood pressure were monitored continuously (heart rate and blood pressure data not reported), and expired air CO (Vitalograph; Lenexa, Kansas, USA) and subjective effects10 were measured before and after each bout. Participants were compensated US$100 after each session.…”

“…Blood plasma was analysed for nicotine concentration11 (LOQ=2 ng/mL) and values below the LOQ were replaced with 2 ng/mL 8–10. Statistical analyses (repeated measures analysis of variance, with Huynh-Feldt corrections) were performed using IBM SPSS (V.26.0).…”

Evidence From the Scientific Assessment of Electronic Cigarettes and Their Role in Tobacco Harm Reduction

“…A standard methodology has been established to assess the abuse liability of pharmaceuticals (285) and is largely adaptable for tobacco products (280,286). This type of study is likely to be most relevant in countries where high concentrations of nicotine are allowed in e-liquids, such as the USA (287).…”

Topics of Nicotine-Related Discussions on Twitter: Infoveillance Study

“…Nevertheless, one study demonstrated that 54% of smokers incorrectly believed that reductions in nicotine made cigarettes less dangerous [7]. Additionally, young adults (a priority population for tobacco control) commonly have misperceptions about the safety profile and nicotine content in e-cigarettes [8], including the unsubstantiated belief that e-cigarettes are relatively safe despite the burgeoning evidence indicating the products' nicotine-related abuse potential [9,10] and associations with progression to regular combustible cigarette use [11].…”