AIMS: To provide an initial abuse liability assessment of an electronic cigarette (EC) in current tobacco cigarette smokers. DESIGN: The first of four within-subject sessions was an EC sampling session that involved six, 10-puff bouts (30 seconds inter-puff interval), each bout separated by 30 minutes. In the remaining three sessions participants made choices between 10 EC puffs and varying amounts of money, 10 EC puffs and a varying number of own brand cigarette (OB) puffs, or 10 OB puffs and varying amounts of money using the multiple-choice procedure (MCP). The MCP was completed six times at 30-minute intervals, and one choice was reinforced randomly at each trial. SETTING: Clinical laboratory. PARTICIPANTS: Twenty current tobacco cigarette smokers. MEASUREMENTS: Sampling session outcome measures included plasma nicotine, cardiovascular response and subjective effects. Choice session outcome was the cross-over value on the MCP. FINDINGS: EC use resulted in significant nicotine delivery, tobacco abstinence symptom suppression and increased product acceptability ratings. On the MCP, participants chose to receive 10 EC puffs over an average of $1.06 or three OB puffs and chose 10 OB puffs over an average of $1.50 (P < 0.003). CONCLUSIONS: Electronic cigarettes can deliver clinically significant amounts of nicotine and reduce cigarette abstinence symptoms and appear to have lower potential for abuse relative to traditional tobacco cigarettes, at least under certain laboratory conditions.
AIMS: To provide an initial abuse liability assessment of an electronic cigarette (EC) in current tobacco cigarette smokers. DESIGN: The first of four within-subject sessions was an EC sampling session that involved six, 10-puff bouts (30 seconds inter-puff interval), each bout separated by 30 minutes. In the remaining three sessions participants made choices between 10 EC puffs and varying amounts of money, 10 EC puffs and a varying number of own brand cigarette (OB) puffs, or 10 OB puffs and varying amounts of money using the multiple-choice procedure (MCP). The MCP was completed six times at 30-minute intervals, and one choice was reinforced randomly at each trial. SETTING: Clinical laboratory. PARTICIPANTS: Twenty current tobacco cigarette smokers. MEASUREMENTS: Sampling session outcome measures included plasma nicotine, cardiovascular response and subjective effects. Choice session outcome was the cross-over value on the MCP. FINDINGS: EC use resulted in significant nicotine delivery, tobacco abstinence symptom suppression and increased product acceptability ratings. On the MCP, participants chose to receive 10 EC puffs over an average of $1.06 or three OB puffs and chose 10 OB puffs over an average of $1.50 (P < 0.003). CONCLUSIONS: Electronic cigarettes can deliver clinically significant amounts of nicotine and reduce cigarette abstinence symptoms and appear to have lower potential for abuse relative to traditional tobacco cigarettes, at least under certain laboratory conditions.
Authors: Deepa R Camenga; Dana A Cavallo; Grace Kong; Meghan E Morean; Christian M Connell; Patricia Simon; Sandra M Bulmer; Suchitra Krishnan-Sarin Journal: Nicotine Tob Res Date: 2015-02-02 Impact factor: 4.244
Authors: Mumiye A Ogunwale; Yizheng Chen; Whitney S Theis; Michael H Nantz; Daniel J Conklin; Xiao-An Fu Journal: Anal Methods Date: 2017-06-19 Impact factor: 2.896
Authors: Jessica M Yingst; Susan Veldheer; Shari Hrabovsky; Travis T Nichols; Stephen J Wilson; Jonathan Foulds Journal: Nicotine Tob Res Date: 2015-03-05 Impact factor: 4.244
Authors: Jack E Henningfield; Tracy T Smith; Bethea A Kleykamp; Reginald V Fant; Eric C Donny Journal: Psychopharmacology (Berl) Date: 2016-10-21 Impact factor: 4.530
Authors: Suzaynn F Schick; Benjamin C Blount; Peyton Jacob; Najat A Saliba; John T Bernert; Ahmad El Hellani; Peter Jatlow; R Steven Pappas; Lanqing Wang; Jonathan Foulds; Arunava Ghosh; Stephen S Hecht; John C Gomez; Jessica R Martin; Clementina Mesaros; Sanjay Srivastava; Gideon St Helen; Robert Tarran; Pawel K Lorkiewicz; Ian A Blair; Heather L Kimmel; Claire M Doerschuk; Neal L Benowitz; Aruni Bhatnagar Journal: Am J Physiol Lung Cell Mol Physiol Date: 2017-05-18 Impact factor: 5.464
Authors: Jenny E Ozga-Hess; Nicholas J Felicione; Stuart G Ferguson; Geri Dino; Daniel Elswick; Catherine Whitworth; Nicholas Turiano; Melissa D Blank Journal: Addict Behav Date: 2019-08-21 Impact factor: 3.913
Authors: Eric K Soule; Joseph G L Lee; Kathleen L Egan; Kendall M Bode; Abigail C Desrosiers; Mignonne C Guy; Alison Breland; Pebbles Fagan Journal: Drug Alcohol Depend Date: 2020-02-05 Impact factor: 4.492