AIMS: To (1) estimate predictors of first- versus second-generation electronic cigarette (e-cigarette) choice; and (2) determine whether a second-generation device was (i) superior for reducing urge to smoke and withdrawal symptoms (WS) and (ii) associated with enhanced positive subjective effects. DESIGN: Mixed-effects experimental design. Phase 1: reason for e-cigarette choice was assessed via questionnaire. Phase 2: participants were allocated randomly to first- or second-generation e-cigarette condition. Urge to smoke and WS were measured before and 10 minutes after taking 10 e-cigarette puffs. SETTING: University of East London, UK. PARTICIPANTS: A total of 97 smokers (mean age 26; standard deviation 8.7; 54% female). MEASUREMENTS: Single-item urge to smoke scale to assess craving and the Mood and Physical Symptoms Scale (MPSS) to assess WS. Subjective effects included: satisfaction, hit, 'felt like smoking' and 'would use to stop smoking' (yes versus no response). FINDINGS: Equal numbers chose each device, but none of the predictor variables (gender, age, tobacco dependence, previous e-cigarette use) accounted for choice. Only baseline urge to smoke/WS predicted urge to smoke/WS 10 minutes after use (B =0.38; P <0.001 and B =0.53; P <0.001). E-cigarette device was not a significant predictor. Those using the second-generation device were more likely to report satisfaction and use in a quit attempt (χ(2) = 12.10, P =0.001 and χ(2) = 5.53, P =0.02). CONCLUSIONS:First- and second-generation electronic cigarettes appear to be similarly effective in reducing urges to smoke during abstinence, but second-generation devices appear to be more satisfying to users.
RCT Entities:
AIMS: To (1) estimate predictors of first- versus second-generation electronic cigarette (e-cigarette) choice; and (2) determine whether a second-generation device was (i) superior for reducing urge to smoke and withdrawal symptoms (WS) and (ii) associated with enhanced positive subjective effects. DESIGN: Mixed-effects experimental design. Phase 1: reason for e-cigarette choice was assessed via questionnaire. Phase 2: participants were allocated randomly to first- or second-generation e-cigarette condition. Urge to smoke and WS were measured before and 10 minutes after taking 10 e-cigarette puffs. SETTING: University of East London, UK. PARTICIPANTS: A total of 97 smokers (mean age 26; standard deviation 8.7; 54% female). MEASUREMENTS: Single-item urge to smoke scale to assess craving and the Mood and Physical Symptoms Scale (MPSS) to assess WS. Subjective effects included: satisfaction, hit, 'felt like smoking' and 'would use to stop smoking' (yes versus no response). FINDINGS: Equal numbers chose each device, but none of the predictor variables (gender, age, tobacco dependence, previous e-cigarette use) accounted for choice. Only baseline urge to smoke/WS predicted urge to smoke/WS 10 minutes after use (B =0.38; P <0.001 and B =0.53; P <0.001). E-cigarette device was not a significant predictor. Those using the second-generation device were more likely to report satisfaction and use in a quit attempt (χ(2) = 12.10, P =0.001 and χ(2) = 5.53, P =0.02). CONCLUSIONS: First- and second-generation electronic cigarettes appear to be similarly effective in reducing urges to smoke during abstinence, but second-generation devices appear to be more satisfying to users.
Authors: Aslesha Sumbe; Stephanie L Clendennen; Samuel C Opara; Christian D Jackson; Baojiang Chen; Anna V Wilkinson; Melissa B Harrell Journal: Nicotine Tob Res Date: 2021-02-16 Impact factor: 4.244
Authors: David T Levy; Ron Borland; Geoffrey T Fong; Andrea C Villanti; Raymond Niaura; Rafael Meza; Theodore R Holford; K Michael Cummings; David B Abrams Journal: Nicotine Tob Res Date: 2016-10-06 Impact factor: 4.244
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: Josephine T Hinds; Alexandra Loukas; Sherman Chow; Keryn E Pasch; Melissa B Harrell; Cheryl L Perry; Cristine Delnevo; Olivia A Wackowski Journal: Nicotine Tob Res Date: 2016-03-30 Impact factor: 4.244
Authors: Jennifer P Alexander; Blair N Coleman; Sarah E Johnson; Greta K Tessman; Cindy Tworek; Denise M Dickinson Journal: Tob Regul Sci Date: 2016-07-01
Authors: Matthew J Carpenter; Bryan W Heckman; Amy E Wahlquist; Theodore L Wagener; Maciej L Goniewicz; Kevin M Gray; Brett Froeliger; K Michael Cummings Journal: Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev Date: 2017-11-10 Impact factor: 4.254
Authors: Natalie Voos; Lisa Kaiser; Martin C Mahoney; Clara M Bradizza; Lynn T Kozlowski; Neal L Benowitz; Richard J O'Connor; Maciej L Goniewicz Journal: Addiction Date: 2019-04-25 Impact factor: 6.526