BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Electronic cigarettes (e-cigarettes) are a recent technology that has gained rapid acceptance. Still, little is known about them in terms of safety and effectiveness. A basic question is how effectively they deliver nicotine; however, the literature is surprisingly unclear on this point. Here, a population pharmacokinetic model was developed for nicotine and its major metabolite cotinine with the aim to provide a reliable framework for the simulation of nicotine and cotinine concentrations over time, based solely on inhalation airflow recordings and individual covariates [i.e., weight and breath carbon monoxide (CO) levels]. METHODS: This study included ten adults self-identified as heavy smokers (at least one pack of cigarettes per day). Plasma nicotine and cotinine concentrations were measured at regular 10-min intervals for 90 min while human subjects inhaled nicotine vapor from a modified e-cigarette. Airflow measurements were recorded every 200 ms throughout the session. A population pharmacokinetic model for nicotine and cotinine was developed based on previously published pharmacokinetic parameters and the airflow recordings. All of the analyses were performed with the non-linear mixed-effect modeling software NONMEM(®) version 7.2. RESULTS: The results show that e-cigarettes deliver nicotine effectively, although the pharmacokinetic profiles are lower than those achieved with regular cigarettes. Our pharmacokinetic model effectively predicts plasma nicotine and cotinine concentrations from the inhalation volume, and initial breath CO. CONCLUSION: E-cigarettes are effective at delivering nicotine. This new pharmacokinetic model of e-cigarette usage might be used for pharmacodynamic analysis where the pharmacokinetic profiles are not available.
BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Electronic cigarettes (e-cigarettes) are a recent technology that has gained rapid acceptance. Still, little is known about them in terms of safety and effectiveness. A basic question is how effectively they deliver nicotine; however, the literature is surprisingly unclear on this point. Here, a population pharmacokinetic model was developed for nicotine and its major metabolite cotinine with the aim to provide a reliable framework for the simulation of nicotine and cotinine concentrations over time, based solely on inhalation airflow recordings and individual covariates [i.e., weight and breath carbon monoxide (CO) levels]. METHODS: This study included ten adults self-identified as heavy smokers (at least one pack of cigarettes per day). Plasma nicotine and cotinine concentrations were measured at regular 10-min intervals for 90 min while human subjects inhaled nicotine vapor from a modified e-cigarette. Airflow measurements were recorded every 200 ms throughout the session. A population pharmacokinetic model for nicotine and cotinine was developed based on previously published pharmacokinetic parameters and the airflow recordings. All of the analyses were performed with the non-linear mixed-effect modeling software NONMEM(®) version 7.2. RESULTS: The results show that e-cigarettes deliver nicotine effectively, although the pharmacokinetic profiles are lower than those achieved with regular cigarettes. Our pharmacokinetic model effectively predicts plasma nicotine and cotinine concentrations from the inhalation volume, and initial breath CO. CONCLUSION: E-cigarettes are effective at delivering nicotine. This new pharmacokinetic model of e-cigarette usage might be used for pharmacodynamic analysis where the pharmacokinetic profiles are not available.
Authors: Andrea R Vansickel; Caroline O Cobb; Michael F Weaver; Thomas E Eissenberg Journal: Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev Date: 2010-07-20 Impact factor: 4.254
Authors: Andreas D Flouris; Konstantina P Poulianiti; Maria S Chorti; Athanasios Z Jamurtas; Dimitrios Kouretas; Emmanuel O Owolabi; Manolis N Tzatzarakis; Aristidis M Tsatsakis; Yiannis Koutedakis Journal: Food Chem Toxicol Date: 2012-07-31 Impact factor: 6.023
Authors: Justin G Teeguarden; Conrad J Housand; Jordan N Smith; Paul M Hinderliter; Rudy Gunawan; Charles A Timchalk Journal: Regul Toxicol Pharmacol Date: 2012-10-23 Impact factor: 3.271
Authors: Hiroshi Yamazaki; Kana Horiuchi; Ryohji Takano; Taku Nagano; Makiko Shimizu; Masato Kitajima; Norie Murayama; Fumiaki Shono Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health Date: 2010-09-01 Impact factor: 3.390
Authors: Matthew W Linakis; Joseph E Rower; Jessica K Roberts; Eleanor I Miller; Diana G Wilkins; Catherine M T Sherwin Journal: Br J Clin Pharmacol Date: 2017-09-06 Impact factor: 4.335
Authors: Timothy W Lefever; Youn O K Lee; Alexander L Kovach; Melanie A R Silinski; Julie A Marusich; Brian F Thomas; Jenny L Wiley Journal: Drug Alcohol Depend Date: 2017-01-18 Impact factor: 4.492
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: Allison M Glasser; Lauren Collins; Jennifer L Pearson; Haneen Abudayyeh; Raymond S Niaura; David B Abrams; Andrea C Villanti Journal: Am J Prev Med Date: 2016-11-30 Impact factor: 5.043
Authors: Hanan Qasim; Zubair A Karim; Juan C Silva-Espinoza; Fadi T Khasawneh; José O Rivera; Cameron C Ellis; Stephanie L Bauer; Igor C Almeida; Fatima Z Alshbool Journal: J Am Heart Assoc Date: 2018-07-18 Impact factor: 5.501