M G LeSage1, M Staley2, P Muelken2, J R Smethells3, I Stepanov4, R I Vogel5, P R Pentel6, A C Harris7. 1. Department of Medicine, Minneapolis Medical Research Foundation, Minneapolis, MN, United States; Department of Medicine, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, MN, United States; Department of Psychology, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, MN, 55455, United States. Electronic address: lesag002@umn.edu. 2. Department of Medicine, Minneapolis Medical Research Foundation, Minneapolis, MN, United States. 3. Department of Medicine, Minneapolis Medical Research Foundation, Minneapolis, MN, United States; Department of Psychiatry, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, MN, 55455, United States. 4. Masonic Cancer Center, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, MN, United States. 5. Masonic Cancer Center Biostatistics and Bioinformatics Core, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, MN, United States. 6. Department of Medicine, Minneapolis Medical Research Foundation, Minneapolis, MN, United States; Department of Medicine, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, MN, United States. 7. Department of Medicine, Minneapolis Medical Research Foundation, Minneapolis, MN, United States; Department of Medicine, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, MN, United States; Department of Psychology, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, MN, 55455, United States.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The popularity of electronic cigarettes (ECs) has increased dramatically despite their unknown health consequences. Because the abuse liability of ECs is one of the leading concerns of the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), models to assess it are urgently needed to inform FDA regulatory decisions regarding these products. The purpose of this study was to assess the relative abuse liability of an EC liquid compared to nicotine alone in rats. Because this EC liquid contains non-nicotine constituents that may enhance its abuse liability, we hypothesized that it would have greater abuse liability than nicotine alone. METHODS: Nicotine alone and nicotine dose-equivalent concentrations of EC liquid were compared in terms of their acute effects on intracranial self-stimulation (ICSS) thresholds, acquisition of self-administration, reinforcing efficacy (i.e., elasticity of demand), blockade of these behavioral effects by mecamylamine, nicotine pharmacokinetics and nicotinic acetylcholine receptor binding and activation. RESULTS: There were no significant differences between formulations on any measure, except that EC liquid produced less of an elevation in ICSS thresholds at high nicotine doses. CONCLUSIONS: Collectively, these findings suggest that the relative abuse liability of this EC liquid is similar to that of nicotine alone in terms of its reinforcing and reinforcement-enhancing effects, but that it may have less aversive/anhedonic effects at high doses. The present methods may be useful for assessing the abuse liability of other ECs to inform potential FDA regulation of those products.
BACKGROUND: The popularity of electronic cigarettes (ECs) has increased dramatically despite their unknown health consequences. Because the abuse liability of ECs is one of the leading concerns of the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), models to assess it are urgently needed to inform FDA regulatory decisions regarding these products. The purpose of this study was to assess the relative abuse liability of an EC liquid compared to nicotine alone in rats. Because this EC liquid contains non-nicotine constituents that may enhance its abuse liability, we hypothesized that it would have greater abuse liability than nicotine alone. METHODS:Nicotine alone and nicotine dose-equivalent concentrations of EC liquid were compared in terms of their acute effects on intracranial self-stimulation (ICSS) thresholds, acquisition of self-administration, reinforcing efficacy (i.e., elasticity of demand), blockade of these behavioral effects by mecamylamine, nicotine pharmacokinetics and nicotinic acetylcholine receptor binding and activation. RESULTS: There were no significant differences between formulations on any measure, except that EC liquid produced less of an elevation in ICSS thresholds at high nicotine doses. CONCLUSIONS: Collectively, these findings suggest that the relative abuse liability of this EC liquid is similar to that of nicotine alone in terms of its reinforcing and reinforcement-enhancing effects, but that it may have less aversive/anhedonic effects at high doses. The present methods may be useful for assessing the abuse liability of other ECs to inform potential FDA regulation of those products.
Authors: E C Donny; A R Caggiula; P P Rowell; M A Gharib; V Maldovan; S Booth; M M Mielke; A Hoffman; S McCallum Journal: Psychopharmacology (Berl) Date: 2000-09 Impact factor: 4.530
Authors: Mark G LeSage; Dan E Keyler; Don Shoeman; Donna Raphael; Gregory Collins; Paul R Pentel Journal: Pharmacol Biochem Behav Date: 2002-05 Impact factor: 3.533
Authors: Gerald A Deehan; Sheketha R Hauser; R Aaron Waeiss; Christopher P Knight; Jamie E Toalston; William A Truitt; William J McBride; Zachary A Rodd Journal: Psychopharmacology (Berl) Date: 2015-08-26 Impact factor: 4.530
Authors: Maciej Lukasz Goniewicz; Jakub Knysak; Michal Gawron; Leon Kosmider; Andrzej Sobczak; Jolanta Kurek; Adam Prokopowicz; Magdalena Jablonska-Czapla; Czeslawa Rosik-Dulewska; Christopher Havel; Peyton Jacob; Neal Benowitz Journal: Tob Control Date: 2013-03-06 Impact factor: 7.552
Authors: A L Wong; S M McElroy; J M Robinson; S M Mulloy; F K El Banna; A C Harris; M G LeSage; A M Lee Journal: Drug Alcohol Depend Date: 2020-04-25 Impact factor: 4.492
Authors: Cristina Miliano; E Reilly Scott; Laura B Murdaugh; Emma R Gnatowski; Christine L Faunce; Megan S Anderson; Malissa M Reyes; Ann M Gregus; Matthew W Buczynski Journal: J Neurosci Methods Date: 2019-10-12 Impact factor: 2.390
Authors: Yayi Swain; Peter Muelken; Mark G LeSage; Jonathan C Gewirtz; Andrew C Harris Journal: Pharmacol Biochem Behav Date: 2018-02-02 Impact factor: 3.533
Authors: John R Smethells; Andrew C Harris; Danielle Burroughs; Steven R Hursh; Mark G LeSage Journal: Drug Alcohol Depend Date: 2018-02-05 Impact factor: 4.492
Authors: Julie A Marusich; Mahesh Darna; A George Wilson; Emily D Denehy; Amanda Ebben; Agripina G Deaciuc; Linda P Dwoskin; Michael T Bardo; Timothy W Lefever; Jenny L Wiley; Chad J Reissig; Kia J Jackson Journal: Eur J Pharmacol Date: 2017-08-26 Impact factor: 4.432
Authors: Yayi Swain; Peter Muelken; Annika Skansberg; Danielle Lanzdorf; Zachary Haave; Mark G LeSage; Jonathan C Gewirtz; Andrew C Harris Journal: Psychopharmacology (Berl) Date: 2020-05-09 Impact factor: 4.530
Authors: Andrew C Harris; Peter Muelken; Yayi Swain; Mary Palumbo; Vipin Jain; Maciej L Goniewicz; Irina Stepanov; Mark G LeSage Journal: Drug Alcohol Depend Date: 2019-08-01 Impact factor: 4.492