Jenny E Ozga1, Nicholas J Felicione1, Daniel Elswick2, Melissa D Blank1. 1. a Department of Psychology , West Virginia University , Morgantown , WV , USA. 2. b Department of Behavioral Medicine and Psychiatry , West Virginia University , Morgantown , WV , USA.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Snus tobacco characteristics may attract non-tobacco users, including relatively low, but pharmacologically active, doses of nicotine. Lower nicotine doses may limit adverse drug effects while also producing a physiologically active response. OBJECTIVES: This pilot study is the first to profile the acute effects of snus on physiological and subjective assessments in a sample of never-tobacco users. METHODS: Eleven never-tobacco users (five women; <100 uses/lifetime) were recruited from the community via university-approved advertisements. Using a within-subject design, participants consumed six pouches in ascending dose order (0, 1.6, 3.2, 4.8, 6.4, and 8.0 mg nicotine) within one session. The start of each snus bout was separated by 45 minutes, and pre- and post-pouch assessments included ratings of drug effects and physiological response. RESULTS: The average heart rate and systolic blood pressure increased significantly from pre- to post-pouch use as a function of dose, though these increases were reliable for 8.0 mg nicotine only (p < .05). Collapsed across time, diastolic blood pressure was significantly higher for 8.0 mg nicotine than for all other doses (p < .05). Subjective ratings for "excessive salivation" and "satisfying" increased significantly from pre- to post-pouch use (p < .05), independent of dose. CONCLUSION: Significant increases in physiological response at some doses suggest that users were exposed to pharmacologically active doses of nicotine. The lack of reliable subjective effects may be the product of the dosing regimen or the relatively small sample size. Findings highlight the need for identification of doses of snus that may promote abuse among naïve users.
BACKGROUND: Snus tobacco characteristics may attract non-tobacco users, including relatively low, but pharmacologically active, doses of nicotine. Lower nicotine doses may limit adverse drug effects while also producing a physiologically active response. OBJECTIVES: This pilot study is the first to profile the acute effects of snus on physiological and subjective assessments in a sample of never-tobacco users. METHODS: Eleven never-tobacco users (five women; <100 uses/lifetime) were recruited from the community via university-approved advertisements. Using a within-subject design, participants consumed six pouches in ascending dose order (0, 1.6, 3.2, 4.8, 6.4, and 8.0 mg nicotine) within one session. The start of each snus bout was separated by 45 minutes, and pre- and post-pouch assessments included ratings of drug effects and physiological response. RESULTS: The average heart rate and systolic blood pressure increased significantly from pre- to post-pouch use as a function of dose, though these increases were reliable for 8.0 mg nicotine only (p < .05). Collapsed across time, diastolic blood pressure was significantly higher for 8.0 mg nicotine than for all other doses (p < .05). Subjective ratings for "excessive salivation" and "satisfying" increased significantly from pre- to post-pouch use (p < .05), independent of dose. CONCLUSION: Significant increases in physiological response at some doses suggest that users were exposed to pharmacologically active doses of nicotine. The lack of reliable subjective effects may be the product of the dosing regimen or the relatively small sample size. Findings highlight the need for identification of doses of snus that may promote abuse among naïve users.
Authors: Caroline O Cobb; Melissa D Blank; Alejandra Morlett; Alan Shihadeh; Ezzat Jaroudi; Nareg Karaoghlanian; Barbara Kilgalen; Janet Austin; Michael F Weaver; Thomas Eissenberg Journal: Nicotine Tob Res Date: 2014-09-25 Impact factor: 4.244
Authors: Sherry T Liu; Julianna M Nemeth; Elizabeth G Klein; Amy K Ferketich; Mei-Po Kwan; Mary Ellen Wewers Journal: Tob Control Date: 2012-10-09 Impact factor: 7.552
Authors: Bridget K Ambrose; Hannah R Day; Brian Rostron; Kevin P Conway; Nicolette Borek; Andrew Hyland; Andrea C Villanti Journal: JAMA Date: 2015-11-03 Impact factor: 56.272