Andrew A Strasser1, Valentina Souprountchouk1, Amanda Kaufmann1, Sonja Blazekovic1, Frank Leone2, Neal L Benowitz3, Robert A Schnoll1. 1. Department of Psychiatry, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA. 2. Pulmonary, Allergy, & Critical Care Division, University of Pennsylvania Presbyterian Medical Center, Philadelphia, PA. 3. Division of Clinical Pharmacology and Experimental Therapeutics, Departments of Medicine and Bioengineering & Therapeutic Sciences, University of California-San Francisco, San Francisco, CA.
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: Little is known about the degree of nicotine replacement across first-generation e-cigarette brands, how e-cigarettes are used, and if there is variation across brands in relevant smoking phenotypes. The objective of this project was to collect data that are critical to better understanding, use, and exposure when using e-cigarettes, which may then inform clinical trials and tobacco regulatory policy. METHODS:Twenty-eight cigarette smokers were randomized to use one of 5 popular brands of e-cigarettes for a 10-day study. Day 1 (own cigarette brand) data established baseline levels for cotinine, carbon monoxide (CO), topography, cigarette liking, withdrawal, and craving. Participants returned on Days 5 and 10 to reassess these measures while exclusively using e-cigarettes. RESULTS: Compared to cigarette smoking, e-cigarettes provided significantly lower nicotine levels (25%-50%), reduced CO exposure, and lower ratings of liking (p < .05). Topography significantly differed between cigarette and e-cigarette sessions (p < .05). All brands significantly reduced withdrawal and craving (p < .05). There were no significant brand differences in outcome measures associated with exposure or use. CONCLUSIONS: E-cigarettes are not liked as much as cigarettes, provide significantly lower nicotine replacement, reduce CO exposure, and mitigate withdrawal and craving. The patterns of use significantly differ compared to cigarette smoking.
RCT Entities:
OBJECTIVES: Little is known about the degree of nicotine replacement across first-generation e-cigarette brands, how e-cigarettes are used, and if there is variation across brands in relevant smoking phenotypes. The objective of this project was to collect data that are critical to better understanding, use, and exposure when using e-cigarettes, which may then inform clinical trials and tobacco regulatory policy. METHODS: Twenty-eight cigarette smokers were randomized to use one of 5 popular brands of e-cigarettes for a 10-day study. Day 1 (own cigarette brand) data established baseline levels for cotinine, carbon monoxide (CO), topography, cigarette liking, withdrawal, and craving. Participants returned on Days 5 and 10 to reassess these measures while exclusively using e-cigarettes. RESULTS: Compared to cigarette smoking, e-cigarettes provided significantly lower nicotine levels (25%-50%), reduced CO exposure, and lower ratings of liking (p < .05). Topography significantly differed between cigarette and e-cigarette sessions (p < .05). All brands significantly reduced withdrawal and craving (p < .05). There were no significant brand differences in outcome measures associated with exposure or use. CONCLUSIONS: E-cigarettes are not liked as much as cigarettes, provide significantly lower nicotine replacement, reduce CO exposure, and mitigate withdrawal and craving. The patterns of use significantly differ compared to cigarette smoking.
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: Robert A Schnoll; Brian Hitsman; Sonja Blazekovic; Anna Veluz-Wilkins; E Paul Wileyto; Frank T Leone; Janet E Audrain-McGovern Journal: Drug Alcohol Depend Date: 2016-06-25 Impact factor: 4.492
Authors: Israel T Agaku; Brian A King; Corinne G Husten; Rebecca Bunnell; Bridget K Ambrose; S Sean Hu; Enver Holder-Hayes; Hannah R Day Journal: MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep Date: 2014-06-27 Impact factor: 17.586
Authors: Frank T Leone; Kai-Håkon Carlsen; David Chooljian; Laura E Crotty Alexander; Frank C Detterbeck; Michelle N Eakin; Sarah Evers-Casey; Harold J Farber; Patricia Folan; Hasmeena Kathuria; Karen Latzka; Shane McDermott; Sharon McGrath-Morrow; Farzad Moazed; Alfred Munzer; Enid Neptune; Smita Pakhale; David P L Sachs; Jonathan Samet; Beth Sufian; Dona Upson Journal: Am J Respir Crit Care Med Date: 2018-10-15 Impact factor: 21.405
Authors: Evan Floyd; Toluwanimi Oni; Changjie Cai; Bilal Rehman; Jooyeon Hwang; Tyler Watson Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health Date: 2022-06-29 Impact factor: 4.614
Authors: Danielle M Smith; Richard J O'connor; Binnian Wei; Mark Travers; Andrew Hyland; Maciej L Goniewicz Journal: Nicotine Tob Res Date: 2020-07-16 Impact factor: 4.244
Authors: Danielle M Smith; Carol Christensen; Dana van Bemmel; Nicolette Borek; Bridget Ambrose; Gladys Erives; Raymond Niaura; Kathryn C Edwards; Cassandra A Stanton; Benjamin C Blount; Lanqing Wang; Jun Feng; Jeffery M Jarrett; Cynthia D Ward; Dorothy Hatsukami; Stephen S Hecht; Heather L Kimmel; Mark Travers; Andrew Hyland; Maciej L Goniewicz Journal: Nicotine Tob Res Date: 2021-05-04 Impact factor: 4.244
Authors: Melissa Mercincavage; Joshua L Karelitz; Catherine L Kreider; Valentina Souprountchouk; Benjamin Albelda; Andrew A Strasser Journal: Drug Alcohol Depend Date: 2021-02-17 Impact factor: 4.492