Melissa D Blank1, Alison B Breland2, Caroline O Cobb2, Tory Spindle3, Carolina Ramôa4, Thomas Eissenberg5. 1. Assistant Professor, West Virginia University, Morgantown, WV. 2. Assistant Professor, Virginia Commonwealth University, Center for the Study of Tobacco Products, Richmond, VA. 3. Virginia Commonwealth University, Center for the Study of Tobacco Products, Richmond, VA. 4. Post-Doctoral Fellow, Virginia Commonwealth University, Center for the Study of Tobacco Products, Richmond, VA. 5. Thomas Eissenberg, Professor, Virginia Commonwealth University, Center for the Study of Tobacco Products, Richmond, VA.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Evaluating electronic cigarettes (ECIGs) in the clinical laboratory is critical to understanding their effects. However, laboratory evaluation of ECIGs can be challenging, as they are a novel, varied, and evolving class of products. The objective of this paper is to describe some methodological challenges to the clinical laboratory evaluation of ECIGs. METHODS: The authors gathered information about challenges involved in the laboratory evaluation of ECIGs. Challenges were categorized and solutions provided when possible. RESULTS: Methods used to study combustible cigarettes may need to be adapted to account for ECIG novelty and differences within the class. Challenges to ECIG evaluation can include issues related to 1) identification of ECIG devices and liquids, 2) determination of short -term ECIG abstinence, 3) measurement of use behavior, and 4) assessment of dependence. These challenges are discussed, and some suggestions to inform ECIG evaluation using clinical laboratory methods are provided. CONCLUSIONS: Awareness of challenges and developing, validating, and reporting methods used to address them aids interpretation of results and replication efforts, thus enhancing the rigor of science used to protect public health through appropriate, empirically-based, ECIG regulation.
OBJECTIVE: Evaluating electronic cigarettes (ECIGs) in the clinical laboratory is critical to understanding their effects. However, laboratory evaluation of ECIGs can be challenging, as they are a novel, varied, and evolving class of products. The objective of this paper is to describe some methodological challenges to the clinical laboratory evaluation of ECIGs. METHODS: The authors gathered information about challenges involved in the laboratory evaluation of ECIGs. Challenges were categorized and solutions provided when possible. RESULTS: Methods used to study combustible cigarettes may need to be adapted to account for ECIG novelty and differences within the class. Challenges to ECIG evaluation can include issues related to 1) identification of ECIG devices and liquids, 2) determination of short -term ECIG abstinence, 3) measurement of use behavior, and 4) assessment of dependence. These challenges are discussed, and some suggestions to inform ECIG evaluation using clinical laboratory methods are provided. CONCLUSIONS: Awareness of challenges and developing, validating, and reporting methods used to address them aids interpretation of results and replication efforts, thus enhancing the rigor of science used to protect public health through appropriate, empirically-based, ECIG regulation.
Authors: Alexa A Lopez; Marzena M Hiler; Eric K Soule; Carolina P Ramôa; Nareg V Karaoghlanian; Thokozeni Lipato; Alison B Breland; Alan L Shihadeh; Thomas Eissenberg Journal: Nicotine Tob Res Date: 2015-09-16 Impact factor: 4.244
Authors: Erin L Sutfin; Thomas P McCoy; Holly E R Morrell; Bettina B Hoeppner; Mark Wolfson Journal: Drug Alcohol Depend Date: 2013-06-07 Impact factor: 4.492
Authors: Tushar Singh; René A Arrazola; Catherine G Corey; Corinne G Husten; Linda J Neff; David M Homa; Brian A King Journal: MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep Date: 2016-04-15 Impact factor: 17.586
Authors: Christian Giroud; Mariangela de Cesare; Aurélie Berthet; Vincent Varlet; Nicolas Concha-Lozano; Bernard Favrat Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health Date: 2015-08-21 Impact factor: 3.390
Authors: Alison Breland; Sarah F Maloney; Eric K Soule; Carolina Ramôa; Andrew Barnes; Thokozeni Lipato; Thomas Eissenberg Journal: Exp Clin Psychopharmacol Date: 2019-07-01 Impact factor: 3.157
Authors: Ashley E Douglas; Margaret G Childers; Katelyn F Romm; Nicholas J Felicione; Jenny E Ozga; Melissa D Blank Journal: Addict Behav Date: 2021-10-21 Impact factor: 3.913
Authors: Mariel S Bello; Madalyn M Liautaud; Julianne T De La Cerda; Raina D Pang; Lara A Ray; Jasjit A Ahluwalia; Adam M Leventhal Journal: Addiction Date: 2020-10-01 Impact factor: 7.256