John R Smethells1, Andrew C Harris2, Danielle Burroughs3, Steven R Hursh4, Mark G LeSage2. 1. Minneapolis Medical Research Foundation, 914 S. 8th Street, Minneapolis, MN, United States. Electronic address: smet0011@umn.edu. 2. Minneapolis Medical Research Foundation, 914 S. 8th Street, Minneapolis, MN, United States; Department of Medicine, University of Minnesota Medical School, 420 Delaware Street, SE, Minneapolis, MN, United States; Department of Psychology, University of Minnesota, 75 E. River Road, Minneapolis, MN, United States. 3. Minneapolis Medical Research Foundation, 914 S. 8th Street, Minneapolis, MN, United States. 4. Institutes for Behavior Resources, Inc., 2104 Maryland Avenue, Baltimore, MD, United States; Department of Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, 1800 Orleans Street, Baltimore, MD, United States.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: For the Food and Drug Administration to effectively regulate tobacco products, the contribution of non-nicotine tobacco constituents to the abuse liability of tobacco must be well understood. Our previous work compared the abuse liability of electronic cigarette refill liquids (EC liquids) and nicotine (Nic) alone when each was available in isolation and found no difference in abuse liability (i.e., demand elasticity). Another, and potentially more sensitive measure, would be to examine abuse liability in a choice context, which also provides a better model of the tobacco marketplace. METHODS: Demand elasticity for Nic alone and an EC liquid were measured when only one formulation was available (alone-price demand) and when both formulations were concurrently available (own-price demand), allowing an assessment of the degree to which each formulation served as a substitute (cross-price demand) when available at a low fixed-price. RESULTS: Own-price demand for both formulations were more elastic compared to alone-price demand, indicating that availability of a substitute increased demand elasticity. During concurrent access, consumption of the fixed-price formulation increased as the unit-price of the other formulation increased. The rate of increase was similar between formulations, indicating that they served as symmetrical substitutes. CONCLUSION: The cross-price model reliably quantified the substitutability of both nicotine formulations and indicated that the direct CNS effects of non-nicotine constituents in EC liquid did not alter its abuse liability compared to Nic. These data highlight the sensitivity of this model and its potential utility for examining the relative abuse liability and substitutability of tobacco products.
BACKGROUND: For the Food and Drug Administration to effectively regulate tobacco products, the contribution of non-nicotinetobacco constituents to the abuse liability of tobacco must be well understood. Our previous work compared the abuse liability of electronic cigarette refill liquids (EC liquids) and nicotine (Nic) alone when each was available in isolation and found no difference in abuse liability (i.e., demand elasticity). Another, and potentially more sensitive measure, would be to examine abuse liability in a choice context, which also provides a better model of the tobacco marketplace. METHODS: Demand elasticity for Nic alone and an EC liquid were measured when only one formulation was available (alone-price demand) and when both formulations were concurrently available (own-price demand), allowing an assessment of the degree to which each formulation served as a substitute (cross-price demand) when available at a low fixed-price. RESULTS: Own-price demand for both formulations were more elastic compared to alone-price demand, indicating that availability of a substitute increased demand elasticity. During concurrent access, consumption of the fixed-price formulation increased as the unit-price of the other formulation increased. The rate of increase was similar between formulations, indicating that they served as symmetrical substitutes. CONCLUSION: The cross-price model reliably quantified the substitutability of both nicotine formulations and indicated that the direct CNS effects of non-nicotine constituents in EC liquid did not alter its abuse liability compared to Nic. These data highlight the sensitivity of this model and its potential utility for examining the relative abuse liability and substitutability of tobacco products.
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: Amanda J Quisenberry; Mikhail N Koffarnus; Laura E Hatz; Leonard H Epstein; Warren K Bickel Journal: Nicotine Tob Res Date: 2015-10-15 Impact factor: 4.244
Authors: Ralph Spiga; Margaret P Martinetti; Richard A Meisch; Katherine Cowan; Steven Hursh Journal: Psychopharmacology (Berl) Date: 2004-10-30 Impact factor: 4.530
Authors: Matthew R Costello; Daisy D Reynaga; Celina Y Mojica; Nurulain T Zaveri; James D Belluzzi; Frances M Leslie Journal: Neuropsychopharmacology Date: 2014-02-11 Impact factor: 7.853
Authors: Dorothy K Hatsukami; Neal L Benowitz; Eric Donny; Jack Henningfield; Mitch Zeller Journal: Nicotine Tob Res Date: 2012-10-25 Impact factor: 4.244
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: 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
Authors: Julie A Marusich; Jenny L Wiley; Melanie A R Silinski; Brian F Thomas; Steven E Meredith; Robert F Gahl; Kia J Jackson Journal: Behav Brain Res Date: 2019-06-26 Impact factor: 3.332
Authors: Andrew C Harris; Peter Muelken; Zach Haave; Yayi Swain; John R Smethells; Mark G LeSage Journal: Drug Alcohol Depend Date: 2018-10-18 Impact factor: 4.492
Authors: Andrew C Harris; John R Smethells; Mary Palumbo; Maciej Goniewicz; Mark G LeSage Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health Date: 2020-01-30 Impact factor: 3.390