Literature DB >> 31326956

Effect of flavour manipulation on low and high-frequency waterpipe users' puff topography, toxicant exposures and subjective experiences.

Wasim Maziak1, Ziyad Ben Taleb2, Mohammad Ebrahimi Kalan3, Melissa Ward-Peterson3, Zoran Bursac4, Olatokunbo Osibogun3, Thomas Eissenberg5.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Flavoured tobacco is one of the major factors behind the popularity of waterpipe (WP) smoking in the USA and internationally. The current study examined the impact of flavour manipulation on satisfaction, puff topography and toxicant exposure among high-frequency and low-frequency WP users.
METHOD: This cross-over study was conducted among 144 current (past month) WP smokers reporting WP smoking less than once a week (low-frequency users; n=69) or at least once a week (high-frequency users; n=75) in the past 6 months. Participants attended two counterbalanced 45 min ad libitum smoking sessions that differed by flavour (preferred flavoured vs unflavoured tobacco), preceded by ≥12 hours of tobacco use abstinence. Outcome measures included puff topography, expired carbon monoxide (eCO), plasma nicotine and subjective measures.
RESULTS: Both high-frequency and low-frequency WP users reported an enhanced smoking experience and greater interest in future use after smoking the flavoured compared with unflavoured tobacco (p<0.05 for all). High-frequency users, however, were more keen on smoking the flavoured tobacco in the future, had higher puffing parameters in general compared with low-frequency users (p<0.05 for all) and had no differences in eCO and plasma nicotine concentrations between the flavoured and unflavoured tobacco conditions (p>0.05 for all). On the other hand, low-frequency users had significantly greater eCO and plasma nicotine concentrations following smoking the unflavoured compared with flavoured tobacco condition (p<0.05 for all).
CONCLUSIONS: Our results indicate that removing flavours will likely negatively affect WP satisfaction and future use and that such an effect will be more pronounced among high-frequency compared with low-frequency WP smokers. © Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2020. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.

Entities:  

Keywords:  nicotine; prevention; smoking topography

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2019        PMID: 31326956      PMCID: PMC6980306          DOI: 10.1136/tobaccocontrol-2019-055040

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Tob Control        ISSN: 0964-4563            Impact factor:   7.552


  23 in total

1.  Evaluation of the brief questionnaire of smoking urges (QSU-brief) in laboratory and clinical settings.

Authors:  L S Cox; S T Tiffany; A G Christen
Journal:  Nicotine Tob Res       Date:  2001-02       Impact factor: 4.244

2.  Simultaneous determination of mecamylamine, nicotine, and cotinine in plasma by gas chromatography-mass spectrometry.

Authors:  P Jacob; S Wu; L Yu; N L Benowitz
Journal:  J Pharm Biomed Anal       Date:  2000-09       Impact factor: 3.935

Review 3.  Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Inhaled Toxicants from Waterpipe and Cigarette Smoking.

Authors:  Brian A Primack; Mary V Carroll; Patricia M Weiss; Alan L Shihadeh; Ariel Shensa; Steven T Farley; Michael J Fine; Thomas Eissenberg; Smita Nayak
Journal:  Public Health Rep       Date:  2016 Jan-Feb       Impact factor: 2.792

4.  CO exposure, puff topography, and subjective effects in waterpipe tobacco smokers.

Authors:  Wasim Maziak; Samer Rastam; Iman Ibrahim; Kenneth D Ward; Alan Shihadeh; Thomas Eissenberg
Journal:  Nicotine Tob Res       Date:  2009-05-06       Impact factor: 4.244

Review 5.  Waterpipe tobacco smoking: an emerging health crisis in the United States.

Authors:  Caroline Cobb; Kenneth D Ward; Wasim Maziak; Alan L Shihadeh; Thomas Eissenberg
Journal:  Am J Health Behav       Date:  2010 May-Jun

6.  Deeming Tobacco Products To Be Subject to the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act, as Amended by the Family Smoking Prevention and Tobacco Control Act; Restrictions on the Sale and Distribution of Tobacco Products and Required Warning Statements for Tobacco Products. Final rule.

Authors: 
Journal:  Fed Regist       Date:  2016-05-10

7.  Waterpipe tobacco and cigarette smoking: direct comparison of toxicant exposure.

Authors:  Thomas Eissenberg; Alan Shihadeh
Journal:  Am J Prev Med       Date:  2009-12       Impact factor: 5.043

Review 8.  The effects of waterpipe tobacco smoking on health outcomes: an updated systematic review and meta-analysis.

Authors:  Reem Waziry; Mohammed Jawad; Rami A Ballout; Mohammad Al Akel; Elie A Akl
Journal:  Int J Epidemiol       Date:  2017-02-01       Impact factor: 7.196

Review 9.  The global epidemiology of waterpipe smoking.

Authors:  Wasim Maziak; Ziyad Ben Taleb; Raed Bahelah; Farahnaz Islam; Rana Jaber; Rehab Auf; Ramzi G Salloum
Journal:  Tob Control       Date:  2014-10-08       Impact factor: 7.552

10.  Eliciting preferences for waterpipe tobacco smoking using a discrete choice experiment: implications for product regulation.

Authors:  Ramzi G Salloum; Wasim Maziak; David Hammond; Rima Nakkash; Farahnaz Islam; Xi Cheng; James F Thrasher
Journal:  BMJ Open       Date:  2015-09-09       Impact factor: 2.692

View more
  2 in total

1.  The Effect of Graphic Health Warning Labels Placed on the ENDS Device on Young Adult Users' Experience, Exposure and Intention to Use: A Pilot Study.

Authors:  Wei Li; Mayra Vargas-Rivera; Mohammad Ebrahimi Kalan; Ziyad Ben Taleb; Taghrid Asfar; Olatokunbo Osibogun; Seth M Noar; Wasim Maziak
Journal:  Health Commun       Date:  2021-01-21

2.  Investigating the transfer rate of waterpipe additives to smoke as an integral part of toxicological risk assessments.

Authors:  J C Miller Holt; B Mayer-Helm; J Gafner; M Zierlinger; C Hirn; T Paschke; G Eilenberger; M Kuba; S Pummer; M Charriere
Journal:  Toxicol Rep       Date:  2022-04-22
  2 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.