Literature DB >> 31730180

Nicotine Absorption Profile Among Regular Users of a Pod-Based Electronic Nicotine Delivery System.

Jessica M Yingst1, Shari Hrabovsky2, Andrea Hobkirk3, Neil Trushin1, John P Richie1, Jonathan Foulds1.   

Abstract

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2019        PMID: 31730180      PMCID: PMC6902801          DOI: 10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2019.15494

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  JAMA Netw Open        ISSN: 2574-3805


× No keyword cloud information.

Introduction

JUUL is a popular electronic nicotine delivery system (ENDS)[1] that contains a liquid with a high nicotine concentration (59 mg/mL). While there are concerns about the rapid increase in use of this potentially addictive product,[2] there are no independent published data, to our knowledge, on its blood nicotine absorption profile. This case series aimed to characterize nicotine absorption among regular adult users of this product and to evaluate subjective effects associated with use.

Methods

Current adult users of pod-based ENDS (n = 6), recruited via community flyers from November 2018 to May 2019, abstained from cigarette smoking for 4 days (carbon monoxide concentration verified as <8 ppm) and from any nicotine-containing product for at least 14 hours prior to attending a 1-day laboratory visit. Users completed baseline demographic and device questionnaires, including the Penn State Electronic Cigarette Dependence Index (PSECDI).[3] Users were then instructed to puff on their own pod-based ENDS (nicotine concentration 59 mg/mL) every 20 seconds for 10 minutes. Blood was collected via catheter at baseline, while vaping (1, 2, 4, 6, 8, and 10 minutes), and after vaping (2 and 5 minutes after the last puff). Users rated withdrawal symptoms and subjective effects (scale of 0-100, with 100 indicating greatest effect) before and after vaping. Serum samples were analyzed for nicotine, cotinine, and 3-hydroxycotinine concentrations by liquid chromatography with tandem mass spectrometry.[4] Outcomes included the maximal concentration, time to maximal concentration, and nicotine boost (maximal concentration minus the baseline nicotine level). Paired t tests were used to evaluate within-participants differences in subjective measures from before vaping to after vaping. Statistical significance was set at 2-sided P < .05. Statistical analysis was performed using SAS version 9.4 (SAS Institute Inc). This study was approved by the Penn State College of Medicine institutional review board, and all participants provided written informed consent. Data are reported using the reporting guideline for case series.

Results

Participants were 83.3% white, 33.3% male, and had a mean (SD) age of 37.8 (15.8) years (Table). The mean (SD) PSECDI score was 14 (3.7). The mean (SD) maximal concentration of nicotine was 31.1 (13.2) ng/mL, the mean (SD) time to maximal concentration was 8.7 (1.6) minutes, and the mean (SD) nicotine boost obtained was 28.6 (9.8) ng/mL. The mean (SD) nicotine boost at 4 minutes was 12.9 (9.8) ng/mL. The nicotine absorption profile for each participant is displayed in the Figure. After use, participants reported lower anxiety (mean [SD] score, 52.7 [38.4] before use to 7.5 [14.6] after use; t = 2.76; P = .04) and lower craving (mean [SD] score, 74.7 [36.7] before use to 11.2 [19.6] after use; t = 3.53; P = .02).
Table.

Participant and Device Characteristics

CharacteristicParticipant No.Overall
123456
Age, ya48-5718-2718-2748-5718-2748-57Mean (SD), 37.8 (15.8)
Current smokerNoNoNoYesYesNo33.3% Yes
Times/db120503015510Mean (SD), 34.2 (43.4); median (IQR), 22.5 (8.75-67.5)
PSECDI score17171713128Mean (SD), 14 (3.7)
Flavor used during studyMangoMangoMangoStrawberry lemonadecMangoMenthol66.6% Mango
Nicotine concentration used during study, mg/mLd595959595959Mean, 59
Nicotine metabolite ratioe0.890.380.340.930.0110.47Mean (SD), 0.50 (0.35)
Nicotine boost obtained, ng/mL38.828.222.616.341.723.8Mean (SD), 28.6 (9.9)

Abbreviations: IQR, interquartile range; PSECDI, Penn State Electronic Cigarette Dependence Index.

Ages are shown in 10-year categories for participant confidentiality.

Each “time” is defined as use lasting approximately 15 puffs or approximately 10 minutes.

Participant used a non-JUUL-brand pod (Ziip Pods).

As indicated by the product manufacturer (not measured).

Calculated by dividing the baseline 3-hydroxycotinine level by the baseline cotinine level.

Figure.

Serum Nicotine Levels for Individual Participants, Collected During Active Vaping

Abbreviations: IQR, interquartile range; PSECDI, Penn State Electronic Cigarette Dependence Index. Ages are shown in 10-year categories for participant confidentiality. Each “time” is defined as use lasting approximately 15 puffs or approximately 10 minutes. Participant used a non-JUUL-brand pod (Ziip Pods). As indicated by the product manufacturer (not measured). Calculated by dividing the baseline 3-hydroxycotinine level by the baseline cotinine level. One participant (participant 4) who used a non-JUUL pod obtained the lowest nicotine boost (16.3 ng/mL). Additionally, participant 5 had a greater baseline nicotine level and obtained a greater nicotine boost compared with other participants. This could be due to the participant’s low nicotine metabolite ratio (0.011 [calculated by the dividing the baseline 3-hydroxycotinine level by the baseline cotinine level]), suggesting that this participant metabolizes nicotine at a very slow rate.

Discussion

Among experienced users who took 30 puffs in 10 minutes, the pod-based ENDS delivered a mean nicotine boost of 28.6 ng/mL in a mean of 8.7 minutes. This is higher and faster than the mean nicotine boost obtained from “cigalike” ENDS devices (puff activated and similar size and shape as a traditional tobacco cigarette; 1.8 ng/mL, 10 minutes) and advanced ENDS devices (button-activated with larger battery; 10.8 ng/mL, 12.1 minutes) using the same puffing schedule.[4] These users also self-reported higher nicotine dependence on the PSECDI, compared with 3609 experienced long-term users of other ENDS devices (mean PSECDI score, 8.1).[3] This study is the first, to our knowledge, to show that JUUL delivers a higher and faster boost in blood nicotine than has been reported for most other ENDS devices.[4,5,6] Limitations are the small sample size and that ENDS users may not typically take 30 puffs in 10 minutes. However, its use produced a mean (SD) nicotine boost of 12.9 (9.8) ng/mL after only 12 puffs in 4 minutes, a rate suggestive of pulmonary absorption. Compared with studies reporting the nicotine boost obtained after smoking 1 cigarette, this product’s nicotine delivery was similar.[4,6] The nicotine delivery capabilities of this ENDS device may contribute to its addictiveness as well as its ability to compete with cigarettes for market share.
  6 in total

1.  Development of a questionnaire for assessing dependence on electronic cigarettes among a large sample of ex-smoking E-cigarette users.

Authors:  Jonathan Foulds; Susan Veldheer; Jessica Yingst; Shari Hrabovsky; Stephen J Wilson; Travis T Nichols; Thomas Eissenberg
Journal:  Nicotine Tob Res       Date:  2014-10-19       Impact factor: 4.244

2.  Adolescents' Use of "Pod Mod" E-Cigarettes - Urgent Concerns.

Authors:  Jessica L Barrington-Trimis; Adam M Leventhal
Journal:  N Engl J Med       Date:  2018-08-22       Impact factor: 91.245

3.  Nicotine delivery, retention and pharmacokinetics from various electronic cigarettes.

Authors:  Gideon St Helen; Christopher Havel; Delia A Dempsey; Peyton Jacob; Neal L Benowitz
Journal:  Addiction       Date:  2015-11-11       Impact factor: 6.526

4.  Nicotine delivery to users from cigarettes and from different types of e-cigarettes.

Authors:  Peter Hajek; Dunja Przulj; Anna Phillips; Rebecca Anderson; Hayden McRobbie
Journal:  Psychopharmacology (Berl)       Date:  2017-01-09       Impact factor: 4.530

5.  Vaping versus JUULing: how the extraordinary growth and marketing of JUUL transformed the US retail e-cigarette market.

Authors:  Jidong Huang; Zongshuan Duan; Julian Kwok; Steven Binns; Lisa E Vera; Yoonsang Kim; Glen Szczypka; Sherry L Emery
Journal:  Tob Control       Date:  2018-05-31       Impact factor: 7.552

6.  Nicotine absorption during electronic cigarette use among regular users.

Authors:  Jessica M Yingst; Jonathan Foulds; Susan Veldheer; Shari Hrabovsky; Neil Trushin; Thomas T Eissenberg; Jill Williams; John P Richie; Travis T Nichols; Stephen J Wilson; Andrea L Hobkirk
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2019-07-25       Impact factor: 3.240

  6 in total
  28 in total

Review 1.  Recent findings in the pharmacology of inhaled nicotine: Preclinical and clinical in vivo studies.

Authors:  Asti Jackson; Ben Grobman; Suchitra Krishnan-Sarin
Journal:  Neuropharmacology       Date:  2020-06-24       Impact factor: 5.250

2.  Prospective associations of e-cigarette use with cigarette, alcohol, marijuana, and nonmedical prescription drug use among US adolescents.

Authors:  Rebecca J Evans-Polce; Megan E Patrick; Sean Esteban McCabe; Richard A Miech
Journal:  Drug Alcohol Depend       Date:  2020-09-19       Impact factor: 4.492

Review 3.  Review of Health Consequences of Electronic Cigarettes and the Outbreak of Electronic Cigarette, or Vaping, Product Use-Associated Lung Injury.

Authors:  Dazhe James Cao; Kim Aldy; Stephanie Hsu; Molly McGetrick; Guido Verbeck; Imesha De Silva; Sing-Yi Feng
Journal:  J Med Toxicol       Date:  2020-04-16

4.  Tracing the movement of electronic cigarette flavor chemicals and nicotine from refill fluids to aerosol, lungs, exhale, and the environment.

Authors:  Careen Khachatoorian; Kevin J McWhirter; Wentai Luo; James F Pankow; Prue Talbot
Journal:  Chemosphere       Date:  2021-07-10       Impact factor: 7.086

5.  Device features and user behaviors as predictors of dependence among never-smoking electronic cigarette users: PATH Wave 4.

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

6.  Acute effects of JUUL and IQOS in cigarette smokers.

Authors:  Sarah Maloney; Alisha Eversole; Melanie Crabtree; Eric Soule; Thomas Eissenberg; Alison Breland
Journal:  Tob Control       Date:  2020-02-10       Impact factor: 7.552

7.  Vaping in adolescents: epidemiology and respiratory harm.

Authors:  Eric Stephen Hamberger; Bonnie Halpern-Felsher
Journal:  Curr Opin Pediatr       Date:  2020-06       Impact factor: 2.856

8.  Dependence and Use Characteristics of Adult JUUL Electronic Cigarette Users.

Authors:  Jessica Yingst; Jonathan Foulds; Andrea L Hobkirk
Journal:  Subst Use Misuse       Date:  2020-10-29       Impact factor: 2.164

9.  Electronic cigarettes for smoking cessation.

Authors:  Jamie Hartmann-Boyce; Hayden McRobbie; Nicola Lindson; Chris Bullen; Rachna Begh; Annika Theodoulou; Caitlin Notley; Nancy A Rigotti; Tari Turner; Ailsa R Butler; Thomas R Fanshawe; Peter Hajek
Journal:  Cochrane Database Syst Rev       Date:  2021-04-29

10.  Biomarkers of Toxicant Exposure and Inflammation Among Women of Reproductive Age Who Use Electronic or Conventional Cigarettes.

Authors:  Mario F Perez; Erin L Mead; Nkiruka C Atuegwu; Eric M Mortensen; Maciej Goniewicz; Cheryl Oncken
Journal:  J Womens Health (Larchmt)       Date:  2021-02-02       Impact factor: 2.681

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.