Effect of Flavors and Modified Risk Messages on E-cigarette Abuse Liability

Overview

Journal Tob Regul Sci

Date 2017 Dec 6

PMID 29204463

Citations 23

Authors

Andrew J Barnes

Rose S Bono

Rebecca C Lester

Thomas E Eissenberg

Caroline O Cobb

Affiliations

Soon will be listed here.

Abstract

Objectives: To measure e-cigarettes' abuse liability compared to conventional tobacco cigarettes under flavor and message conditions amenable to regulation.

Methods: Two studies used 2×2 within-subjects designs with factors of e-cigarette flavor (Study 1: tobacco vs. menthol; Study 2: cherry vs. unflavored) and message (Study 1: reduced harm vs. no message; Study 2: reduced exposure to carcinogens vs. no message) with cigarette smokers (N(total) = 36). Linear mixed effects models assessed abuse liability for tobacco products. Outcomes included the price after which consumption is zero (the maximum amount participants would pay for a tobacco product) from the multiple choice procedure (MCP) and cigarette purchase task (CPT) and demand elasticity (price sensitivity) from the CPT.

Results: In the MCP, the price where consumption reached zero was significantly lower in all e-cigarette conditions except tobacco flavor (message or no message) compared to cigarettes (p < .05 each). Demand elasticity was significantly higher for menthol/no message and unflavored/reduced exposure message conditions relative to cigarettes (p < .05 each).

Conclusions: Flavors and modified risk messages included with e-cigarettes may affect e-cigarette abuse liability among smokers, suggesting regulatory pathways to influence demand for conventional and alternative tobacco products.

Citing Articles

Assessment of human abuse potential of an unflavored, sucralose-sweetened electronic cigarette in combustible cigarette smokers.

Maloney S, Hoetger C, Bono R, Lester Scholtes R, Combs M, Karaoghlanian N Exp Clin Psychopharmacol. 2024; 32(5):588-603.

PMID: 38815111 PMC: 11870153. DOI: 10.1037/pha0000720.

The electronic nicotine delivery system (ENDS) purchase task: Are results sensitive to price framing?.

White A, Bono R, Lester R, Underwood M, Hoetger C, Lipato T Exp Clin Psychopharmacol. 2022; 31(5):895-901.

PMID: 36480388 PMC: 10257939. DOI: 10.1037/pha0000631.

Associations Between Perceptions of e-Cigarette Harmfulness and Addictiveness and the Age of E-Cigarette Initiation Among the Population Assessment of Tobacco and Health (PATH) Youth.

Bluestein M, Harrell M, Hebert E, Chen B, Kuk A, Spells C Tob Use Insights. 2022; 15:1179173X221133645.

PMID: 36276166 PMC: 9585561. DOI: 10.1177/1179173X221133645.

Characterizing different-flavored e-cigarette solutions from user-reported sensory attributes and appeal.

Anderson M, Whitted L, Mason T, Pang R, Tackett A, Leventhal A Exp Clin Psychopharmacol. 2022; 31(1):46-56.

PMID: 35467923 PMC: 9592684. DOI: 10.1037/pha0000563.

The Role of Nicotine and Flavor in the Abuse Potential and Appeal of Electronic Cigarettes for Adult Current and Former Cigarette and Electronic Cigarette Users: A Systematic Review.

Gades M, Alcheva A, Riegelman A, Hatsukami D Nicotine Tob Res. 2022; 24(9):1332-1343.

PMID: 35305014 PMC: 9356694. DOI: 10.1093/ntr/ntac073.

References

Jacobs E, Bickel W . Modeling drug consumption in the clinic using simulation procedures: demand for heroin and cigarettes in opioid-dependent outpatients. Exp Clin Psychopharmacol. 1999; 7(4):412-26. DOI: 10.1037//1064-1297.7.4.412. View

Griffiths R, Troisi J, Silverman K, Mumford G . Multiple-choice procedure: an efficient approach for investigating drug reinforcement in humans. Behav Pharmacol. 1993; 4(1):3-13. View

MacKillop J, Murphy J, Ray L, Eisenberg D, Lisman S, Lum J . Further validation of a cigarette purchase task for assessing the relative reinforcing efficacy of nicotine in college smokers. Exp Clin Psychopharmacol. 2008; 16(1):57-65. DOI: 10.1037/1064-1297.16.1.57. View

Carter L, Stitzer M, Henningfield J, OConnor R, Cummings K, Hatsukami D . Abuse liability assessment of tobacco products including potential reduced exposure products. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev. 2009; 18(12):3241-62. PMC: 2798587. DOI: 10.1158/1055-9965.EPI-09-0948. View

Amlung M, Acker J, Stojek M, Murphy J, MacKillop J . Is talk "cheap"? An initial investigation of the equivalence of alcohol purchase task performance for hypothetical and actual rewards. Alcohol Clin Exp Res. 2011; 36(4):716-24. PMC: 3266442. DOI: 10.1111/j.1530-0277.2011.01656.x. View

Few L, Acker J, Murphy C, MacKillop J . Temporal stability of a cigarette purchase task. Nicotine Tob Res. 2011; 14(6):761-5. PMC: 3356292. DOI: 10.1093/ntr/ntr222. View

Vansickel A, Weaver M, Eissenberg T . Clinical laboratory assessment of the abuse liability of an electronic cigarette. Addiction. 2012; 107(8):1493-500. PMC: 3330136. DOI: 10.1111/j.1360-0443.2012.03791.x. View

MacKillop J, Few L, Murphy J, Wier L, Acker J, Murphy C . High-resolution behavioral economic analysis of cigarette demand to inform tax policy. Addiction. 2012; 107(12):2191-200. PMC: 3504189. DOI: 10.1111/j.1360-0443.2012.03991.x. View

OConnor R, June K, Bansal-Travers M, Rousu M, Thrasher J, Hyland A . Estimating demand for alternatives to cigarettes with online purchase tasks. Am J Health Behav. 2013; 38(1):103-13. PMC: 3776309. DOI: 10.5993/AJHB.38.1.11. View

10.

Farsalinos K, Romagna G, Tsiapras D, Kyrzopoulos S, Spyrou A, Voudris V . Impact of flavour variability on electronic cigarette use experience: an internet survey. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2013; 10(12):7272-82. PMC: 3881166. DOI: 10.3390/ijerph10127272. View

11.

Callahan-Lyon P . Electronic cigarettes: human health effects. Tob Control. 2014; 23 Suppl 2:ii36-40. PMC: 3995250. DOI: 10.1136/tobaccocontrol-2013-051470. View

12.

Grana R, Benowitz N, Glantz S . E-cigarettes: a scientific review. Circulation. 2014; 129(19):1972-86. PMC: 4018182. DOI: 10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.114.007667. View

13.

Zhu S, Sun J, Bonnevie E, Cummins S, Gamst A, Yin L . Four hundred and sixty brands of e-cigarettes and counting: implications for product regulation. Tob Control. 2014; 23 Suppl 3:iii3-9. PMC: 4078673. DOI: 10.1136/tobaccocontrol-2014-051670. View

14.

Pepper J, Emery S, Ribisl K, Southwell B, Brewer N . Effects of advertisements on smokers' interest in trying e-cigarettes: the roles of product comparison and visual cues. Tob Control. 2014; 23 Suppl 3:iii31-6. PMC: 4078668. DOI: 10.1136/tobaccocontrol-2014-051718. View

15.

Giovenco D, Hammond D, Corey C, Ambrose B, Delnevo C . E-Cigarette Market Trends in Traditional U.S. Retail Channels, 2012-2013. Nicotine Tob Res. 2014; 17(10):1279-83. PMC: 4683368. DOI: 10.1093/ntr/ntu282. View

16.

Stein J, Koffarnus M, Snider S, Quisenberry A, Bickel W . Identification and management of nonsystematic purchase task data: Toward best practice. Exp Clin Psychopharmacol. 2015; 23(5):377-86. PMC: 4579007. DOI: 10.1037/pha0000020. View

17.

George Wilson A, Franck C, Koffarnus M, Bickel W . Behavioral Economics of Cigarette Purchase Tasks: Within-Subject Comparison of Real, Potentially Real, and Hypothetical Cigarettes. Nicotine Tob Res. 2015; 18(5):524-30. PMC: 5896813. DOI: 10.1093/ntr/ntv154. View

18.

Koffarnus M, Franck C, Stein J, Bickel W . A modified exponential behavioral economic demand model to better describe consumption data. Exp Clin Psychopharmacol. 2015; 23(6):504-12. PMC: 4854291. DOI: 10.1037/pha0000045. View

19.

Wackowski O, Delnevo C . Young Adults' Risk Perceptions of Various Tobacco Products Relative to Cigarettes: Results From the National Young Adult Health Survey. Health Educ Behav. 2015; 43(3):328-36. PMC: 4766060. DOI: 10.1177/1090198115599988. View

20.

Lopez A, Hiler M, Soule E, Ramoa C, Karaoghlanian N, Lipato T . Effects of Electronic Cigarette Liquid Nicotine Concentration on Plasma Nicotine and Puff Topography in Tobacco Cigarette Smokers: A Preliminary Report. Nicotine Tob Res. 2015; 18(5):720-3. PMC: 5896822. DOI: 10.1093/ntr/ntv182. View