Dose by Design: How Limits on Nicotine Flux and Puff Duration Affect the Abuse Liability of Electronic Nicotine Delivery Systems

Overview

Journal Drug Alcohol Depend

Publisher Elsevier

Specialty Psychiatry

Date 2024 Dec 10

PMID 39657440

Authors

Rose S Bono

Augustus M White

Rabia Imran

Gabrielle T Maldonado

Thokozeni Lipato

Andrew J Barnes

Caroline O Cobb

Affiliations

Soon will be listed here.

Abstract

Introduction: Electronic nicotine delivery system (ENDS) product standards for nicotine flux (nicotine emitted/second), combined with limiting puff duration, could control nicotine dose and support ENDS regulations. We assessed behavioral and subjective abuse liability indices for ENDS varying in nicotine flux with fixed puff duration among people who smoke.

Methods: This within-subjects study included 32 adults who smoked cigarettes. Own-brand cigarettes (OB) and four unflavored ENDS were evaluated: no-flux (0μg/s), low-flux (36.01μg/s), cigarette-like-flux (90.03μg/s), and high-flux (180.06μg/s), with ENDS puff duration limited to 2s. Outcomes from behavioral economic choice tasks included demand intensity (drug purchase task [DPT]), cross-price elasticity (cross-product DPT), puffs earned (progressive ratio task [PRT]), and breakpoint (cross-product PRT). Subjective effects were nicotine abstinence symptoms (NAS), aversive effects, product liking, and sensation. Condition differences were analyzed using linear mixed models.

Results: All ENDS were associated with significantly lower demand intensity, puffs earned, NAS suppression, and liking compared to OB, yet would serve as OB substitutes. Low-flux ENDS were a significantly stronger OB substitute than cigarette-like-flux ENDS, and were associated with more puffs earned than no and high-flux ENDS. Compared with other ENDS, high-flux ENDS generally reduced NAS more, were less pleasant, tasted worse and produced more intense harshness/irritancy and throat hit.

Conclusions: ENDS abuse liability and substitution potential varies by nicotine dose, which could be controlled via product standards integrating nicotine flux and puff duration. ENDS that exceed a cigarette nicotine dose may not be necessary to encourage transition from cigarettes to ENDS.

References

Stiles M, Campbell L, Graff D, Jones B, Fant R, Henningfield J . Pharmacodynamic and pharmacokinetic assessment of electronic cigarettes, combustible cigarettes, and nicotine gum: implications for abuse liability. Psychopharmacology (Berl). 2017; 234(17):2643-2655. PMC: 5548902. DOI: 10.1007/s00213-017-4665-y. View

Gades M, Alcheva A, Riegelman A, Hatsukami D . 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. Nicotine Tob Res. 2022; 24(9):1332-1343. PMC: 9356694. DOI: 10.1093/ntr/ntac073. View

Lim J, Wood A, Green B . Derivation and evaluation of a labeled hedonic scale. Chem Senses. 2009; 34(9):739-51. PMC: 2762053. DOI: 10.1093/chemse/bjp054. View

Talih S, Salman R, El-Hage R, Karam E, Karaoghlanian N, El-Hellani A . Might limiting liquid nicotine concentration result in more toxic electronic cigarette aerosols?. Tob Control. 2020; 30(3):348-350. PMC: 9281877. DOI: 10.1136/tobaccocontrol-2019-055523. View

Armitage A, Alexander J, Hopkins R, Ward C . Evaluation of a low to middle tar/medium nicotine cigarette designed to maintain nicotine delivery to the smoker. Psychopharmacology (Berl). 1988; 96(4):447-53. DOI: 10.1007/BF02180022. View

Evans S, Blank M, Sams C, Weaver M, Eissenberg T . Transdermal nicotine-induced tobacco abstinence symptom suppression: nicotine dose and smokers' gender. Exp Clin Psychopharmacol. 2006; 14(2):121-35. PMC: 1564049. DOI: 10.1037/1064-1297.14.2.121. View

Leventhal A, Mason T, Kirkpatrick M, Anderson M, Levine M . E-cigarette device power moderates the effects of non-tobacco flavors and nicotine on product appeal in young adults. Addict Behav. 2020; 107:106403. PMC: 7282993. DOI: 10.1016/j.addbeh.2020.106403. View

Eissenberg T, Shihadeh A . Nicotine flux: a potentially important tool for regulating electronic cigarettes. Nicotine Tob Res. 2014; 17(2):165-7. PMC: 4838002. DOI: 10.1093/ntr/ntu208. View

Hoetger C, Bono R, White A, Barnes A, Cobb C . The interaction of nicotine concentration and device power on electronic nicotine delivery system (ENDS) abuse liability among exclusive ENDS users and dual users of ENDS and combustible cigarettes. Exp Clin Psychopharmacol. 2021; 30(6):973-982. PMC: 9284402. DOI: 10.1037/pha0000523. View

10.

Shahan T, Bickel W, Madden G, Badger G . Comparing the reinforcing efficacy of nicotine containing and de-nicotinized cigarettes: a behavioral economic analysis. Psychopharmacology (Berl). 1999; 147(2):210-6. DOI: 10.1007/s002130051162. View

11.

Girvalaki C, Vardavas A, Tzatzarakis M, N Kyriakos C, Nikitara K, Tsatsakis A . Compliance of e-cigarette refill liquids with regulations on labelling, packaging and technical design characteristics in nine European member states. Tob Control. 2019; 29(5):531-536. DOI: 10.1136/tobaccocontrol-2019-055061. View

12.

Cobb C, Lopez A, Soule E, Yen M, Rumsey H, Lester Scholtes R . Influence of electronic cigarette liquid flavors and nicotine concentration on subjective measures of abuse liability in young adult cigarette smokers. Drug Alcohol Depend. 2019; 203:27-34. PMC: 9307062. DOI: 10.1016/j.drugalcdep.2019.05.024. View

13.

Bebenek P, Gholap V, Halquist M, Sobczak A, Kosmider L . E-Liquids from Seven European Countries-Warnings Analysis and Freebase Nicotine Content. Toxics. 2022; 10(2). PMC: 8875468. DOI: 10.3390/toxics10020051. View

14.

Eissenberg T, Soule E, Shihadeh A . 'Open-System' electronic cigarettes cannot be regulated effectively. Tob Control. 2020; 30(2):234-235. PMC: 7848783. DOI: 10.1136/tobaccocontrol-2019-055499. View

15.

Bartoshuk L, Duffy V, Green B, Hoffman H, Ko C, Lucchina L . Valid across-group comparisons with labeled scales: the gLMS versus magnitude matching. Physiol Behav. 2004; 82(1):109-14. DOI: 10.1016/j.physbeh.2004.02.033. View

16.

Moore G, Hallingberg B, Brown R, McKell J, Van Godwin J, Bauld L . Impacts of EU Tobacco Products Directive regulations on use of e-cigarettes in adolescents in Great Britain: a natural experiment evaluation. Public Health Res (Southampt). 2023; 11(5):1-102. DOI: 10.3310/WTMH3198. View

17.

Hughes J, Hatsukami D . Signs and symptoms of tobacco withdrawal. Arch Gen Psychiatry. 1986; 43(3):289-94. DOI: 10.1001/archpsyc.1986.01800030107013. View

18.

DeVito E, Krishnan-Sarin S . E-cigarettes: Impact of E-Liquid Components and Device Characteristics on Nicotine Exposure. Curr Neuropharmacol. 2017; 16(4):438-459. PMC: 6018193. DOI: 10.2174/1570159X15666171016164430. View

19.

Talih S, Salman R, El-Hage R, Karam E, Salam S, Karaoghlanian N . A comparison of the electrical characteristics, liquid composition, and toxicant emissions of JUUL USA and JUUL UK e-cigarettes. Sci Rep. 2020; 10(1):7322. PMC: 7192936. DOI: 10.1038/s41598-020-64414-5. View

20.

Bickel W, Marsch L, Carroll M . Deconstructing relative reinforcing efficacy and situating the measures of pharmacological reinforcement with behavioral economics: a theoretical proposal. Psychopharmacology (Berl). 2001; 153(1):44-56. DOI: 10.1007/s002130000589. View