Dataset Information

Usage Pattern and Nicotine Delivery during Ad Libitum Consumption of Pod E-Cigarettes and Heated Tobacco Products.

ABSTRACT: Many different nicotine delivery products, such as e-cigarettes (e-cigs) or heated tobacco products (HTPs), are available on the market. To better understand these products, it is crucial to learn how consumers use them and how much nicotine they deliver. Therefore, a pod e-cig, an HTP, and a conventional cigarette (CC) were each used by 15 experienced users of the respective product category for 90 min without special use instructions ("ad libitum"). Sessions were video recorded to analyze usage patterns and puff topography. At defined time points, blood was sampled to determine nicotine concentrations, and subjective effects were inquired about using questionnaires. During the study period, the CC and HTP groups averaged the same number of consumption units (both 4.2 units). In the pod e-cig group, the highest number of puffs was taken (pod e-cig 71.9; HTP: 52.2; CC: 42.3 puffs) with the most extended mean puff duration (pod e-cig: 2.8 s; HTP: 1.9 s; CC: 1.8 s). Pod e-cigs were predominantly used with single puffs or in short clusters of 2-5 puffs. The maximum plasma nicotine concentration was highest for CCs, followed by HTPs, and then pod e-cigs with 24.0, 17.7, and 8.0 ng/mL, respectively. Craving was reduced by all products. The results suggest that the high nicotine delivery known for tobacco-containing products (CCs and HTPs) may not be needed for non-tobacco-containing products (pod e-cigs) to satisfy cravings in experienced users.

SUBMITTER: Rabenstein A

PROVIDER: S-EPMC10221897 | biostudies-literature | 2023 May

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Usage Pattern and Nicotine Delivery during Ad Libitum Consumption of Pod E-Cigarettes and Heated Tobacco Products.

Rabenstein Andrea A Rahofer Anna A Vukas Jochen J Rieder Benedikt B Störzenhofecker Kristin K Stoll Yvonne Y Burgmann Nestor N Pieper Elke E Laux Peter P Luch Andreas A Rüther Tobias T Mallock-Ohnesorg Nadja N

Toxics 20230505 5

Many different nicotine delivery products, such as e-cigarettes (e-cigs) or heated tobacco products (HTPs), are available on the market. To better understand these products, it is crucial to learn how consumers use them and how much nicotine they deliver. Therefore, a pod e-cig, an HTP, and a conventional cigarette (CC) were each used by 15 experienced users of the respective product category for 90 min without special use instructions ("ad libitum"). Sessions were video recorded to analyze usag ...[more]

PMID: 37235249

Similar Datasets

Project description:IntroductionWe aimed to compare the pharmacokinetics of nicotine between the heat-not-burn Tobacco Heating System 2.1 (THS 2.1) and combustible cigarettes (CCs). We also examined whether the subjective urge to smoke was associated with the pharmacokinetics of nicotine.MethodsThis open-label, randomized, two-period, two-sequence crossover study conducted in 28 healthy smokers assessed the pharmacokinetics of nicotine after single and ad libitum use of the THS 2.1 or CCs. During the 7-day confinement period, blood samples were drawn for pharmacokinetic analysis. Subjective effects related to THS 2.1 or CC use were assessed using the Questionnaire of Smoking Urges (QSU-Brief).ResultsThe nicotine delivery rate was similar with the THS 2.1 and CCs after single and ad libitum use. The time to the maximum nicotine concentration was 8 minutes after single use of the THS 2.1 and CCs. The time to the peak concentration following ad libitum use was similar between the THS 2.1 and CCs. The maximum plasma nicotine concentration after single use of the THS 2.1 was 8.4 ng/mL, 70.3% of that obtained with CCs. A transient reduction from baseline in the urge to smoke of 40% was observed 15 minutes after the single use of both the THS 2.1 and CCs. The mean QSU-Brief total scores following single and ad libitum use were similar for the THS 2.1 and CCs.ConclusionsThese results suggest that the THS 2.1 effectively delivers nicotine and achieves similar pharmacokinetic profiles to CCs. The THS 2.1 also reduced the urge to smoke similarly to CCs.ImplicationsReducing exposure to toxicants and safer delivery of nicotine are among the strategies that may reduce the harm of smoking-related diseases. In the present study, we investigated the pharmacokinetics of nicotine and their effects on the urge to smoke using the THS 2.1. It was developed to replicate the ritual of smoking as closely as possible by providing nicotine in a way that mimics CC smoking, but limits pyrolysis and combustion by heating tobacco at a much lower temperature than CCs (heat-not-burn).

Project description:IntroductionReduced-risk nicotine products are more likely to replace smoking if they match cigarettes in nicotine delivery and user satisfaction.Aims and methodsWe examined the nicotine delivery profile and user ratings of IQOS heated tobacco system and compared it with own brand cigarettes (OBC), Juul, and refillable e-cigarettes (EC).Participants (N = 22) who were daily vapers smoking <1 cigarette per day on average, attended after overnight abstinence from smoking and vaping, to test at separate sessions OBC, IQOS, and Juul. Eight participants also tested two refillable EC using e-liquid with 20 mg/mL nicotine. At each session, a baseline blood sample was taken before participants used the product ad libitum for 5 minutes. Further samples were taken at 2, 4, 6, 8, 10, and 30 minutes. Maximum nicotine concentration (Cmax), time to Cmax (Tmax), and nicotine delivered over 30 minutes (AUC0->30) were calculated. Participants rated their urge to smoke and product characteristics.ResultsIQOS delivered less nicotine than OBC (AUC0->30: z = -2.73, p = .006), and than Juul (AUC0->30: z = -3.08, p = .002; Cmax: z = -2.65, p = .008), and received less favorable ratings than Juul (effect on urges to smoke: z = -3.23, p = .001; speed of urge relief: z = -2.75, p = .006; recommendation to friends: z = -2.45, p = .014). Compared with refillable EC, IQOS delivered nicotine faster (Tmax: z = -2.37, p = .018), but received less favorable overall ratings (recommended to friends: z = -2.32, p = .021).ConclusionsIQOS' pharmacokinetic profile suggests that it may be less effective than Juul for smoking cessation, but at least as effective as refillable EC; although participants, who were experienced vapers rather than IQOS users, preferred refillable EC.ImplicationsBecause IQOS provided less efficient nicotine delivery than cigarettes and Juul in this sample, and also had a weaker effect on urges to smoke than Juul, it could be less helpful than Juul in assisting such dual users, and possibly smokers generally, to switch to an alternative product. IQOS, however, provided nicotine faster than refillable EC products, although participants preferred EC.

Project description:Our purpose was to test the hypothesis that ultrasonic cigarettes (u-cigarettes), which operate at relatively low temperatures, produce aerosols that are less harmful than heated-coil pod-style electronic cigarettes (e-cigarettes). The major chemicals in SURGE u-cigarette fluids and aerosols were quantified, their cytotoxicity and cellular effects were assessed, and a Margin of Exposure risk assessment was performed on chemicals in SURGE fluids. Four SURGE u-cigarette flavor variants ("Blueberry Ice," "Watermelon Ice," "Green Mint," and "Polar Mint") were evaluated. Flavor chemicals were quantified in fluids and aerosols using gas chromatography/mass spectrometry. Cytotoxicity and cell dynamics were assessed using the MTT assay, live-cell imaging, and fluorescence microscopy. WS-23 (a coolant) and total flavor chemical concentrations in SURGE were similar to e-cigarettes, while SURGE nicotine concentrations (13-19 mg/mL) were lower than many fourth generation e-cigarettes. Transfer efficiencies of dominant chemicals to aerosols in SURGE ranged from 44-100%. SURGE fluids and aerosols had four dominant flavor chemicals (>1 mg/mL). Toxic aldehydes were usually higher in SURGE aerosols than in SURGE fluids. SURGE fluids and aerosols had aldehyde concentrations significantly higher than pod-style e-cigarettes. Chemical constituents, solvent ratios, and aldehydes varied among SURGE flavor variants. SURGE fluids and aerosols inhibited cell growth and mitochondrial reductases, produced attenuated and round cells, and depolymerized actin filaments, effects that depended on pod flavor, chemical constituents, and concentration. The MOEs for nicotine, WS-23, and propylene glycol were <100 based on consumption of 1-2 SURGE u-cigarettes/day. Replacing the heating coil with a sonicator did not eliminate chemicals, including aldehydes, in aerosols or diminish toxicity in comparisons between SURGE and other e-cigarette pod products. The high concentrations of nicotine, WS-23, flavor chemicals, and aldehydes and the cytotoxicity of SURGE aerosols do not support the hypothesis that aerosols from u-cigarettes are less harmful than those from e-cigarettes.

Project description:BackgroundWorldwide adoption of electronic cigarettes (e-cigarettes) and heated tobacco products (HTPs) has increased exponentially over the past decade. These products have been proposed as non-combustible alternatives to traditional tobacco products such as cigarettes and may thus reduce the negative health consequences associated with tobacco smoke. However, the overall health impact and safety of using these products remains unclear. This review seeks to provide an updated summary of available evidence on changes to levels of tobacco-related biomarkers to aid the overall assessment of the consequences of using e-cigarettes and HTPs.MethodsA systematic review was conducted through major databases (Medline/PubMed, Scopus, EMBASE) searching for articles directly comparing biomarker levels in humans using e-cigarettes or HTPs and those using combustible cigarettes. We included peer reviewed articles with comparative or longitudinal design and extracted key information for our purpose (type of population, demographics, biomarkers measurements, and health effects). An initial qualitative analysis was performed followed by a summary of findings.ResultsA total of 44 studies were included from initial citations. The vast majority of the literature reported reductions in levels of biomarkers of tobacco smoke exposure (BOE), especially nicotine, MHBMA, 3-HPMA, S-PMA, 1-OHP and NNAL, when using e-cigarettes and HTPs compared to combustible cigarettes. There was a slight tendency toward a larger reduction in these biomarkers levels with the use of e-cigarettes, although direct comparisons between e-cigarettes and HTPs were lacking. There was also a trend toward positive changes in levels of biomarkers of biological effect (BOBE) with the use of e-cigarettes and HTPs.ConclusionsA comparison of levels of biomarkers of tobacco-related exposure collected in clinical studies revealed that the use of e-cigarettes and HTPs could lead to a significant reduction in exposure to harmful substances compared to combusted cigarettes. In tandem, the health status of e-cigarettes and HTP users, indexed by levels of biomarkers of biological effect showed potential for improvement compared to smoking. However, larger and longer-term population-based studies are needed to further clarify these findings.

Dataset Information

Usage Pattern and Nicotine Delivery during Ad Libitum Consumption of Pod E-Cigarettes and Heated Tobacco Products.

Publications

Usage Pattern and Nicotine Delivery during Ad Libitum Consumption of Pod E-Cigarettes and Heated Tobacco Products.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets