Dataset Information

Nicotine delivery and users' reactions to Juul compared with cigarettes and other e-cigarette products.

ABSTRACT: AIMS:To assess the pharmacokinetic (PK) profile of, and users' reactions to, Juul (59 mg nicotine/ml) as an indication of its therapeutic and dependence potential. DESIGN:Cross-over, within-subjects study in which participants attended after overnight abstinence on separate sessions and smoked a cigarette or used Juul or eight other types of e-cigarettes (EC) ad libitum for 5 minutes. The Juul product used was the version available in the United States that has more nicotine in the e-liquid than the one available in the European Union. SETTING:Laboratory setting in the United Kingdom. PARTICIPANTS:Twenty dual users (smokers who also vape) provided data on Juul and cigarettes, with eight also providing data on other EC products. MEASUREMENTS:At each session, number of puffs taken was counted during the 5-minute product use period and blood samples were taken at baseline and at 2, 4, 6, 8, 10 and 30 minutes after starting smoking/vaping and analysed for nicotine. Participants also monitored their urges to smoke and rated the products on a range of characteristics. FINDINGS:Juul's PK profile was close to the PK profile of cigarettes [maximum concentration (Cmax ) = 20.4 versus 19.2 ng/ml; time to maximum concentration (Tmax ) = 4 versus 6 minutes; area under the curve (AUC): 307.9 versus 312.6, respectively]. Compared with other EC products, Juul had shorter Tmax [4 minutes, (IQR = 2.5-4.0) versus 6.3 minutes, (IQR = 4.7 - 8.1), P = 0.012] and higher Cmax (28.9 (SD = 15.6) versus 10.6 (SD = 5.5), P = 0.013) despite a lower number of puffs (12.5 (SD = 4.2) versus 17.0 (SD = 4.2), P = 0.084). Compared with other e-cigarette products, it also provided faster reduction of urges to smoke and obtained more favourable subjective ratings. CONCLUSION:Juul's PK profile and user ratings suggest that it could be more effective than other EC products in helping smokers to quit smoking, but it may also have a higher potential to generate regular use in non-smokers.

SUBMITTER: Hajek P

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7318270 | biostudies-literature | 2020 Jun

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

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:ImportanceUse of electronic cigarettes (e-cigarettes) is increasing. Measures of exposure to known tobacco-related toxicants among e-cigarette users will inform potential health risks to individual product users.ObjectivesTo estimate concentrations of tobacco-related toxicants among e-cigarette users and compare these biomarker concentrations with those observed in combustible cigarette users, dual users, and never tobacco users.Design, setting, and participantsA population-based, longitudinal cohort study was conducted in the United States in 2013-2014. Cross-sectional analysis was performed between November 4, 2016, and October 5, 2017, of biomarkers of exposure to tobacco-related toxicants collected by the Population Assessment of Tobacco and Health Study. Participants included adults who provided a urine sample and data on tobacco use (N = 5105).ExposuresThe primary exposure was tobacco use, including current exclusive e-cigarette users (n = 247), current exclusive cigarette smokers (n = 2411), and users of both products (dual users) (n = 792) compared with never tobacco users (n = 1655).Main outcomes and measuresGeometric mean concentrations of 50 individual biomarkers from 5 major classes of tobacco product constituents were measured: nicotine, tobacco-specific nitrosamines (TSNAs), metals, polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs), and volatile organic compounds (VOCs).ResultsOf the 5105 participants, most were aged 35 to 54 years (weighted percentage, 38%; 95% CI, 35%-40%), women (60%; 95% CI, 59%-62%), and non-Hispanic white (61%; 95% CI, 58%-64%). Compared with exclusive e-cigarette users, never users had 19% to 81% significantly lower concentrations of biomarkers of exposure to nicotine, TSNAs, some metals (eg, cadmium and lead), and some VOCs (including acrylonitrile). Exclusive e-cigarette users showed 10% to 98% significantly lower concentrations of biomarkers of exposure, including TSNAs, PAHs, most VOCs, and nicotine, compared with exclusive cigarette smokers; concentrations were comparable for metals and 3 VOCs. Exclusive cigarette users showed 10% to 36% lower concentrations of several biomarkers than dual users. Frequency of cigarette use among dual users was positively correlated with nicotine and toxicant exposure.Conclusions and relevanceExclusive use of e-cigarettes appears to result in measurable exposure to known tobacco-related toxicants, generally at lower levels than cigarette smoking. Toxicant exposure is greatest among dual users, and frequency of combustible cigarette use is positively correlated with tobacco toxicant concentration. These findings provide evidence that using combusted tobacco cigarettes alone or in combination with e-cigarettes is associated with higher concentrations of potentially harmful tobacco constituents in comparison with using e-cigarettes alone.

Dataset Information

Nicotine delivery and users' reactions to Juul compared with cigarettes and other e-cigarette products.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets