Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2012 Aug;107(8):1493-500.
doi: 10.1111/j.1360-0443.2012.03791.x. Epub 2012 May 8.

Clinical laboratory assessment of the abuse liability of an electronic cigarette

Affiliations

Clinical laboratory assessment of the abuse liability of an electronic cigarette

Andrea R Vansickel et al. Addiction. 2012 Aug.

Abstract

Aims: To provide an initial abuse liability assessment of an electronic cigarette (EC) in current tobacco cigarette smokers.

Design: The first of four within-subject sessions was an EC sampling session that involved six, 10-puff bouts (30 seconds inter-puff interval), each bout separated by 30 minutes. In the remaining three sessions participants made choices between 10 EC puffs and varying amounts of money, 10 EC puffs and a varying number of own brand cigarette (OB) puffs, or 10 OB puffs and varying amounts of money using the multiple-choice procedure (MCP). The MCP was completed six times at 30-minute intervals, and one choice was reinforced randomly at each trial.

Setting: Clinical laboratory.

Participants: Twenty current tobacco cigarette smokers.

Measurements: Sampling session outcome measures included plasma nicotine, cardiovascular response and subjective effects. Choice session outcome was the cross-over value on the MCP.

Findings: EC use resulted in significant nicotine delivery, tobacco abstinence symptom suppression and increased product acceptability ratings. On the MCP, participants chose to receive 10 EC puffs over an average of $1.06 or three OB puffs and chose 10 OB puffs over an average of $1.50 (P < 0.003).

Conclusions: Electronic cigarettes can deliver clinically significant amounts of nicotine and reduce cigarette abstinence symptoms and appear to have lower potential for abuse relative to traditional tobacco cigarettes, at least under certain laboratory conditions.

PubMed Disclaimer

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
Average plasma nicotine concentration (1A), heart rate (1B), scores from QSU Factor 2 (anticipation of relief from withdrawal; 1C), and ratings of “Urge to smoke a cigarette” across six EC puffing bouts (N=20). BL indicates the baseline value (i.e. value observed at the start of the sampling session, prior to EC puffing). Filled symbols indicate a significant difference from baseline. Tukey's HSD (p < 0.05).
Figure 2
Figure 2
Average crossover values (i.e. the monetary value at which participants chose to receive money over 10 EC or OB puffs) collapsed across time for the OB vs. $ and EC vs. $ choice conditions. An asterisk indicates a significant effect of condition (p < 0.05).

References

    1. Etter JF. Electronic cigarettes: a survey of users. BMC Public Health. 2010;10:231. - PMC - PubMed
    1. Heavner K, Dunworth J, Bergen P, Nissen C, Phillips CV. Electronic cigarettes (e-cigarettes) as potential tobacco harm reduction products: results of an online survey of e-cigarette users. Tob Harm Reduction [Internet] 2009 Nov;:15. [cited 2010 Feb 9]; working paper 011. Available from: http://www.tobaccoharmreduction.org/wpapers/011.htm.
    1. McQueen A, Tower S, Sumner W. Interviews with”vapers”: implications for future research with electronic cigarettes. Nicotine and Tobacco Research. 2011;13:860–67. - PubMed
    1. Trtchounian A, Williams M, Talbot P. Conventional and electronic cigarettes (e-cigarettes) have different smoking characteristics. Nicotine and Tobacco Research. 2010;12:905–12. - PubMed
    1. Foulds J, Veldheer S, Berg A. Electronic cigarettes (e-cigs): views of aficionados and clinical/public health perspectives. International Journal of Clinical Practice. 2011;65:1037–42. - PubMed

Publication types