Nicotine Dosimetry in Evaluating Electronic Cigarettes Compared to Cigarette Smoking: Implications for Tobacco Regulatory Science.

IF 3.7 3区 医学 Q2 CHEMISTRY, MEDICINAL
Neal L Benowitz, Hao-Yuan Yang, Peyton Jacob, Gideon St Helen
{"title":"Nicotine Dosimetry in Evaluating Electronic Cigarettes Compared to Cigarette Smoking: Implications for Tobacco Regulatory Science.","authors":"Neal L Benowitz, Hao-Yuan Yang, Peyton Jacob, Gideon St Helen","doi":"10.1021/acs.chemrestox.4c00462","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>The delivery and systemic absorption of nicotine are important for assessing the potential safety and efficacy of novel inhaled nicotine delivery devices. We describe an experimental approach for examining systemic nicotine intake, looking at individual variability, comparing JUUL electronic cigarettes and cigarette smoking, and comparing standardized puffing and ad libitum use. Fourteen cigarette smokers who were infrequent e-cigarette users vaped JUUL or smoked cigarettes, both in a standardized session (ten 3.5 s puffs over 5 min) and in a 4 h ad libitum use session. Plasma nicotine concentrations were measured, and using sex and body weight-based population nicotine clearance predictions, systemic nicotine dose was estimated in each session. The pharmacokinetically (PK)-estimated nicotine dose in the standardized session averaged 0.55 mg (range 0.16-0.82) for JUUL and 1.15 mg (range 0.35-4.56) for cigarette smoking. The PK-estimated dose with ad libitum use averaged 4.1 mg (range 0.4-9.5) for JUUL and 5.0 mg (range 1.5-15) for smoking (average 3.4 cigarettes). Within individual correlations, comparing PK-estimated dose for JUUL use with standardized vs ad libitum session was weak (<i>r</i> = 0.45, NS) but was much stronger for cigarette smoking (<i>r</i> = 0.82, <i>p</i> < 0.001). Data from ad libitum use predicted that consumption of the liquid contained in a JUUL pod would correspond to smoking 15 cigarettes, which is similar to that observed in real world studies. We conclude that standardized vaping sessions do not predict usual nicotine self-administration behavior with ad libitum use. With ad libitum use, nicotine intake is much more similar to vaping and smoking and provides a much better predictor of product delivery in the real world. This approach is recommended for screening of novel inhaled nicotine devices and to aid FDA regulatory decision making.</p>","PeriodicalId":31,"journal":{"name":"Chemical Research in Toxicology","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":3.7000,"publicationDate":"2025-03-17","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Chemical Research in Toxicology","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.chemrestox.4c00462","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"CHEMISTRY, MEDICINAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

The delivery and systemic absorption of nicotine are important for assessing the potential safety and efficacy of novel inhaled nicotine delivery devices. We describe an experimental approach for examining systemic nicotine intake, looking at individual variability, comparing JUUL electronic cigarettes and cigarette smoking, and comparing standardized puffing and ad libitum use. Fourteen cigarette smokers who were infrequent e-cigarette users vaped JUUL or smoked cigarettes, both in a standardized session (ten 3.5 s puffs over 5 min) and in a 4 h ad libitum use session. Plasma nicotine concentrations were measured, and using sex and body weight-based population nicotine clearance predictions, systemic nicotine dose was estimated in each session. The pharmacokinetically (PK)-estimated nicotine dose in the standardized session averaged 0.55 mg (range 0.16-0.82) for JUUL and 1.15 mg (range 0.35-4.56) for cigarette smoking. The PK-estimated dose with ad libitum use averaged 4.1 mg (range 0.4-9.5) for JUUL and 5.0 mg (range 1.5-15) for smoking (average 3.4 cigarettes). Within individual correlations, comparing PK-estimated dose for JUUL use with standardized vs ad libitum session was weak (r = 0.45, NS) but was much stronger for cigarette smoking (r = 0.82, p < 0.001). Data from ad libitum use predicted that consumption of the liquid contained in a JUUL pod would correspond to smoking 15 cigarettes, which is similar to that observed in real world studies. We conclude that standardized vaping sessions do not predict usual nicotine self-administration behavior with ad libitum use. With ad libitum use, nicotine intake is much more similar to vaping and smoking and provides a much better predictor of product delivery in the real world. This approach is recommended for screening of novel inhaled nicotine devices and to aid FDA regulatory decision making.

求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
7.90
自引率
7.30%
发文量
215
审稿时长
3.5 months
期刊介绍: Chemical Research in Toxicology publishes Articles, Rapid Reports, Chemical Profiles, Reviews, Perspectives, Letters to the Editor, and ToxWatch on a wide range of topics in Toxicology that inform a chemical and molecular understanding and capacity to predict biological outcomes on the basis of structures and processes. The overarching goal of activities reported in the Journal are to provide knowledge and innovative approaches needed to promote intelligent solutions for human safety and ecosystem preservation. The journal emphasizes insight concerning mechanisms of toxicity over phenomenological observations. It upholds rigorous chemical, physical and mathematical standards for characterization and application of modern techniques.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信