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.

评价电子烟与吸烟的尼古丁剂量学:对烟草管制科学的影响。
尼古丁的传递和全身吸收对评估新型吸入式尼古丁传递装置的潜在安全性和有效性至关重要。我们描述了一种实验方法,用于检查全身尼古丁摄入量,观察个体差异,比较JUUL电子烟和吸烟,并比较标准化雾化和随意使用。14名不经常使用电子烟的吸烟者在标准时段(5分钟内吸10次3.5秒)和4小时的自由使用时段吸JUUL或吸烟。测量血浆尼古丁浓度,并使用基于性别和体重的人群尼古丁清除率预测,估计每次治疗的全身尼古丁剂量。在标准化过程中,JUUL的药代动力学(PK)估计尼古丁剂量平均为0.55毫克(范围0.16-0.82),而吸烟的药代动力学(PK)估计尼古丁剂量平均为1.15毫克(范围0.35-4.56)。随意使用时,JUUL的pk估计剂量平均为4.1毫克(范围0.4-9.5),吸烟(平均3.4支香烟)的pk估计剂量为5.0毫克(范围1.5-15)。在个体相关性中,JUUL使用的pk估计剂量与标准化或自由使用的剂量比较弱(r = 0.45, NS),但吸烟的剂量更强(r = 0.82, p < 0.001)。随意使用的数据预测,JUUL胶囊中含有的液体的消费量相当于抽15支烟,这与现实世界研究中观察到的结果相似。我们得出的结论是,标准化的电子烟会话并不能预测随意使用尼古丁的通常自我给药行为。在不受限制的情况下,尼古丁的摄入量与吸电子烟和吸烟更相似,也能更好地预测产品在现实世界中的使用情况。该方法被推荐用于新型尼古丁吸入装置的筛选,并有助于FDA的监管决策。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
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