A Clinical Laboratory Model for Evaluating the Acute Effects of Electronic “Cigarettes”: Nicotine Delivery Profile and Cardiovascular and Subjective Effects

Introduction:
This article reports a clinical laboratory study that aimed to evaluate the acute effects of electronic cigarettes (EC) on nicotine delivery, cardiovascular response, and subjective effects in smokers. The study compared two marketed EC brands with own brand cigarettes and sham smoking. The results provide insights into the potential benefits and risks of using EC as a reduced-exposure product for smokers.

Key points:

* The study enrolled 32 smokers who completed four sessions in a Latin-square design, each with a different product: own brand cigarette, sham cigarette, NPRO EC, and Hydro EC.
* The primary outcomes measured were plasma nicotine and CO concentration, heart rate, and subjective effects (e.g., craving and acceptability).
* Own brand cigarettes significantly increased plasma nicotine and CO concentration and heart rate, whereas EC and sham cigarettes did not.
* Both EC and own brand cigarettes decreased tobacco abstinence symptom ratings and increased product acceptability ratings, but the magnitude of suppression and increased acceptability was greater for own brand than for EC.
* The results suggest that neither of the EC brands exposed users to measurable levels of nicotine or CO, but both suppressed nicotine/tobacco abstinence symptom ratings.
* The study highlights the potential of clinical laboratory methods for evaluating the acute effects of electronic cigarettes and similar products, providing valuable information for regulation and risk assessment.

Main message:
The study demonstrates the usefulness of clinical laboratory methods for evaluating the acute effects of electronic cigarettes and other potential reduced-exposure products (PREPs) for smokers. Under the testing conditions, neither of the EC brands exposed users to nicotine or CO, but both suppressed nicotine/tobacco abstinence symptom ratings, indicating potential benefits for smokers. However, the lack of measurable nicotine and CO exposure raises concerns about the products' effectiveness in reducing harm. The results and methods reported in this study will likely be relevant to the evaluation and empirically based regulation of electronic cigarettes and similar products.

Vansickel, Andrea R., Caroline O. Cobb, Michael F. Weaver, and Thomas E. Eissenberg. “A Clinical Laboratory Model for Evaluating the Acute Effects of Electronic ‘Cigarettes’: Nicotine Delivery Profile and Cardiovascular and Subjective Effects.” Cancer Epidemiology, Biomarkers & Prevention 19, no. 8 (August 1, 2010): 1945–53. https://doi.org/10.1158/1055-9965.EPI-10-0288.