Nicotine delivery and relief of craving after consumption of European JUUL e-cigarettes prior and after pod modification

Coolants, organic acids, flavourings and other additives that facilitate inhalation of tobacco and nicotine products: implications for regulation

To inform regulatory policy, this article summarises findings on inhalation facilitation from the ninth report of the WHO Study Group on Tobacco Product Regulation. Some additives counteract the harshness and bitterness of tobacco and nicotine product aerosols, making them easier to inhale. Additives that promote inhalability may perpetuate and increase the use of inhaled tobacco and nicotine products, especially by young people. Thus, as a class, additives that facilitate inhalation are an important regulatory target to prevent tobacco and nicotine product uptake. We defined inhalation facilitation as modifications to products during manufacturing that enhance the sensory experience and (potentially) behaviours associated with inhalation (eg, deeper puffs, faster inhalation, larger puff volume, shorter intervals in between puffs and use episodes). Evidence review showed that: (a) menthol and synthetic coolants decrease irritation caused by aerosol constituents by activating sensory perception receptors (eg, cooling receptors) and may promote dependence in inexperienced users; (b) acid additives and sugars, which lower the pH of aerosols and shift nicotine from free-base to protonated salt forms, reduce harshness and increase blood nicotine yield; (c) e-cigarette flavourings perceived as sweet or fruity reduce subjective bitterness, increase attractiveness and may escalate use, although their effects on perceived harshness are inconclusive; (d) sugars in tobacco impart sweet sensations, but limited industry-independent data preclude strong conclusions for sugars' roles in inhalation facilitation. Given these findings, WHO policy recommendations suggest that regulators might consider banning ingredients that facilitate inhalation in all commercial inhaled tobacco and nicotine products.

Differential Toxicity of Electronic Cigarette Aerosols Generated from Different Generations of Devices In Vitro and In Vivo

Electronic cigarettes (e-cigs) have become increasingly popular, especially among youth, raising concerns about their potential health risks. JUUL and Tank devices are two common types of e-cigs that deliver aerosols with varying nicotine levels and flavors. However, the differences in the aerosols generated from different devices and their corresponding cytotoxicity and pulmonary injury effects remain poorly understood. This study addresses these knowledge gaps by characterizing the aerosols of JUUL and Tank e-cig devices and testing their toxic effects on THP-1 and BEAS-2B human cell lines as well as the C57BL/6J mouse model. In our study, the lower-voltage device, the 3.7 V JUUL generates 2.72 mg/puff aerosols by using e-liquid containing 3% nicotine salt (i.e., nicotine benzoate), which is less than the 11.06 mg/puff aerosols generated by the 7.5 V Tank using e-liquid containing 2.4% freebase nicotine. Yet, the cytotoxicity results reveal that JUUL aerosols induced higher toxicity and increased production of pro-inflammation cytokines compared to Tank aerosols per puff. Additionally, we observed that JUUL induced more severe pulmonary inflammation and DNA damage compared to Tank after normalizing for cotinine, a nicotine metabolite, in vivo. Our findings suggest that the device design plays a more important role in e-cig aerosol-induced toxicity than the composition of the e-liquid or voltage. These results provide valuable insights into the health risks associated with various electronic-cig devices and offer an approach for evaluating them.

Two Different Heated Tobacco Products vs. Cigarettes: Comparison of Nicotine Delivery and Subjective Effects in Experienced Users

Heated tobacco products (HTPs) produce aerosol using a different mechanism than tobacco cigarettes, leading to lower emissions of some harmful substances, but also of nicotine as reported by some independent studies. Lower nicotine delivery could lead to compensatory puffing when product use does not sufficiently satisfy cravings. Thus, this three-arm crossover study was conducted to characterize the potential of two different HTPs to deliver nicotine and satisfy cravings compared with conventional cigarettes in users who had already switched to HTPs. Fifteen active, non-exclusive HTP users consumed the study products according to a pre-directed puffing protocol. At predetermined time points, venous blood was sampled and the subjective effects of consumption were assessed. Nicotine delivery by both HTPs was comparable, but significantly lower than that by conventional cigarettes, suggesting a lower addictive potential. Cravings were reduced by all products, with no statistically significant differences between them, despite the different nicotine deliveries. This indicated that HTPs do not necessarily need high nicotine deliveries with high addictive potential, as are characteristic of tobacco cigarettes. These results were followed up on with an ad libitum use study.

Comparing the Effects of the EU- Versus the US-JUUL Pod in a Sample of UK Smokers: Nicotine Absorption, Satisfaction, and Other Nicotine-Related Subjective Effects

INTRODUCTION

Pod Vaping Devices (PVD) such as JUUL have become extremely popular in the United States although their uptake and use in the United Kingdom remain lower. A key difference between the United States and the United Kingdom is the nicotine strength legally permitted, typically 59 mg/mL in the United States but capped at 20 mg/mL in the United Kingdom and European Union. This may limit the ability of EU vaping devices to deliver satisfactory nicotine levels. The primary aim was to compare the EU- (18 mg/mL nicotine strength) with the U.S.-JUUL (59 mg/mL) on daily smokers' subjective experiences, craving relief, and blood nicotine levels.

AIMS AND METHODS

Double-blind, counterbalanced within-participants design with two conditions: 18 mg/mL versus 59 mg/mL. On two separate occasions, UK smokers (N =19, 10 males, 9 females) vaped ad libitum for 60 mins and provided blood samples at baseline 5, 15, 30, and 60 min. Subjective effects (incl. satisfaction) were measured at 10 and 60 min and, craving and withdrawal symptoms (WS) at baseline, 10 and 60 min.

RESULTS

Satisfaction did not differ between conditions. There was a significant interaction between Time and Nicotine concentration for Nicotine Hit (p = .045). Mean self-report of Nicotine Hit increased under the use of the 59 mg/mL from 10 to 60 min and decreased under the 18 mg/mL. Participants reported higher Throat Hits following use of the 59 mg/mL (p = .017). There were no differences in other subjective effects including craving, WS relief (ps > .05). Liquid consumption was doubled under the 18 versus the 59 mg/mL (p = .001) and nicotine boost was significantly higher in the 59 mg/mL at all time-points (p ≤ .001).

CONCLUSIONS

The results did not support our hypotheses that satisfaction, craving, and withdrawal reduction would be higher with the 59 mg/mL JUUL. This could be because of the doubling of liquid consumption in the 18 mg/mL. Whether satisfaction and craving relief persist over the longer-term outside of the lab remains to be determined.

IMPLICATIONS

In a 60-min ad-lib vaping session, the EU-JUUL was found to produce comparable satisfaction, craving- and withdrawal relief as the U.S.-JUUL in this sample of UK smokers. These findings could suggest that the higher nicotine concentrations available in PVDs in the United States are not necessary for providing satisfaction and improving craving and WS. However, this was at the expense of a considerable increase in liquid consumption indicative of compensatory puffing.

Sensory appeal and puffing intensity of e-cigarette use: Influence of nicotine salts versus free-base nicotine in e-liquids

BACKGROUND

In the US, nicotine salts (with protonated nicotine instead of free-based nicotine) have been reported to lower the harshness and bitterness of e-cigarette aerosols, making it easier to inhale high levels of nicotine. This study aimed to determine whether nicotine salts also increase sensory appeal at lower concentrations (< 20mg/mL). Moreover, and novel, inhalation intensity of both types of e-liquids was compared.

METHODS

In a randomized, double-blinded, within-participants design, healthy adults who use e-cigarettes (n=68) vaped tobacco-flavored e-liquids containing 12mg/mL of free-based nicotine or nicotine salt ad libitum, using their own device, during two online sessions (June-July 2021, Utrecht, The Netherlands). The sensory parameters perceived liking, nicotine intensity, harshness, and pleasantness were rated on a 100-unit visual analog scale. The intensity of use was determined by the recorded puff number, duration and interval.

RESULTS

Test scores on appeal, harshness and puffing behavior parameters showed no significant differences between the nicotine salt and the free-base condition. The average inhalation time was 2.5seconds. Additional analyses found no significant effect of liquid order, age, gender, smoking status, vaping frequency and familiarity with nicotine salts. Significant positive correlations were found between the sensory parameters except for harshness.

CONCLUSIONS

Contrary to a previous study that used higher nicotine concentrations and standardized puffing conditions in a laboratory setting, we did not observe the effects of nicotine salts on sensory appeal in our real-life study paradigm. Moreover, we did not see effects on study parameters related to puffing intensity.

Usage Pattern and Nicotine Delivery during Ad Libitum Consumption of Pod E-Cigarettes and Heated Tobacco Products

Many different nicotine delivery products, such as e-cigarettes (e-cigs) or heated tobacco products (HTPs), are available on the market. To better understand these products, it is crucial to learn how consumers use them and how much nicotine they deliver. Therefore, a pod e-cig, an HTP, and a conventional cigarette (CC) were each used by 15 experienced users of the respective product category for 90 min without special use instructions ("ad libitum"). Sessions were video recorded to analyze usage patterns and puff topography. At defined time points, blood was sampled to determine nicotine concentrations, and subjective effects were inquired about using questionnaires. During the study period, the CC and HTP groups averaged the same number of consumption units (both 4.2 units). In the pod e-cig group, the highest number of puffs was taken (pod e-cig 71.9; HTP: 52.2; CC: 42.3 puffs) with the most extended mean puff duration (pod e-cig: 2.8 s; HTP: 1.9 s; CC: 1.8 s). Pod e-cigs were predominantly used with single puffs or in short clusters of 2-5 puffs. The maximum plasma nicotine concentration was highest for CCs, followed by HTPs, and then pod e-cigs with 24.0, 17.7, and 8.0 ng/mL, respectively. Craving was reduced by all products. The results suggest that the high nicotine delivery known for tobacco-containing products (CCs and HTPs) may not be needed for non-tobacco-containing products (pod e-cigs) to satisfy cravings in experienced users.

Toward Better Characterization of a Free-Base Nicotine Fraction in e-Liquids and Aerosols

Given that nicotine salts are a growing market, methods are needed to characterize nicotine forms in e-cigarette vaping products. By lowering the free-base nicotine fraction (α_fb) in favor of protonated forms, the addition of organic acids to the e-liquid mix greatly modulates nicotine pharmacokinetics and improves vapers' craving. This research investigated (1) the performance of pH measurement, liquid-liquid extraction (LLE), and acid/nicotine molar ratio calculation methods for α_fb estimation in 6 nicotine benzoate and nicotine salicylate e-liquids and (2) nicotine protonation in the aerosol post vaporization. Aerosols were generated with a JUUL device and another mod-pod on a vaping machine to assess device effects. E-liquid and aerosol samples were then analyzed after further analytical optimization of previous methods and careful consideration of biases. Globally, performances were comparable between methods. α_fb accounted for less than 5% of nicotine content regardless of experimental conditions. α_fb were consistent between e-liquids and aerosols irrespective of e-cigarette devices. Hence, e-liquids are adequate surrogates for aerosols, facilitating the establishment of regulations. pH measurement is one of the most used methods and enables the establishment of relative scales for e-liquid classification but lacks automation possibility. Until now, the extent of sample dilution remained arbitrary. The dilution factor was fixed at 10, as usually achieved, since no effect of dilution was noted. pH values ranged from 5.3 to 6.3 in accordance with the literature. By contrast, LLE relies on the specificity of organic solvent for free-base nicotine extraction, causing discrepancies in previous studies. Here, the results were similar to α_fb values from pH determination. Yet, LLE presented the highest variability and was the most time-consuming protocol. Finally, α_fb calculation from molar ratio was the most robust and versatile method. Estimations can be made in silico from reported composition data and/or after liquid chromatography routine analysis.

Cardiovascular functions and arterial stiffness after JUUL use

INTRODUCTION

The rapid growth in the e-cigarette market after the launch of JUUL e-cigarettes led to much discussion on the potential benefits and risks of pods, JUUL devices, and conventional e-cigarettes compared with combustible cigarettes. Independent data are required to assess the effects of these products on cardiovascular surrogate parameters and cardiovascular risk.

METHODS

We conducted a single-center three-arm study comparing combustible cigarettes with JUUL e-cigarettes with the old and new technology. We recruited 32 participants who were active smokers (n=15) or vapers (n=17) and performed a total of 39 measurements before and 5, 15, and 30 minutes, after participants smoked a combustible cigarette or vaped a JUUL e-cigarette with the new or old technology. Measurements included peripheral and central blood pressures and parameters of arterial stiffness, including pulse wave velocity and augmentation index.

RESULTS

Peripheral systolic blood pressure, central blood pressure, and peripheral pulse rate increased significantly in all three groups (each p<0.05). Heart rate (HR) changes lasted significantly longer than blood pressure changes. The augmentation index and pulse wave velocity increased in all three groups, and a multivariate analysis of variance showed that the increases were independent of systolic blood pressure, sex, age, device, and HR.

CONCLUSIONS

Changes in blood pressure and arterial stiffness are similar after cigarette smoking and JUUL use. These changes may be associated with an increased cardiovascular risk compared with no product use. However, a long-term follow-up evaluation of JUUL use and a head-to-head comparison with conventional e-cigarettes are still needed.