CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 30

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 2 of the 2 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Abuse liability assessment of the JUUL system in four flavors relative to combustible cigarette, nicotine gum and a comparator electronic nicotine delivery system among adult smokers

Goldenson, Nicholas I., Buchhalter, August R., Augustson, Erik M., Rubinstein, Mark L., Henningfield, Jack E.·2020·Drug and Alcohol Dependence
DOI 10.1016/j.drugalcdep.2020.108395
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

Background The abuse liability of the JUUL System (JS) in four flavors were evaluated compared to combustible cigarettes, nicotine gum, and a comparator electronic nicotine delivery system (ENDS) with pharmacokinetics (PK) and subjective effects. Methods Adult smokers (N = 66; 50.0 % female; mean age = 41.1; 63.6 % white) completed a 7-arm within-subjects cross-over product-use study while confined to a clinical laboratory. Participants used JS in four flavors (Virginia Tobacco, Mango, Mint, Creme, [5.0 % nicotine; 59 mg/mL]), their usual brand (UB) cigarette, a comparator ENDS (VUSE Solo; 4.8 % nicotine, tobacco-flavor), and mint nicotine gum (4 mg) under controlled use conditions. After each product use, nicotine PK and subjective effects were assessed. Results Maximum plasma nicotine levels (C max-BL ), rate of plasma nicotine rise, overall nicotine exposure (AUC 0-60-BL ), and subjective liking and satisfaction of JS were significantly lower than UB cigarettes. These parameters were generally greater for JS than nicotine gum; the comparator ENDS was somewhat lower but within the range of JS. Nicotine PK did not differ among the Mint, Mango, and Virginia Tobacco JS flavors. Mint and Mango were rated as more satisfying than Virginia Tobacco and Creme. Conclusions Controlled use of JS among adult smokers resulted in nicotine delivery, product liking, and satisfaction that were less than that of combustible cigarettes but generally greater than nicotine gum. These results sup…

Overview

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.drugalcdep.2020.108395

Cites

2 of 2 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Verification

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Citations

Cites

Show all 2 references

Research works printed but not linked: 37

  1. Abrams, 2018, Harm minimization and tobacco control: reframing societal views of nicotine use to rapidly save lives, Annu. Rev. Public Health, 39, 193, 10.1146/annurev-publhealth-040617-013849 · DOI
  2. Benjamini, 1995, Controlling the false discovery rate: a practical and powerful approach to multiple testing, Journal of the Royal statistical society: series B (Methodological), 57, 289, 10.1111/j.2517-6161.1995.tb02031.x · DOI · Paper page
  3. Carter, 2009, Abuse liability assessment of tobacco products including potential reduced exposure products, Cancer Epidemiol. Biomarkers Prev., 18, 3241, 10.1158/1055-9965.EPI-09-0948 · DOI · Paper page
  4. Cobb, 2019, Influence of electronic cigarette liquid flavors and nicotine concentration on subjective measures of abuse liability in young adult cigarette smokers, Drug Alcohol Depend., 203, 27, 10.1016/j.drugalcdep.2019.05.024 · DOI
  5. DeVito, 2019, Modulation of’ Protective’ nicotine perception and use profile by flavorants: preliminary findings in E-cigarettes, Nicotine Tob. Res.
  6. Fagerstrom, 2012, Determinants of tobacco use and renaming the FTND to the fagerstrom test for cigarette dependence, Nicotine Tob. Res., 14, 75, 10.1093/ntr/ntr137 · DOI
  7. Farsalinos, 2015, Nicotine absorption from electronic cigarette use: comparison between experienced consumers (vapers) and naive users (smokers), Sci. Rep., 5, 11269, 10.1038/srep11269 · DOI
  8. Fischman, 1991, Utility of subjective-effects measurements in assessing abuse liability of drugs in humans, Br. J. Addict., 86, 1563, 10.1111/j.1360-0443.1991.tb01749.x · DOI
  9. Food and Drug Administration, 2016, Fed Regist., 81, 28973
  10. Goldenson, 2016, Effects of sweet flavorings and nicotine on the appeal and sensory properties of e-cigarettes among young adult vapers: application of a novel methodology, Drug Alcohol Depend., 168, 176, 10.1016/j.drugalcdep.2016.09.014 · DOI
  11. Goldenson, 2019, A review of the use and appeal of flavored electronic cigarettes, Curr. Addict. Rep., 6, 98, 10.1007/s40429-019-00244-4 · DOI
  12. Gottlieb, 2017, A nicotine-focused framework for public health, N. Engl. J. Med., 377, 1111, 10.1056/NEJMp1707409 · DOI
  13. Hajek, 2020, Nicotine delivery and users’ reactions to Juul compared with cigarettes and other e-cigarette products, Addiction, 10.1111/add.14936 · DOI · Paper page
  14. Hatsukami, 2013, Subjective responses to oral tobacco products: scale validation, Nicotine Tob. Res., 15, 1259, 10.1093/ntr/nts265 · DOI
  15. Heatherton, 1991, The fagerstrom test for nicotine dependence: a revision of the fagerstrom tolerance questionnaire, Br. J. Addict., 86, 1119, 10.1111/j.1360-0443.1991.tb01879.x · DOI · Paper page
  16. Henningfield, 1993, Nicotine delivery kinetics and abuse liability, J. Consult. Clin. Psychol., 61, 743, 10.1037/0022-006X.61.5.743 · DOI · Paper page
  17. Henningfield, 2011, Conference on abuse liability and appeal of tobacco products: conclusions and recommendations, Drug Alcohol Depend., 116, 1, 10.1016/j.drugalcdep.2010.12.009 · DOI
  18. Hiler, 2017, Electronic cigarette user plasma nicotine concentration, puff topography, heart rate, and subjective effects: Influence of liquid nicotine concentration and user experience, Exp. Clin. Psychopharmacol., 25, 380, 10.1037/pha0000140 · DOI
  19. Houtsmuller, 2002, Flavor improvement does not increase abuse liability of nicotine chewing gum, Pharmacol. Biochem. Behav., 72, 559, 10.1016/S0091-3057(02)00723-2 · DOI
  20. Hughes, 1989, Dependence potential and abuse liability of nicotine replacement therapies, Biomed. Pharmacother., 43, 11, 10.1016/0753-3322(89)90185-6 · DOI
  21. Leventhal, 2019, Effects of non-tobacco flavors and nicotine on e-cigarette product appeal among young adult never, former, and current smokers, Drug Alcohol Depend., 203, 99, 10.1016/j.drugalcdep.2019.05.020 · DOI
  22. Liu, 2017, A comparison of nicotine dependence among exclusive E-cigarette and cigarette users in the PATH study, Prev. Med., 104, 86, 10.1016/j.ypmed.2017.04.001 · DOI
  23. Maloney, 2020, Acute effects of JUUL and IQOS in cigarette smokers, Tob. Control
  24. Mead, 2019, E-cigarette palatability in smokers as a function of flavorings, nicotine content and propylthiouracil (PROP) taster phenotype, Addict. Behav., 91, 37, 10.1016/j.addbeh.2018.11.014 · DOI
  25. Pullicin, 2019, Impacts of nicotine and flavoring on the sensory perception of E-Cigarette aerosol, Nicotine Tob. Res.
  26. Russell, 2019, Factors associated with past 30-day abstinence from cigarette smoking in a non-probabilistic sample of 15,456 adult established current smokers in the United States who used JUUL vapor products for three months, Harm Reduct. J., 16, 22, 10.1186/s12954-019-0293-7 · DOI
  27. Russell, 2019, Factors associated with past 30-day abstinence from cigarette smoking in adult established smokers who used a JUUL vaporizer for 6 months, Harm Reduct. J., 16, 59, 10.1186/s12954-019-0331-5 · DOI
  28. Shiffman, 2020, Dependence on e-cigarettes and cigarettes in a cross-sectional study of US adults, Addiction, 10.1111/add.15060 · DOI
  29. Shihadeh, 2015, Electronic cigarette effectiveness and abuse liability: predicting and regulating nicotine flux, Nicotine Tob. Res., 17, 158, 10.1093/ntr/ntu175 · DOI
  30. St Helen, 2017, Impact of e-liquid flavors on nicotine intake and pharmacology of e-cigarettes, Drug Alcohol Depend., 178, 391, 10.1016/j.drugalcdep.2017.05.042 · DOI
  31. Stiles, 2017, Pharmacodynamic and pharmacokinetic assessment of electronic cigarettes, combustible cigarettes, and nicotine gum: implications for abuse liability, Psychopharmacology (Berl.), 234, 2643, 10.1007/s00213-017-4665-y · DOI · Paper page
  32. Stiles, 2018, Assessment of the abuse liability of three menthol Vuse Solo electronic cigarettes relative to combustible cigarettes and nicotine gum, Psychopharmacology (Berl.), 235, 2077, 10.1007/s00213-018-4904-x · DOI · Paper page
  33. Strong, 2017, Indicators of dependence for different types of tobacco product users: descriptive findings from Wave 1 (2013-2014) of the Population Assessment of Tobacco and Health (PATH) study, Drug Alcohol Depend., 178, 257, 10.1016/j.drugalcdep.2017.05.010 · DOI
  34. Vansickel, 2013, Electronic cigarettes: effective nicotine delivery after acute administration, Nicotine Tob. Res., 15, 267, 10.1093/ntr/ntr316 · DOI
  35. Vansickel, 2010, A clinical laboratory model for evaluating the acute effects of electronic “cigarettes”: nicotine delivery profile and cardiovascular and subjective effects, Cancer Epidemiol. Biomarkers Prev., 19, 1945, 10.1158/1055-9965.EPI-10-0288 · DOI
  36. Vargas-Rivera, 2020, Effect of flavour manipulation on ENDS (JUUL) users’ experiences, puffing behaviour and nicotine exposure among US college students, Tob. Control
  37. West, 2000, A comparison of the abuse liability and dependence potential of nicotine patch, gum, spray and inhaler, Psychopharmacology (Berl.), 149, 198, 10.1007/s002130000382 · DOI

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Metadata

Authors
Goldenson, N. I., Buchhalter, A. R., Augustson, E. M., Rubinstein, M. L., & Henningfield, J. E.
Venue
Drug and Alcohol Dependence
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2020-12
Volume
217
Pages
108395
ISSN
0376-8716
DOI
10.1016/j.drugalcdep.2020.108395
Cited by
30
References
2
Language
en
Licence
Funders
Juul Labs, Inc.

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review