CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 140

Nicotine delivery and users’ reactions to Juul compared with cigarettes and other e‐cigarette products

Hajek, Peter, Pittaccio, Kate, Pesola, Francesca, Myers Smith, Katie, Phillips‐Waller, Anna, Przulj, Dunja·2020·Addiction
DOI 10.1111/add.14936PMC PMC7318270
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

Aims: To assess the pharmacokinetic (PK) profile of, and users’ reactions to, Juul (59 mg nicotine/ml) as an indication of its therapeutic and dependence potential. Design: Cross‐over, within‐subjects study in which participants attended after overnight abstinence on separate sessions and smoked a cigarette or used Juul or eight other types of e‐cigarettes (EC)ad libitum for 5 minutes. The Juul product used was the version available in the United States that has more nicotine in the e‐liquid than the one available in the European Union. Setting: Laboratory setting in the United Kingdom. Participants: Twenty dual users (smokers who also vape) provided data on Juul and cigarettes, with eight also providing data on other EC products. Measurements: At each session, number of puffs taken was counted during the 5‐minute product use period and blood samples were taken at baseline and at 2, 4, 6, 8, 10 and 30 minutes after starting smoking/vaping and analysed for nicotine. Participants also monitored their urges to smoke and rated the products on a range of characteristics. Findings: Juul's PK profile was close to the PK profile of cigarettes [maximum concentration (C max) = 20.4 versus 19.2 ng/ml; time to maximum concentration (T max) = 4 versus 6 minutes; area under the curve (AUC): 307.9 versus 312.6, respectively]. Compared with other EC products, Juul had shorter T max[4 minutes, (IQR = 2.5–4.0) versus 6.3 minutes, (IQR = 4.7 – 8.1),P= 0.012] and higher C max(28.9 (SD = 15.6) versus 10.6 (SD = 5.5),P= 0.013) despite a lower number of puffs (12.5 (SD = 4.2) versus 17.0 (SD = 4.2),P= 0.084). Compared with other e‐cigarette products, it also provided faster reduction of urges to smoke and obtained more favourable subjective ratings. Conclusion: Juul's PK profile and user ratings suggest that it could be more effective than other EC products in helping smokers to quit smoking, but it may also have a higher potential to generate regular use in non‐smokers.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1111/add.14936

Cites

1 of 1 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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?

  • It has been suggested for other types of nicotine delivery products, such as e-cigarettes, that a higher nicotine delivery from these devices (closer to that of cigarette smoking) is likely to provide smokers with a more satisfactory alternative to conventional cigarettes.

    “It has been suggested for other types of nicotine delivery products, such as e-cigarettes, that a higher nicotine delivery from these devices (i.e. closer to that of cigarette smoking) is likely to provide smokers with a more satisfactory alternative to conventional cigarettes [23].”

    From A Randomised Study to Investigate the Nicotine Pharmacokinetics of Oral Nicotine Pouches and a Combustible Cigarette (2022) · cites this paper as [23]

  • Nicotine delivery from alternative products is important in providing smokers with a satisfactory alternative to cigarette smoking.

    “Given the importance of nicotine delivery from alternative products in providing smokers with a satisfactory alternative to cigarette smoking [13, 23], studies assessing the delivery and pharmacokinetics of nicotine from NPs are required to inform our understanding of their harm reduction potential.”

    From A Randomised Study to Investigate the Nicotine Pharmacokinetics of Oral Nicotine Pouches and a Combustible Cigarette (2022) · cites this paper as [23]

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 28

  1. [1]King B. A., Gammon D. G., Marynak K. L., Rogers T. Electronic cigarette sales in the United States, 2013–2017. JAMA 2018; 320: 1379– 1380. 30285167 PMC6233837
  2. [2]Kavuluru R., Han S., Hahn E. J. On the popularity of the USB flash drive‐shaped electronic cigarette Juul. Tob Control 2019; 28: 110– 112. 29654121 PMC6186192
  3. [3]Hammond D., Wackowski O. A., Reid J. L., O’Connor R. J., International Tobacco Control Policy Evaluation Project (ITC) team Use of JUUL e‐cigarettes among youth in the United States. Nicotine Tob Res 2018. doi: 10.1093/ntr/nty237. PMC7171277 30371838 · DOI
  4. [4]Vallone D. M., Bennett M., Xiao H., Pitzer L., Hair E. C. Prevalence and correlates of JUUL use among a national sample of youth and young adults. Tob Control 2019; 28: 603– 609. 30377241
  5. [5]Cantrell J., Vallone D., Hair E., Huang J., Greenberg M., Willett J. History and current trends in the electronic cigarette retail marketplace in the United States: 2010–2016. Nicotine Tob Res 2018. doi: 10.1093/ntr/nty214. 30312465 · DOI
  6. [6]Caldwell B., Sumner W., Crane J. J. N., Research T. A systematic review of nicotine by inhalation: is there a role for the inhaled route? Nicotine Tob Res 2012; 14: 1127– 1139. 22377934
  7. [7]Hajek P., Etter J. F., Benowitz N., Eissenberg T., McRobbie H. Electronic cigarettes: review of use, content, safety, effects on smokers and potential for harm and benefit. Addiction 2014; 109: 1801– 1810. 25078252 PMC4487785
  8. [8]Wonnacott S., Russell M. A. H., Stolerman I. P. Nicotine psychopharmacology: Molecular, cellular, and behavioural aspects. Cary, NC: Oxford University Press; 1990.
  9. [9]Hajek P., Przulj D., Phillips A., Anderson R., McRobbie H. Nicotine delivery to users from cigarettes and from different types of e‐cigarettes. Psychopharmacology 2017; 234: 773– 779. 28070620 PMC5306435
  10. [11]West R., Hajek P., Foulds J., Nilsson F., May S., Meadows A. J. P. A comparison of the abuse liability and dependence potential of nicotine patch, gum, spray and inhaler. Psychopharmacology 2000; 149: 198– 202. 10823399
  11. [12]Hajek P., Jackson P., Belcher M. Long‐term use of nicotine chewing gum: occurrence, determinants, and effect on weight gain. JAMA 1988; 260: 1593– 1596. 3411739
  12. [13]Hajek P., Phillips‐Waller A., Przulj D., Pesola F., Myers Smith K., Bisal N., et al A randomized trial of e‐cigarettes versus nicotine‐replacement therapy. N Engl J Med 2019; 380: 629– 637. 30699054
  13. [14]Birge M., Duffy S., Miler J. A., Hajek P. J. N., Research T. What proportion of people who try one cigarette become daily smokers? A meta analysis of representative surveys. Nicotine Tob Res 2017; 20: 1427– 1433. 29126298
  14. [15]Bauld L., MacKintosh A. M., Ford A., McNeill A. J. N., Research T. E‐cigarette uptake amongst UK youth: experimentation, but little or no regular use in nonsmokers. Nicotine Tob Res 2015; 18: 102– 103. 26250882
  15. [17]Barrington‐Trimis J. L., Leventhal A. M. Adolescents’ use of ‘pod mod’ E‐cigarettes—urgent concerns. N Engl J Med 2018; 379: 1099– 1102. 30134127 PMC7489756
  16. [19]Hajek P., Przulj D., Phillips‐Waller A., Anderson R., McRobbie H. Initial ratings of different types of e‐cigarettes and relationships between product appeal and nicotine delivery. Psychopharmacology 2018; 235: 1083– 1092. 29306962 PMC5869900
  17. [20]Jacob P. III, Yu L., Duan M., Ramos L., Yturralde O., Benowitz N. L. Determination of the nicotine metabolites cotinine and trans‐3′‐hydroxycotinine in biologic fluids of smokers and non‐smokers using liquid chromatography–tandem mass spectrometry: biomarkers for tobacco smoke exposure and for phenotyping cytochrome P450 2A6 activity. J Chromatogr B 2011; 879: 267– 276. PMC3050598 21208832
  18. [21]Taylor J., Triggle D. Comprehensive medicinal chemistry II. New York, NY: Elsevier; 2007.
  19. [22]Zhang Y., Huo M., Zhou J., Xie S. PKSolver: an add‐in program for pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic data analysis in Microsoft excel. Comput Methods Programs Biomed 2010; 99: 306– 314. 20176408
  20. [23]Gabrielsson J., Weiner D. Pharmacokinetic and Pharmacodynamic Data Analysis: Concepts and Applications. Stockholm. Sweden: Swedish Pharmaceutical Press; 2000.
  21. [24]Stead L. F., Perera R., Bullen C., Mant D., Hartmann‐Boyce J., Cahill K. et al Nicotine replacement therapy for smoking cessation. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2012; 11: CD000146. 23152200
  22. [25]Schuh K. J., Schuh L. M., Henningfield J. E., Stitzer M. L. J. P. Nicotine nasal spray and vapor inhaler: abuse liability assessment. Psychopharmacology 1997; 130: 352– 361. 9160851
  23. [26]Nemeth‐Coslett R., Henningfield J., O'Keeffe M., Griffiths R. R. Nicotine gum: dose‐related effects on cigarette smoking and subjective ratings. Psychopharmacology 1987; 92: 424– 430. 3114794
  24. [27]Hoffman A. C., Evans S. E. J. N., Research T. Abuse potential of non‐nicotine tobacco smoke components: acetaldehyde, nornicotine, cotinine, and anabasine. Nicotine Tob Res 2012; 15: 622– 632. 22990226
  25. [28]Hogg R. C. J. N., Research T. Contribution of monoamine oxidase inhibition to tobacco dependence: a review of the evidence. Nicotine Tob Res 2015; 18: 509– 523. 26508396
  26. [29]Przulj D., McRobbie H., Hajek P. Effects of nicotine‐free E‐cigarettes on urges to smoke and cigarette withdrawal symptoms: a randomised cross‐over study. J Addict Res Ther 2016; 7. doi: 10.4172/2155‐6105.1000259. · DOI
  27. [30]Rosen L. J., Galili T., Kott J., Goodman M., Freedman L. S. J. A. Diminishing benefit of smoking cessation medications during the first year: a meta‐analysis of randomized controlled trials. Addiction 2018; 113: 805– 816. 29377409 PMC5947828
  28. [31]Hajek P. The development and testing of new nicotine replacement treatments: from ‘nicotine replacement’ to ‘smoking replacement’. Addiction 2015; 110: 19– 22. 26042563

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Hajek, P., Pittaccio, K., Pesola, F., Myers Smith, K., Phillips‐Waller, A., & Przulj, D.
Affiliations
  • Health and Lifestyle Research Unit Queen Mary University of London London UK
  • Faculty of Life Sciences and Medicine King's College London London UK
ORCID
Venue
Addiction
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2020-01-29
Volume
115
Issue
6
Pages
1141-1148
ISSN
  • 0965-2140
  • 1360-0443
DOI
10.1111/add.14936
PMC
PMC7318270
Cited by
140
References
1
Language
en
Licence
creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ (vor)
Funders
Cancer Research UK (C49913/A25756)

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