Acute electronic cigarette use: nicotine delivery and subjective effects in regular users

Rationale Electronic cigarettes are becoming increasingly popular among smokers worldwide. Commonly reported reasons for use include the following: to quit smoking, to avoid relapse, to reduce urge to smoke, or as a perceived lower-risk alternative to smoking. Few studies, however, have explored whether electronic cigarettes (e-cigarettes) deliver measurable levels of nicotine to the blood. Objective This study aims to explore in experienced users the effect of using an 18-mg/ml nicotine first-generation e-cigarette on blood nicotine, tobacco withdrawal symptoms, and urge to smoke. Methods Fourteen regular e-cigarette users (three females), who are abstinent from smoking and e-cigarette use for 12 h, each completed a 2.5 h testing session. Blood was sampled, and questionnaires were completed (tobacco-related withdrawal symptoms, urge to smoke, positive and negative subjective effects) at four stages: baseline, 10 puffs, 60 min of ad lib use and a 60-min rest period. Results Complete sets of blood were obtained from seven participants. Plasma nicotine concentration rose significantly from a mean of 0.74 ng/ml at baseline to 6.77 ng/ml 10 min after 10 puffs, reaching a mean maximum of 13.91 ng/ml by the end of the ad lib puffing period. Tobacco-related withdrawal symptoms and urge to smoke were significantly reduced; direct positive effects were strongly endorsed, and there was very low reporting of adverse effects. Conclusions These findings demonstrate reliable blood nicotine delivery after the acute use of this brand/model of e-cigarette in a sample of regular users. Future studies might usefully quantify nicotine delivery in relation to inhalation technique and the relationship with successful smoking cessation/harm reduction

Nicotine delivery to users from cigarettes and from different types of e-cigarettes

BACKGROUND: Delivering nicotine in the way smokers seek is likely to be the key factor in e-cigarette (EC) success in replacing cigarettes. We examined to what degree different types of EC mimic nicotine intake from cigarettes. METHODS: Twelve participants (‘dual users’ of EC and cigarettes) used their own brand cigarette and nine different EC brands. Blood samples were taken at baseline and at 2-min intervals for 10 min and again at 30 min. RESULTS: Eleven smokers provided usable data. None of the EC matched cigarettes in nicotine delivery (C (max) = 17.9 ng/ml, T (max) = 4 min and AUC(0–>30) = 315 ng/ml/min). The EC with 48 mg/ml nicotine generated the closest PK profile (C (max) = 13.6 ng/ml, T (max) = 4 min, AUC(0–>30) = 245 ng/ml/min), followed by a third generation EC using 20 mg/ml nicotine (C (max) = 11.9 ng/ml, T (max) = 6 min, AUC(0–>30) = 232 ng/ml/min), followed by the tank system using 20 mg/ml nicotine (C (max) = 9.9 ng/ml, T (max) = 6 min, AUC(0–>30) = 201 ng/ml/min). Cig-a-like PK values were similar, ranging from C (max) 7.5 to 9.7 ng/ml, T (max) 4-6 min, and AUC(0–>30) 144 to 173 ng/ml/min. Moderate differences in e-liquid nicotine concentrations had little effect on nicotine delivery, e.g. the EC with 24 mg/ml cartridge had the same PK profile as ECs with 16 mg/ml cartridges. Using similar strength e-liquid, the tank EC provided significantly more nicotine than cig-a-like ECs. CONCLUSIONS: EC brands we tested do not deliver nicotine as efficiently as cigarettes, but newer EC products deliver nicotine more efficiently than cig-a-like brands. Moderate variations in nicotine content of e-liquid have little effect on nicotine delivery. Smokers who are finding cig-a-like EC unsatisfactory should be advised to try more advanced systems