Impact of Different e-Cigarette Generation and Models on Cognitive Performances, Craving and Gesture: A Randomized Cross-Over Trial (CogEcig)

Pasquale Caponnetto, Marilena Maglia, Maria Concetta Cannella, Lucio Inguscio, Mariachiara Buonocore, Claudio Scoglio, Riccardo Polosa, Valeria Vinci, Pasquale Caponnetto, Marilena Maglia, Maria Concetta Cannella, Lucio Inguscio, Mariachiara Buonocore, Claudio Scoglio, Riccardo Polosa, Valeria Vinci

Abstract

Introduction: Most electronic-cigarettes (e-cigarette) are designed to look like traditional cigarettes and simulate the visual, sensory, and behavioral aspects of smoking traditional cigarettes. This research aimed to explore whether different e-cigarette models and smokers' usual classic cigarettes can impact on cognitive performances, craving and gesture. Methods: The study is randomized cross-over trial designed to compare cognitive performances, craving, and gesture in subjects who used first generation electronic cigarettes, second generation electronic cigarettes with their usual cigarettes. (Trial registration: ClinicalTrials.gov number NCT01735487). Results: Cognitive performance was not affected by "group condition." Within-group repeated measures analyses showed a significant time effect, indicating an increase of participants' current craving measure in group "usual classic cigarettes (group C)," "disposable cigalike electronic cigarette loaded with cartridges with 24 mg nicotine (group H), second generation electronic cigarette, personal vaporizer model Ego C, loaded with liquid nicotine 24 mg (group E). Measures of gesture not differ over the course of the experiment for all the products under investigation Conclusion: All cognitive measures attention, executive function and working memory are not influenced by the different e-cigarette and gender showing that in general electronics cigarettes could become a strong support also from a cognitive point of view for those who decide to quit smoking. It seems that not only craving and other smoke withdrawal symptoms but also cognitive performance is not only linked to the presence of nicotine; this suggests that the reasons behind the dependence and the related difficulty to quit smoking needs to be looked into also other factors like the gesture.

Clinical trial registration: www.ClinicalTrials.gov, identifier NCT01735487.

Keywords: adverse events; cigarette substitutes; cognition; electronic cigarettes; electronic nicotine delivery devices; smoking cessation; smoking reduction.

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
Means for each group in CPT AX, WCST, N-BACK version 1 and 2, test.
Figure 2
Figure 2
Means for each group in eCo.
Figure 3
Figure 3
Means for each group in Craving measures.

References

    1. Bullen C., McRobbie H., Thornley S., Glover M., Lin R., Laugesen M. (2010). Effect of an electronic nicotine delivery device (e cigarette) on desire to smoke and withdrawal, user preferences and nicotine delivery: randomised cross-over trial. Tob. Control. 19, 98–103. 10.1136/tc.2009.031567
    1. Caponnetto P., Campagna D., Cibella F., Morjaria J. B., Caruso M., Russo C., et al. . (2013b). Efficiency and safety of an electronic cigarette (ECLAT) as tobacco cigarettes substitute: a prospective 12-month randomized control design study. PLoS ONE 8:e66317. 10.1371/journal.pone.0066317
    1. Caponnetto P., Campagna D., Papale G., Russo C., Polosa R. (2012). The emerging phenomenon of electronic cigarettes. Expert Rev. Respir. Med. 6, 63–74. 10.1586/ers.11.92
    1. Caponnetto P., Russo C., Bruno C. M., Alamo A., Amaradio M. D., Polosa R. (2013a). Electronic cigarette: a possible substitute for cigarette dependence. Monaldi Arch. Chest Dis. 79, 12–19. 10.4081/monaldi.2013.104
    1. Dawkins L., Turner J., Crowe E. (2013b). Nicotine derived from the electronic cigarette improves time-based prospective memory in abstinent smokers. Psychopharmacology (Berl). 227, 377–384. 10.1007/s00213-013-2983-2
    1. Dawkins L., Turner J., Hasna S., Soar K. (2012). The electronic-cigarette: effects on desire to smoke, withdrawal symptoms and cognition. Addict. Behav. 37, 970–973. 10.1016/j.addbeh.2012.03.004
    1. Dawkins L., Turner J., Roberts A., Soar K. (2013a). Vaping profiles and preferences: an online survey of electronic cigarette users. Addiction 108, 1115–1125. 10.1111/add.12150
    1. Etter J. F. (2010). Electronic cigarettes: a survey of users. BMC Public Health 10:231. 10.1186/1471-2458-10-231
    1. Fagerstrom K. O., Schneider N. G. (1989). Measuring nicotine dependence: a review of the Fagerstrom Tolerance Questionnaire. J. Behav. Med. 12, 159–182. 10.1007/BF00846549
    1. Glover E. D., Nilsson F., Westin A., Glover P. N., Laflin M. T., Persson B. (2005). Developmental history of the glover-nilsson smoking behavioral questionnaire. Am. J. Health Behav. 29, 443–455. 10.5993/AJHB.29.5.7
    1. Goniewicz M. L., Lingas E. O., Hajek P. (2013). Patterns of electronic cigarette use and user beliefs about their safety and benefits: an Internet survey. Drug Alcohol Rev. 32, 133–140. 10.1111/j.1465-3362.2012.00512.x
    1. Heishman S. J., Kleykamp B. A., Singleton E. G. (2010). Meta-analysis of the acute effects of nicotine and smoking on human performance. Psychopharmacology 210, 453–469. 10.1007/s00213-010-1848-1
    1. Hon L. (2005). A Non-Smokable Electronic Spray Cigarette (CA 2518174) {Patent notice}, ed Record C. P. O. CPO.
    1. IBM Corp Released (2010). IBM SPSS Statistics for Windows, Version 19.1. Armonk, NY: IBM Corp.
    1. Kabbani N. (2013). Not so Cool? Menthol's discovered actions on the nicotinic receptor and its implications for nicotine addiction. Front. Pharmacol. 4:95. 10.3389/fphar.2013.00095
    1. Kirchner W. K. (1958). Age differences in short-term retention of rapidly changing information. J. Exp. Psychol. 55, 352–358. 10.1037/h0043688
    1. McEwen A., West R., McRobbie H. (2008). Motives for smoking and their correlates in clients attending Stop Smoking treatment services. Nicotine Tobacco Res. 10, 843–850. 10.1080/14622200802027248
    1. Mueller E. T., Landes R. D., Kowal B. P., Yi R., Stitzer M. L., Burnett C. A., et al. (2009). Delay of smoking gratification as a laboratory model of relapse: effects of incentives for not smoking, and relationship with measures of executive function. Behav. Pharmacol. 20, 461–473. 10.1097/fbp.0b013e3283305ec7
    1. Polosa R., Caponnetto P., Morjaria J. B., Papale G., Campagna D., Russo C. (2011). Effect of an electronic nicotine delivery device (e-Cigarette) on smoking reduction and cessation: a prospective 6-month pilot study. BMC Public Health 11:786. 10.1186/1471-2458-11-786
    1. Polosa R., Morjaria J. B., Caponnetto P., Campagna D., Russo C., Alamo A., et al. . (2013). Effectiveness and tolerability of electronic cigarette in real-life: a 24-month prospective observational study. Intern. Emerg. Med. 9, 537–546. 10.1007/s11739-013-0977-z
    1. Psychological Assessment Resources (2003). Computerised Wisconsin Card Sort Task Version 4 (WCST). Lutz, FL: Psychological Assessment Resources.
    1. Rosvold H. E., Mirsky A. F., Sarason I., Bransome E. D., Beck L. H. (1956). A continuous performance test of brain damage. J. Consult. Psychol. 20, 343–350. 10.1037/h0043220
    1. Vansickel A. R., Eissenberg T. (2013). Electronic cigarettes: effec-tive nicotine delivery after acute administration. Nicotine Tob Res. 15, 267–270. 10.1093/ntr/ntr316
    1. Wilson G. A., Franck C. T., Mueller T. E., Landes R. D., Kowal B. P., Yi R. (2015). Predictors of delay discounting among smokers: education level a Utility Measure of Cigarette Reinforcement Efficacy are better predictors than demographics, smoking characteristics, executive functioning, impulsivity, or time perception. Addict Behav. 45, 124–133. 10.1016/j.addbeh.2015.01.027

Source: PubMed

Sponsorit ja yhteistyökumppanit

Sairaudet

Huumeiden interventiot

3
Tilaa