Effect of Exposure to e-Cigarettes With Salt vs Free-Base Nicotine on the Appeal and Sensory Experience of Vaping: A Randomized Clinical Trial

Adam M Leventhal, Danielle R Madden, Natalia Peraza, Sara J Schiff, Lucas Lebovitz, Lauren Whitted, Jessica Barrington-Trimis, Tyler B Mason, Marissa K Anderson, Alayna P Tackett, Adam M Leventhal, Danielle R Madden, Natalia Peraza, Sara J Schiff, Lucas Lebovitz, Lauren Whitted, Jessica Barrington-Trimis, Tyler B Mason, Marissa K Anderson, Alayna P Tackett

Abstract

Importance: Alkaline free-base nicotine is bitter and a respiratory irritant. High-nicotine electronic cigarette (e-cigarette) products contain acid additives that change nicotine from a free-base to a protonated salt chemical form, which could improve the sensory experience of vaping, particularly among never smokers unaccustomed to inhaling free-base nicotine.

Objective: To determine whether exposure to e-cigarettes with salt vs free-base nicotine formulations improves the appeal and sensory experience of vaping e-cigarettes and whether nicotine formulation effects differ by e-cigarette flavor and ever combustible cigarette smoking status.

Design, setting, and participants: Single-visit double-blind within-participant randomized clinical trial was conducted in an academic medical center outpatient clinical research facility in Southern California. Participants were 119 individuals with past 30-day e-cigarette or combustible cigarette use aged 21 years or older recruited from November 2019 to March 2020.

Interventions: Participants self-administered standardized puffs of each 10 differently flavored e-cigarette solutions using a pod-style device. Each flavor was administered in salt (benzoic acid added) and free-base (no benzoic acid) nicotine formulations with commensurate nicotine concentrations (mean, 23.6 mg/mL). The 20 solutions were administered in randomly assigned sequences. Immediately after puffing each solution, participants rated appeal and sensory attributes.

Main outcomes and measures: Self-reported appeal (mean of like, dislike [reverse-scored], and willingness to use again ratings) and 4 sensory attributes (sweetness, smoothness, bitterness, and harshness; analyzed individually) on visual analog scales with not at all and extremely anchors (range, 0-100).

Results: Of the 119 participants; 39 (32.8%) were female. The mean (SD) age was 42.1 (14.4) years; 105 (88.2%) were ever combustible cigarette smokers, and 66 (55.5%) were current e-cigarette users. Salt vs free-base nicotine formulations produced higher ratings of appeal (salt vs free-base mean difference effect estimate: b = 12.0; 95% CI, 9.9-14.1; P < .001), sweetness (b = 9.3; 95% CI, 7.1-11.4; P < .001), and smoothness (b = 17.4; 95% CI, 15.2-19.6; P < .001) and lower ratings of bitterness (b = -13.3; 95% CI, -15.4 to -11.2; P < .001) and harshness (b = -21.0; 95% CI, -23.2 to -18.7; P < .001). Nicotine formulation effects largely generalized across different flavors and the smoothness-enhancing and harshness-reducing effects of nicotine salt were stronger in never vs ever cigarette smokers.

Conclusions and relevance: In this randomized clinical trial of adult current nicotine or tobacco product users, controlled exposure to e-cigarette puffs with salt vs free-base nicotine formulations appeared to increase product appeal and improve the sensory experience of vaping, particularly among never smokers. Regulatory policies limiting acid additives in e-cigarettes might reduce the appeal of high-nicotine e-cigarettes among populations deterred from vaping e-cigarettes that emit harsh aerosol.

Trial registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT04399031.

Conflict of interest statement

Conflict of Interest Disclosures: None reported.

Figures

Figure 1.. Study Flow Diagram and Schematic
Figure 1.. Study Flow Diagram and Schematic
eCigarette indicates electronic cigarette. aMean of like, dislike (reverse-scored), and willingness to use again ratings on visual analog scale. bSmoothness measure introduced into the study after the first 8 participants had already completed the protocol.
Figure 2.. Mean (SE) Appeal and Sensory…
Figure 2.. Mean (SE) Appeal and Sensory Attribute Ratings, by Nicotine Formulation of Electronic Cigarettes
The number of participants was 119 for all outcomes except harshness (n = 111). Appeal refers to the mean of liking, willingness-to-use-again, and disliking (reverse-scored) (range, 0-100) scores.
Figure 3.. Nicotine Formulation Effect Estimates, Stratified…
Figure 3.. Nicotine Formulation Effect Estimates, Stratified by Flavor
The number of participants was 119 for all outcomes except harshness (n = 111). Effect estimate (salt vs free-base). Error bars are 95% CIs. Appeal refers to the mean of liking, willingness-to-use-again, and disliking (reverse-scored) (range, 0-100) scores. e-Cigarette indicates electronic cigarettes.
Figure 4.. Mean (SE) Appeal and Sensory…
Figure 4.. Mean (SE) Appeal and Sensory Attribute Ratings of Electronic Cigarettes, by Nicotine Formulation in Ever and Never Smokers
Never smokers (n = 14): smoked liking, willingness-to-use-again, and disliking (reverse-scored) (range, 0-100) scores. ES indicates ever smoking participants; NS, never smoking participants. aP value for test of interaction between nicotine formulation and ever smoking status.

References

    1. Romberg AR, Miller Lo EJ, Cuccia AF, et al. . Patterns of nicotine concentrations in electronic cigarettes sold in the United States, 2013-2018. Drug Alcohol Depend. 2019;203:1-7. doi:10.1016/j.drugalcdep.2019.05.029
    1. Vallone DM, Cuccia AF, Briggs J, Xiao H, Schillo BA, Hair EC. Electronic cigarette and JUUL use among adolescents and young adults. JAMA Pediatr. 2020;174(3):277-286. doi:10.1001/jamapediatrics.2019.5436
    1. Leventhal AM, Miech R, Barrington-Trimis J, Johnston LD, O’Malley PM, Patrick ME. Flavors of e-cigarettes used by youths in the United States. JAMA. 2019;322(21):2132-2134. doi:10.1001/jama.2019.17968
    1. DeVito EE, Krishnan-Sarin S. e-Cigarettes: impact of e-liquid components and device characteristics on nicotine exposure. Curr Neuropharmacol. 2018;16(4):438-459. doi:10.2174/1570159X15666171016164430
    1. Pankow JF. A consideration of the role of gas/particle partitioning in the deposition of nicotine and other tobacco smoke compounds in the respiratory tract. Chem Res Toxicol. 2001;14(11):1465-1481. doi:10.1021/tx0100901
    1. Harvanko AM, Havel CM, Jacob P, Benowitz NL. Characterization of nicotine salts in 23 electronic cigarette refill liquids. Nicotine Tob Res. 2020;22(7):1239-1243. doi:10.1093/ntr/ntz232
    1. Barrington-Trimis JL, Leventhal AM. Adolescents’ use of “pod mod” e-cigarettes: urgent concerns. N Engl J Med. 2018;379(12):1099-1102. doi:10.1056/NEJMp1805758
    1. Dwan K, Li T, Altman DG, Elbourne D. CONSORT 2010 statement: extension to randomised crossover trials. BMJ. 2019;366:l4378. doi:10.1136/bmj.l4378
    1. Leventhal A, Cho J, Barrington-Trimis J, Pang R, Schiff S, Kirkpatrick M. Sensory attributes of e-cigarette flavours and nicotine as mediators of interproduct differences in appeal among young adults. Tob Control. 2020;29(6):679-686. doi:10.1136/tobaccocontrol-2019-055172
    1. Leventhal AM, Mason TB, Kirkpatrick MG, Anderson MK, Levine MD. E-cigarette device power moderates the effects of non-tobacco flavors and nicotine on product appeal in young adults. Addict Behav. 2020;107:106403. doi:10.1016/j.addbeh.2020.106403
    1. Leventhal AM, Goldenson NI, Barrington-Trimis JL, Pang RD, Kirkpatrick MG. Effects of non-tobacco flavors and nicotine on e-cigarette product appeal among young adult never, former, and current smokers. Drug Alcohol Depend. 2019;203:99-106. doi:10.1016/j.drugalcdep.2019.05.020
    1. Goldenson NI, Kirkpatrick MG, Barrington-Trimis JL, et al. . 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. 2016;168:176-180. doi:10.1016/j.drugalcdep.2016.09.014
    1. Kwak HS, Anh BH, Lee Y, et al. . Comparison of bipolar and bivariate measurements of liking and disliking percepts in novel products. Food Qual Prefer. 2013; 30(2):328-335. doi:10.1016/j.foodqual.2013.07.002
    1. Villanti AC, Johnson AL, Ambrose BK, et al. . Flavored tobacco product use in youth and adults: findings from the first wave of the PATH study (2013-2014). Am J Prev Med. 2017;53(2):139-151. doi:10.1016/j.amepre.2017.01.026
    1. Berg CJ. Preferred flavors and reasons for e-cigarette use and discontinued use among never, current, and former smokers. Int J Public Health. 2016;61(2):225-236. doi:10.1007/s00038-015-0764-x
    1. Rodu B, Plurphanswat N. e-Cigarette use among US adults: Population Assessment of Tobacco and Health (PATH) study. Nicotine Tob Res. 2018;20(8):940-948. doi:10.1093/ntr/ntx194
    1. Foulds J, Veldheer S, Yingst J, et al. . Development of a questionnaire for assessing dependence on electronic cigarettes among a large sample of ex-smoking e-cigarette users. Nicotine Tob Res. 2015;17(2):186-192. doi:10.1093/ntr/ntu204
    1. Heatherton TF, Kozlowski LT, Frecker RC, Fagerström KO. The Fagerström Test for Nicotine Dependence: a revision of the Fagerström Tolerance Questionnaire. Br J Addict. 1991;86(9):1119-1127. doi:10.1111/j.1360-0443.1991.tb01879.x
    1. Benjamini Y, Hochberg Y.. Controlling the false discovery rate: a practical and powerful approach to multiple testing. J Royal Stat Soc Series B (Methodological). 1995;57(1):289-300. doi:10.1111/j.2517-6161.1995.tb02031.x
    1. StataCorp , Stata statistical software: Release 16. StataCorp LLC. 2019.
    1. Hammond D, Wackowski OA, Reid JL, O’Connor RJ. Use of JUUL e-cigarettes among youth in the United States. Nicotine Tob Res. 2020;22(5):827-832. doi:10.1093/ntr/nty237
    1. Hrywna M, Bover Manderski MT, Delnevo CD. Prevalence of electronic cigarette use among adolescents in New Jersey and association with social factors. JAMA Netw Open. 2020;3(2):e1920961-e1920961. doi:10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2019.20961
    1. Jackler RK, Ramamurthi D. Nicotine arms race: JUUL and the high-nicotine product market. Tob Control. 2019;28(6):623-628. doi:10.1136/tobaccocontrol-2018-054796
    1. Dai H, Leventhal AM. Prevalence of e-cigarette use among adults in the United States, 2014-2018. JAMA. 2019. Published online September 16, 2019. doi:10.1001/jama.2019.15331
    1. Allem J-P, Dharmapuri L, Unger JB, Cruz TB. Characterizing JUUL-related posts on Twitter. Drug Alcohol Depend. 2018;190:1-5. doi:10.1016/j.drugalcdep.2018.05.018
    1. Keamy-Minor E, McQuoid J, Ling PM. Young adult perceptions of JUUL and other pod electronic cigarette devices in California: a qualitative study. BMJ Open. 2019;9(4):e026306. doi:10.1136/bmjopen-2018-026306
    1. Pullicin AJ, Kim H, Brinkman MC, Buehler SS, Clark PI, Lim J. Impacts of nicotine and flavoring on the sensory perception of e-cigarette aerosol. Nicotine Tob Res. 2020;22(5):806-813. doi:10.1093/ntr/ntz058
    1. Rosbrook K, Green BG. Sensory effects of menthol and nicotine in an e-cigarette. Nicotine Tob Res. 2016;18(7):1588-1595. doi:10.1093/ntr/ntw019
    1. Keithly L, Ferris Wayne G, Cullen DM, Connolly GN. Industry research on the use and effects of levulinic acid: a case study in cigarette additives. Nicotine Tob Res. 2005;7(5):761-771. doi:10.1080/14622200500259820
    1. Kozlowski LT, Kleiman RM. Effects of oral pH on cigarette smoking. Pharmacol Biochem Behav. 1978;9(4):477-480. doi:10.1016/0091-3057(78)90045-X
    1. Sakurai T, Misaka T, Nagai T, et al. . pH-Dependent inhibition of the human bitter taste receptor hTAS2R16 by a variety of acidic substances. J Agric Food Chem. 2009;57(6):2508-2514. doi:10.1021/jf8040148
    1. National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine; Health and Medicine Division; Board on Population Health and Public Health Practice; Committee on the Review of the Health Effects of Electronic Nicotine Delivery Systems . Public Health Consequences of E-Cigarettes. National Academies Press; 2018.
    1. US Department of Health and Human Services . E-Cigarette Use Among Youth and Young Adults: A Report of the Surgeon General. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention; 2016.
    1. Shao XM, Friedman TC. Pod-mod vs conventional e-cigarettes: nicotine chemistry, pH, and health effects. J Appl Physiol (1985). 2020;128(4):1056-1058. doi:10.1152/japplphysiol.00717.2019
    1. Voos N, Goniewicz ML, Eissenberg T. What is the nicotine delivery profile of electronic cigarettes? Expert Opin Drug Deliv. 2019;16(11):1193-1203. doi:10.1080/17425247.2019.1665647
    1. Duell AK, Pankow JF, Peyton DH. Nicotine in tobacco product aerosols: ‘It’s déjà vu all over again’. Tob Control. 2020;29(6):656-662. doi:10.1136/tobaccocontrol-2019-055275

Source: PubMed

3
S'abonner