Comparison of the Pharmacokinetics of Nicotine Following Single and Ad Libitum Use of a Tobacco Heating System or Combustible Cigarettes

Patrick Picavet, Christelle Haziza, Nicola Lama, Rolf Weitkunat, Frank Lüdicke, Patrick Picavet, Christelle Haziza, Nicola Lama, Rolf Weitkunat, Frank Lüdicke

Abstract

Introduction: We aimed to compare the pharmacokinetics of nicotine between the heat-not-burn Tobacco Heating System 2.1 (THS 2.1) and combustible cigarettes (CCs). We also examined whether the subjective urge to smoke was associated with the pharmacokinetics of nicotine.

Methods: This open-label, randomized, two-period, two-sequence crossover study conducted in 28 healthy smokers assessed the pharmacokinetics of nicotine after single and ad libitum use of the THS 2.1 or CCs. During the 7-day confinement period, blood samples were drawn for pharmacokinetic analysis. Subjective effects related to THS 2.1 or CC use were assessed using the Questionnaire of Smoking Urges (QSU-Brief).

Results: The nicotine delivery rate was similar with the THS 2.1 and CCs after single and ad libitum use. The time to the maximum nicotine concentration was 8 minutes after single use of the THS 2.1 and CCs. The time to the peak concentration following ad libitum use was similar between the THS 2.1 and CCs. The maximum plasma nicotine concentration after single use of the THS 2.1 was 8.4 ng/mL, 70.3% of that obtained with CCs. A transient reduction from baseline in the urge to smoke of 40% was observed 15 minutes after the single use of both the THS 2.1 and CCs. The mean QSU-Brief total scores following single and ad libitum use were similar for the THS 2.1 and CCs.

Conclusions: These results suggest that the THS 2.1 effectively delivers nicotine and achieves similar pharmacokinetic profiles to CCs. The THS 2.1 also reduced the urge to smoke similarly to CCs.

Implications: Reducing exposure to toxicants and safer delivery of nicotine are among the strategies that may reduce the harm of smoking-related diseases. In the present study, we investigated the pharmacokinetics of nicotine and their effects on the urge to smoke using the THS 2.1. It was developed to replicate the ritual of smoking as closely as possible by providing nicotine in a way that mimics CC smoking, but limits pyrolysis and combustion by heating tobacco at a much lower temperature than CCs (heat-not-burn).

© The Author 2015. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the Society for Research on Nicotine and Tobacco.

Figures

Figure 1.
Figure 1.
Geometric means and 95% confidence intervals of nicotine concentrations during single use of the Tobacco Heating System 2.1 (THS 2.1) or combustible cigarettes (CCs) over 24 hours. The inset shows an expanded view of the nicotine concentrations from T0 to 70 minutes. T0, start of product use.

References

    1. Stratton K, Shetty P, Wallace R, Bondurant S. Clearing the smoke: assessing the science base for tobacco harm reduction. Tob Control. 2001;10(2):189–195. doi:10.1136/tc.10.2.189.
    1. Breland AB, Buchhalter AR, Evans SE, Eissenberg T. Evaluating acute effects of potential reduced-exposure products for smokers: clinical laboratory methodology. Nicotine Tob Res. 2002;4(suppl 2):S131–140. doi:10.1080/1462220021000032780.
    1. Bullen C, McRobbie H, Thornley S, Glover M, Lin R, Laugesen M. 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. 2010;19(2):98–103. doi:10.1136/tc.2009.031567.
    1. Breland AB, Kleykamp BA, Eissenberg T. Clinical laboratory evaluation of potential reduced exposure products for smokers. Nicotine Tob Res. 2006;8(6):727–738.
    1. Orr MS. Electronic cigarettes in the USA: a summary of available toxicology data and suggestions for the future. Tob Control. 2014;23(suppl 2): ii18–22. doi:10.1136/tobaccocontrol-2013-051474.
    1. Hatsukami DK, Biener L, Leischow SJ, Zeller MR. Tobacco and nicotine product testing. Nicotine Tob Res. 2012;14(1):7–17. doi:10.1093/ntr/ntr027.
    1. Le Houezec J, McNeill A, Britton J. Tobacco, nicotine and harm reduction. Drug Alcohol Rev. 2011;30(2):119–123. doi:10.1111/j.1465-3362.2010.00264.x.
    1. Slade J, Connolly GN, Lymperis D. Eclipse: does it live up to its health claims? Tob Control. 2002;11(suppl 2):ii64–70. doi:10.1136/tc.11.suppl_2.ii64.
    1. Wonnacott S, Russell MAH, Stolerman IP. Nicotine Psychopharmacology: Molecular, Cellular, and Behavioural Aspects. Oxford, United Kingdom: Oxford University Press; 1990.
    1. Lee EM, Malson JL, Moolchan ET, Pickworth WB. Quantitative comparisons between a nicotine delivery device (Eclipse) and conventional cigarette smoking. Nicotine Tob Res. 2004;6(1):95–102. doi:10.1080/14622200310001656911.
    1. Breland AB, Acosta MC, Eissenberg T. Tobacco specific nitrosamines and potential reduced exposure products for smokers: a preliminary evaluation of Advance. Tob Control. 2003;12(3):317–321. doi:10.1136/tc.12.3.317.
    1. Eissenberg T. Electronic nicotine delivery devices: ineffective nicotine delivery and craving suppression after acute administration. Tob Control. 2010;19(1):87–88. doi:10.1136/tc.2009.033498.
    1. Zenzen V, Diekmann J, Gerstenberg B, Weber S, Wittke S, Schorp MK. Reduced exposure evaluation of an Electrically Heated Cigarette Smoking System. Part 2: smoke chemistry and in vitro toxicological evaluation using smoking regimens reflecting human puffing behavior. Regul Toxicol Pharmacol. 2012;64(2) (suppl):S11–S34. doi:10.1016/j.yrtph.2012.08.004.
    1. Picavet P, Haziza C, De La Bourdonnaye G, et al. Reduced exposure to harmful and potentially harmful smoke constituents after five days of use of a candidate modified risk tobacco product: the Tobacco Heating System 2.1. Presentation at the 20th Annual Meeting of the Society for Research on Nicotine and Tobacco; February 5–8, 2014; Seattle, WA Abstract PA-10-2. Accessed December 12, 2014.
    1. Gourlay SG, Benowitz NL. Arteriovenous differences in plasma concentration of nicotine and catecholamines and related cardiovascular effects after smoking, nicotine nasal spray, and intravenous nicotine. Clin Pharmacol Ther. 1997;62(4):453–463. doi:10.1016/S0009-9236(97)90124-7.
    1. Fagerstrom K, Russ C, Yu CR, Yunis C, Foulds J. The Fagerstrom Test for Nicotine Dependence as a predictor of smoking abstinence: a pooled analysis of varenicline clinical trial data. Nicotine Tob Res. 2012;14(12):1467–1473. doi:10.1093/ntr/nts018.
    1. Jacob P, III, Yu L, Duan M, Ramos L, Yturralde O, Benowitz NL. 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 Analyt Technol Biomed Life Sci. 2011;879(3–4):267–276. doi:10.1016/j.jchromb.2010.12.012.
    1. Cox LS, Tiffany ST, Christen AG. Evaluation of the brief questionnaire of smoking urges (QSU-Brief) in laboratory and clinical settings. Nicotine Tob Res. 2001;3(1):7–16. doi:10.1080/14622200124218.
    1. Cappelleri JC, Bushmakin AG, Baker CL, Merikle E, Olufade AO, Gilbert DG. Confirmatory factor analyses and reliability of the modified cigarette evaluation questionnaire. Addict Behav. 2007;32(5):912–923.
    1. Lingling H. Calculating the point estimate and confidence interval of Hodges-Lehmann’s median using SAS® software. Presentation at the Annual Meeting of the SouthEast SAS® Users Group; October 19–22, 2008; Birmingham, AL: Paper (ST-154). Accessed July 10, 2014.
    1. Scherer G. Smoking behaviour and compensation: a review of the literature. Psychopharmacology (Berl). 1999;145(1):1–20. doi:10.1007/s002130051027.
    1. Benowitz NL, Hukkanen J, Jacob P., III Nicotine chemistry, metabolism, kinetics and biomarkers. Handb Exp Pharmacol. 2009;(192):29–60. doi:10.1007/978-3-540-69248-5_2.
    1. Digard H, Proctor C, Kulasekaran A, Malmqvist U, Richter A. Determination of nicotine absorption from multiple tobacco products and nicotine gum. Nicotine Tob Res. 2013;15(1):255–261. doi:10.1093/ntr/nts123.
    1. Yuki D, Kikuchi A, Miura N, Kakehi A, Onozawa M. Good relationship between saliva cotinine kinetics and plasma cotinine kinetics after smoking one cigarette. Regul Toxicol Pharmacol. 2013;67(2):240–245. doi:10.1016/j.yrtph.2013.08.002.
    1. Teneggi V, Squassante L, Iavarone L, Milleri S, Bye A, Gomeni R. Correlation and predictive performances of saliva and plasma nicotine concentration on tobacco withdrawal-induced craving. Br J Clin Pharmacol. 2002;54(4):407–414. doi:10.1046/j.0306-5251.2002.01650.x.
    1. Cobb CO, Weaver MF, Eissenberg T. Evaluating the acute effects of oral, non-combustible potential reduced exposure products marketed to smokers. Tob Control. 2010;19(5):367–373. doi:10.1136/tc.2008.028993.
    1. Hanson K, O’Connor R, Hatsukami D. Measures for assessing subjective effects of potential reduced-exposure products. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev. 2009;18(12):3209–3224. doi:10.1158/1055-9965.EPI-09-0971.
    1. Trtchounian A, Williams M, Talbot P. Conventional and electronic cigarettes (e-cigarettes) have different smoking characteristics. Nicotine Tob Res. 2010;12(9):905–912. doi:10.1093/ntr/ntq114.

Source: PubMed

Sponsorzy i współpracownicy

Warunki medyczne

Interwencje lekowe

3
Subskrybuj