32
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

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

      research-article

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Key Points

          Question

          Does exposure to electronic cigarettes (e-cigarettes) in salt vs free-base nicotine formulations improve the appeal and sensory experience of vaping?

          Findings

          In this randomized clinical trial, 119 adult nicotine or tobacco product users rated puffs from e-cigarettes in nicotine salt (benzoic acid added) and nicotine free-base (no benzoic acid) formulations. Salt vs free-base nicotine formulations resulted in statistically significant higher ratings of appeal, sweetness, and smoothness, and lower ratings of bitterness and harshness.

          Meaning

          In this study, acid additives in e-cigarettes that change nicotine from free base to salt appeared to enhance the appeal and sensory experience of vaping and merit consideration in e-cigarette regulation.

          Abstract

          This randomized clinical trial assessed whether controlled exposure to e-cigarette puffs with salt vs free-base nicotine formulations improved the appeal and sensory experience of vaping among adult current nicotine or tobacco product users.

          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

          Related collections

          Most cited references42

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: not found
          • Article: not found

          Controlling the False Discovery Rate: A Practical and Powerful Approach to Multiple Testing

            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            The Fagerström Test for Nicotine Dependence: a revision of the Fagerström Tolerance Questionnaire.

            We examine and refine the Fagerström Tolerance Questionnaire (FTQ: Fagerström, 1978). The relation between each FTQ item and biochemical measures of heaviness of smoking was examined in 254 smokers. We found that the nicotine rating item and the inhalation item were unrelated to any of our biochemical measures and these two items were primary contributors to psychometric deficiencies in the FTQ. We also found that a revised scoring of time to the first cigarette of the day (TTF) and number of cigarettes smoked per day (CPD) improved the scale. We present a revision of the FTQ: the Fagerström Test for Nicotine Dependence (FTND).
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: not found
              • Article: not found

              CONSORT 2010 statement: extension to randomised crossover trials

                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Journal
                JAMA Netw Open
                JAMA Netw Open
                JAMA Network Open
                American Medical Association
                2574-3805
                12 January 2021
                January 2021
                12 January 2021
                : 4
                : 1
                : e2032757
                Affiliations
                [1 ]Department of Preventive Medicine, University of Southern California Keck School of Medicine, Los Angeles
                [2 ]Department of Psychology, University of Southern California, Los Angeles
                [3 ]Institute for Addiction Science, University of Southern California, Los Angeles
                [4 ]School of Social Work, University of Southern California, Los Angeles
                [5 ]Department of Pediatrics, University of Oklahoma, Oklahoma City
                Author notes
                Article Information
                Accepted for Publication: November 13, 2020.
                Published: January 12, 2021. doi:10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2020.32757
                Open Access: This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the CC-BY-NC-ND License. © 2021 Leventhal AM et al. JAMA Network Open.
                Corresponding Author: Adam M. Leventhal, PhD, Institute for Addiction Science, University of Southern California Keck School of Medicine, 2001 N Soto St, 302-C, Los Angeles, CA 90032 ( adam.leventhal@ 123456usc.edu ).
                Author Contributions : Dr Madden had full access to all of the data in the study and takes responsibility for the integrity of the data and the accuracy of the data analysis.
                Concept and design: Leventhal.
                Acquisition, analysis, or interpretation of data: All authors.
                Drafting of the manuscript: Leventhal, Madden, Peraza, Lebovitz, Anderson, Tackett.
                Critical revision of the manuscript for important intellectual content: Leventhal, Madden, Schiff, Whitted, Barrington-Trimis, Mason, Anderson, Tackett.
                Statistical analysis: Leventhal, Madden, Peraza.
                Obtained funding: Leventhal.
                Administrative, technical, or material support: Leventhal, Schiff, Whitted.
                Supervision: Leventhal, Tackett.
                Conflict of Interest Disclosures: None reported.
                Funding/Support: This project was supported in part by Tobacco Centers of Regulatory Science (TCORS) award U54CA180908 (Leventhal) from the National Cancer Institute (NCI) and Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and grants K24DA048160 (Leventhal) and K01DA04295 (Barrington-Trimis) from the National Institute on Drug Abuse (NIDA).
                Role of the Funder/Sponsor: The funding organizations had no role in the design and conduct of the study; collection, management, analysis, and interpretation of the data; preparation, review, or approval of the manuscript; and decision to submit the manuscript for publication.
                Disclaimer: The content is solely the responsibility of the authors and does not necessarily represent the official views of NCI, NIDA, or FDA.
                Data Sharing Statement : See Supplement 3.
                Additional Contributions: We thank all who participated in this project and Jon Samet, MD (University of Colorado), for comments to earlier versions of this manuscript. No compensation was received.
                Article
                zoi201008
                10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2020.32757
                7804919
                33433597
                aa9209e3-4ec8-423e-9a24-2a594508a343
                Copyright 2021 Leventhal AM et al. JAMA Network Open.

                This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the CC-BY-NC-ND License.

                History
                : 22 June 2020
                : 13 November 2020
                Categories
                Research
                Original Investigation
                Featured
                Online Only
                Public Health

                Comments

                Comment on this article

                scite_
                0
                0
                0
                0
                Smart Citations
                0
                0
                0
                0
                Citing PublicationsSupportingMentioningContrasting
                View Citations

                See how this article has been cited at scite.ai

                scite shows how a scientific paper has been cited by providing the context of the citation, a classification describing whether it supports, mentions, or contrasts the cited claim, and a label indicating in which section the citation was made.

                Similar content715

                Cited by68

                Most referenced authors601