E-cigarettes: Craving, Quitting & Addictive Potential - keeping up with a rapidly evolving phenomena...
-
Upload
shannon-hershey -
Category
Documents
-
view
215 -
download
1
Transcript of E-cigarettes: Craving, Quitting & Addictive Potential - keeping up with a rapidly evolving phenomena...
E-cigarettes: Craving, Quitting & Addictive Potential - keeping up with a rapidly evolving phenomena
Dr. Lynne DawkinsDrugs and Addictive Behaviours Research Group (DABRG), School of Psychology
http://www.uel.ac.uk/psychology/research/drugs
SSA, York, November 2014
Disclosures
• E-cigarette Industry: – Research funding– Conference funding– Received products for research
• Tobacco Industry: – No conflict of interest
• Pharmaceutical Industry: – No conflict of interest
Overview
• Introduction to E-cigarettes (EC)• Effects on craving & withdrawal symptoms• Blood nicotine delivery• Addictiveness• Effectiveness for smoking cessation
Effects on Craving & Withdrawal Symptoms (WS)
• EC (1st gen) can reduce craving & WS in deprived smokers; not as effective as tobacco cigarettes (Bullen et al., 2010, Tob Con, 19; Vansickel et al., 2010, Can Epid Bio Prev, 19)
• Placebo (0mg nicotine) EC (1st gen) also associated with decline in craving after 5 mins.(Dawkins et al., 2012, Add Beh, 37)
Novice users’ experiences of EC use over one week
• ‘...I nearly fell out of a tree about 60 foot up and it was a real adrenaline boost and I needed something to take that away...that was the only time it really didn’t kick, you know, the craving away.’
• ‘I was sat in this French cafe and there’s just people all around me smoking and it’s like, nah, I just need to get out of here now... It (the EC) just wasn’t taking the edge off it’
Lawson, Cahill & Dawkins (2013); UKNSCC poster
Craving and WS: 2nd generation (refillable) devices
• Lower craving & WS after using nicotine vs. placebo (2nd gen) EC (Dawkins, Turner & Crowe, 2013;).
• Disposable cigalike vs. refillable device: both equally effective at reducing craving and WS (Dawkins et al., under review)
1st vs. 3rd generation devices
• 23 experienced EC users used a 1st gen cartomiser and 3rd gen device
• In 3rd generation condition:
– ‘Craving to vape’ lower (p<0.001)
– Satisfaction and hit higher (p<0.01)
– Plasma nicotine levels higher at all time points (p<0.001)
(Farsalinos et al., 2014)
EC: Blood nicotine delivery
Effective nicotine delivery with 1st
generation cartomiser
device in 14 regular users
Baselin
e
10 mins a
fter 10 puffs
15 mins a
d lib va
ping
30 mins/v
aping
45 mins/v
aping
60 mins/v
aping
60 mins r
est0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
nico
tine
ng/m
l in
plas
ma
Dawkins & Corcoran (2014), Psychopharmacology, vol. 231
Nicotine delivery: 1st vs. 3rd generation device
Farsalinos et al. (2014), Scientific Reports, vol. 4
EC addictiveness
• EC: slower speed of nicotine delivery• Tobacco contains additives to increase
addiction• Vapers reported longer time to first vape
vs. time to first cigarette• 30% had tried to quit vaping; mostly ‘not
very successful’ (Dawkins et al., 2013; Addiction, 106)
EC vs tobacco cigarettes (TC) in a multiple choice procedure (MCP)
Crossover value was significantly higher for 10 TC
puffs ($1.50) compared with
10 EC puffs ($1.06).
Vansickel, Weaver & Eissenberg, 2012, Addiction, 107
Economic demand for EC vs. TC
Vapers had a lower unit price than smokers at breakpoint – i.e. smokers will pay
more for their puffs 0.000 0.500 1.000 1.500 2.000 2.500
0.000
0.500
1.000
1.500
2.000
2.500
Demand curve
Smokerslog C
Vaperslog C
Log Price per puff
Lo
g c
on
sum
pti
on
Campbell , Dawkins et al., in prep
Smoking Cessation
• In 8 cross-sectional studies of vapers:
• 42-99% of ex-smokers stated that EC had helped them to quit smoking
• 60-86% of smokers stated that EC had helped them to reduce no. of cigs per day.
Dawkins (2013) Addiction, 108; Etter (2010) BMC Public Health, 10; Etter (2011) Addiction, 106; Farsalinos (2013) Int J Envir Res & Pub Health; Foulds (2011) Int J Clin Pract, 65; Goniewicz (2013) Drug Alc Rev, 32; Kralikova (2013),Chest, 144; Siegel (2011) Am J Prev Med, 40
Randomised Controlled Trials (RCTs):
• ‘Categoria’ 23mg/ml nicotine EC vs. 17mg/ml nicotine EC vs. no nicotine EC
• 300 smokers (not intending to quit)
• 1 year abstinence rates: 13%, 9% and 4%(Caponnetto et al., 2013)
• ‘Elusion’ 16mg/ml nicotine EC vs. no nicotine EC vs. nicotine patch
• 657 smokers followed up over 6 months
• 6 month abstinence rates: 7.3%, 4.1% and 5.8%
(Bullen et al., 2014)
Issues with RCTs:
• Expensive
• Time-consuming
• Out of date quickly in a rapidly changing market with fast moving technology
• Ecologically valid? Not reflective of what actually happens (EC users do not stick to a single product and liquid)
Conclusions
• EC can help to alleviate craving and WS...
• ...and raise blood nicotine levels
• Craving relief, nicotine delivery & addictiveness all lower in EC vs TC
• RCTs suggest e-cigs at least as effective as NRT...
• ...but trials with newer products needed
• Effectiveness for cessation will depend on a host of political, regulatory, technological and sociocultural factors