Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27729564›Full record

ArticleTobacco control2017

Have combustible cigarettes met their match? The nicotine delivery profiles and harmful constituent exposures of second-generation and third-generation electronic cigarette users.

Theodore L Wagener, Evan L Floyd, Irina Stepanov, Leslie M Driskill, Summer G Frank, Ellen Meier, Eleanor L Leavens, Alayna P Tackett, Neil Molina, Lurdes Queimado

Open access · bronzeAbstract readComparative Study
In one paragraph

Article in Tobacco control, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 199 papers, 5 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
199citing papers in PubMed, 5 pooled it
21.6field-weighted citation impact, top 1% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

199 citing papers in PubMed, 5 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 290 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. The prevalence of electronic cigarettes vaping globally: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Archives of public health = Archives belges de sante publique · 2022
    Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Cardiovascular autonomic effects of electronic cigarette use: a systematic review.Clinical autonomic research : official journal of the Clinical Autonomic Research Society · 2020
    Pooled it
  6. Trial
  7. Trial
  8. Trial
  9. Trial
  10. Trial
  11. Trial
  12. Trial
  13. Trial
  14. Trial
  15. E-Cigarette Provision to Promote Switching in Cigarette Smokers With Serious Mental Illness-A Randomized Trial.Nicotine & tobacco research : official journal of the Society for Research on Nicotine and Tobacco · 2022
    Trial
  16. Trial
  17. Trial
  18. The Impact of E-liquid Propylene Glycol and Vegetable Glycerin Ratio on Ratings of Subjective Effects, Reinforcement Value, and Use in Current Smokers.Nicotine & tobacco research : official journal of the Society for Research on Nicotine and Tobacco · 2020
    Trial
  19. Trial
  20. Trial

139 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

10 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.

Theodore L WagenerDepartment of Pediatrics, University of Oklahoma Health Sciences Center, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, USA.ORCID 0000-0003-3484-2794
Evan L FloydOklahoma Tobacco Research Center, University of Oklahoma Health Sciences Center, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, USA.
Irina StepanovDivision of Environmental Health Sciences, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, Minnesota, USA.ORCID 0000-0001-5140-8944
Leslie M DriskillDepartment of Pediatrics, University of Oklahoma Health Sciences Center, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, USA.
Summer G FrankOklahoma Tobacco Research Center, University of Oklahoma Health Sciences Center, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, USA.
Ellen MeierOklahoma Tobacco Research Center, University of Oklahoma Health Sciences Center, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, USA.
Eleanor L LeavensOklahoma Tobacco Research Center, University of Oklahoma Health Sciences Center, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, USA.
Alayna P TackettOklahoma Tobacco Research Center, University of Oklahoma Health Sciences Center, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, USA.
Neil MolinaDepartment of Pediatrics, University of Oklahoma Health Sciences Center, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, USA.
Lurdes QueimadoOklahoma Tobacco Research Center, University of Oklahoma Health Sciences Center, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, USA.
University of Oklahoma Health Sciences Center · USOklahoma State University · USUniversity of Minnesota · US

Funding

Tracking and Evaluation CoreU54GM104938 · NIGMS · UNIVERSITY OF OKLAHOMA HLTH SCIENCES CTR · PI PAUL G SPICER · 2013 to 2026
$68.2M
Training in PharmacoNeuroImmune Substance Abuse ResearchT32DA007097 · NIDA · UNIVERSITY OF MINNESOTA TWIN CITIES · PI MOLITOR, THOMAS WILLIAM · 1985 to 2021
$13.1M
Examination of First and Second Generation E-cigarettesR01CA204891 · NCI · UNIVERSITY OF OKLAHOMA HLTH SCIENCES CTR · PI WAGENER, THEODORE LEE · 2016 to 2020
$3.0M
A novel molecular assay for early detection and assessment of cancer riskR33CA202898 · NCI · UNIVERSITY OF OKLAHOMA HLTH SCIENCES CTR · PI QUEIMADO, LURDES · 2016 to 2018
$1.0M
NCI NIH HHS L30 CA209711NCI NIH HHS R01 CA204891NCI NIH HHS R33 CA202898NIDA NIH HHS T32 DA007097NIGMS NIH HHS U54 GM104938
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

introductionElectronic cigarettes' (e-cigarettes) viability as a public health strategy to end smoking will likely be determined by their ability to mimic the pharmacokinetic profile of a cigarette while also exposing users to significantly lower levels of harmful/potentially harmful constituents (HPHCs). The present study examined the nicotine delivery profile of third- (G3) versus second-generation (G2) e-cigarette devices and their users' exposure to nicotine and select HPHCs compared with cigarette smokers.

methods30 participants (10 smokers, 9 G2 and 11 G3 users) completed baseline questionnaires and provided exhaled carbon monoxide (eCO), saliva and urine samples. Following a 12-hour nicotine abstinence, G2 and G3 users completed a 2-hour vaping session (ie, 5 min, 10-puff bout followed by ad libitum puffing for 115 min). Blood samples, subjective effects, device characteristics and e-liquid consumption were assessed.

resultsSmokers, G2 and G3 users had similar baseline levels of cotinine, but smokers had 4 and 7 times higher levels of eCO (p<0.0001) and total 4-(Methylnitrosamino)-1-(3-pyridyl)-1-butanol (i.e., NNAL, p<0.01), respectively, than G2 or G3 users. Compared with G2s, G3 devices delivered significantly higher power to the atomiser, but G3 users vaped e-cigarette liquids with significantly lower nicotine concentrations. During the vaping session, G3 users achieved significantly higher plasma nicotine concentrations than G2 users following the first 10 puffs (17.5 vs 7.3 ng/mL, respectively) and at 25 and 40 min of ad libitum use. G3 users consumed significantly more e-liquid than G2 users. Vaping urges/withdrawal were reduced following 10 puffs, with no significant differences between device groups. DISCUSSION: Under normal use conditions, both G2 and G3 devices deliver cigarette-like amounts of nicotine, but G3 devices matched the amount and speed of nicotine delivery of a conventional cigarette. Compared with cigarettes, G2 and G3 e-cigarettes resulted in significantly lower levels of exposure to a potent lung carcinogen and cardiovascular toxicant. These findings have significant implications for understanding the addiction potential of these devices and their viability/suitability as aids to smoking cessation.

Indexed as

Electronic Nicotine Delivery SystemsTobacco ProductsAdultCarbon MonoxideCotinineFemaleHumansMaleMiddle AgedNicotineSalivaSmokersSmokingSurveys and QuestionnairesTime FactorsYoung AdultCarbon MonoxideCotinineNicotineCarcinogensElectronic nicotine delivery devicesHarm ReductionNicotineToxicology

Identifiers

PMID27729564
PMCPMC5574194
OpenAlexW2531489008

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.