An abuse liability assessment of the glo tobacco heating product in comparison to combustible cigarettes and nicotine replacement therapy

Abstract

AbstractTobacco heating products (THPs) have reduced emissions of toxicants compared with cigarette smoke, and as they expose user to lower levels than smoking, have for a role to play in tobacco harm reduction. One key concern of Public Health is that new tobacco and nicotine products should not be more addictive than cigarettes. To assess their abuse liability, we determined nicotine pharmacokinetics and subjective effects of two THPs compared with conventional cigarettes and a nicotine replacement therapy (Nicotine inhaler). In a randomised, controlled, open-label, crossover study healthy adult smokers used a different study product in a 5 min ad libitum use session in each of four study periods. Product liking, overall intent to use again, urge for product and urge to smoke questionnaires were utilised to assess subjective effects. Nicotine uptake was greater for the cigarette (Cmax = 22.7 ng/mL) than for either THP (8.6 and 10.5 ng/mL) and the NRT (2.3 ng/mL). Median Tmax was significantly longer for the NRT (15.03 min) than for the tobacco products (4.05–6.03 min). Product liking and overall intent to use again was highest for the cigarette, and higher for the THPs than the NRT. Urge to smoke was reduced more by the cigarette than by the other three products. Urge to use the THPs was greater than the NRT. These findings suggest that the abuse liability of the THPs lies between that of subjects usual brand cigarettes and the NRT.