Elsevier

Drug and Alcohol Dependence

Volume 168, 1 November 2016, Pages 76-88
Drug and Alcohol Dependence

Full length article
Abuse liability assessment of an e-cigarette refill liquid using intracranial self-stimulation and self-administration models in rats

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.drugalcdep.2016.08.628Get rights and content

Highlights

  • Nicotine and electronic cigarette (EC) liquid produced similar decreases in brain reinforcement threshold.

  • EC liquid produced less aversion/anhedonia at high nicotine doses.

  • Binding and activation of nAChRs were similar between nicotine and EC liquid.

  • Nicotine pharmacokinetics were similar between nicotine and EC liquid.

  • Nicotine and EC liquid self-administration did not differ in rats.

Abstract

Background

The popularity of electronic cigarettes (ECs) has increased dramatically despite their unknown health consequences. Because the abuse liability of ECs is one of the leading concerns of the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), models to assess it are urgently needed to inform FDA regulatory decisions regarding these products. The purpose of this study was to assess the relative abuse liability of an EC liquid compared to nicotine alone in rats. Because this EC liquid contains non-nicotine constituents that may enhance its abuse liability, we hypothesized that it would have greater abuse liability than nicotine alone.

Methods

Nicotine alone and nicotine dose-equivalent concentrations of EC liquid were compared in terms of their acute effects on intracranial self-stimulation (ICSS) thresholds, acquisition of self-administration, reinforcing efficacy (i.e., elasticity of demand), blockade of these behavioral effects by mecamylamine, nicotine pharmacokinetics and nicotinic acetylcholine receptor binding and activation.

Results

There were no significant differences between formulations on any measure, except that EC liquid produced less of an elevation in ICSS thresholds at high nicotine doses.

Conclusions

Collectively, these findings suggest that the relative abuse liability of this EC liquid is similar to that of nicotine alone in terms of its reinforcing and reinforcement-enhancing effects, but that it may have less aversive/anhedonic effects at high doses. The present methods may be useful for assessing the abuse liability of other ECs to inform potential FDA regulation of those products.

Introduction

Electronic cigarettes (ECs) are devices that deliver an inhalable aerosol containing nicotine and other constituents (e.g., propylene glycol, minor alkaloids, flavorants; Brandon et al., 2015, Harrell et al., 2014, Orellana-Barrios et al., 2015, Walton et al., 2015). ECs are being marketed as a safer or less addictive alternative to conventional tobacco cigarettes despite the lack of scientific evidence to support these claims (Brandon et al., 2015, Harrell et al., 2014, Orellana-Barrios et al., 2015, Walton et al., 2015). In fact, there is concern that ECs could increase the health burden of tobacco dependence by undermining prevention or cessation efforts (Brandon et al., 2015, Lauterstein et al., 2014, Orellana-Barrios et al., 2015, Walton et al., 2015). Despite the unknown health consequences of ECs, their use is rapidly increasing, particularly among adolescents and current smokers (Lauterstein et al., 2014, Porter et al., 2015). For example, EC use tripled in high school and middle school students between 2013 and 2014, and ECs are now more popular than tobacco cigarettes in youth (Arrazola et al., 2015). In light of these issues, the FDA Center for Tobacco Products (CTP) has the authority to regulate ECs under the Family Smoking Prevention and Tobacco Control Act (FSPTCA), which also provides the FDA CTP regulatory authority over cigarettes, cigarette tobacco, roll-your-own tobacco, and smokeless tobacco. Establishing methodology for evaluating the relative abuse liability and adverse effects of ECs is therefore essential for informing potential FDA CTP regulatory policy regarding these products and for anticipating the impact of ECs on public health (Brandon et al., 2015, Breland et al., 2014, Cobb et al., 2015).

Preclinical models are crucial for tobacco product evaluation because they can address issues that cannot be studied experimentally in humans (Donny et al., 2012). Most preclinical models of tobacco addiction involve administration of nicotine and/or other constituents (e.g., minor alkaloids, acetaldehyde) in isolation from the thousands of other chemicals in tobacco. This approach may not be sufficient to evaluate the abuse liability of tobacco products because other compounds may contribute to tobacco abuse, either positively or negatively. Ultimately, it is the collective action of these compounds in tobacco, smoke, or EC aerosol that determines the abuse liability of a product (Brennan et al., 2013a, Brennan et al., 2014, Harris et al., 2012, Harris et al., 2015b).

To address these limitations, our laboratory and others have evaluated the addiction-related effects of extracts that are derived directly from tobacco or tobacco smoke and contain an extensive mixture of tobacco constituents (Ambrose et al., 2007, Brennan et al., 2013a, Brennan et al., 2014, Brennan et al., 2013c, Costello et al., 2014, Harris et al., 2012, Harris et al., 2015b, Touiki et al., 2007). Several of these studies have reported greater abuse liability for extracts compared to nicotine alone (e.g., Brennan et al., 2013a, Brennan et al., 2014, Costello et al., 2014). One interpretation is that certain non-nicotine constituents present in extracts (e.g., minor alkaloids, MAO inhibitors) contribute to the greater abuse liability because they can mimic or enhance nicotine’s addiction-related effects when studied in isolation (Bardo et al., 1999, Belluzzi et al., 2005, Dwoskin et al., 1999, Foddai et al., 2004, Guillem et al., 2005, Villegier et al., 2007). Many EC liquids also contain behaviorally active non-nicotine constituents (Etter et al., 2013, Goniewicz et al., 2014, Kosmider et al., 2014). In addition to the same minor alkaloids present in tobacco smoke, some EC liquids contain acetaldehyde, which is self-administered by rats (Myers et al., 1982, Myers et al., 1984, Takayama and Uyeno, 1985) and can enhance the reinforcing and other behavioral effects of nicotine (Belluzzi et al., 2005, Cao et al., 2007). Also, a common vehicle in EC liquids is propylene glycol, which is self-administered in alcohol-preferring rodents (Hillman and Schneider, 1975) and can also have sedative or anxiolytic effects (Da Silva and Elisabetsky, 2001, Lin et al., 1998, Singh et al., 1982, Zaroslinski et al., 1971). To our knowledge, preclinical studies of the abuse liability of EC liquids have not yet been conducted.

The primary goal of the present study was to compare the effects of nicotine alone and nicotine dose-equivalent concentrations of EC liquid in animal models of tobacco addiction. We used a product (Aroma E-Juice Dark Honey Whole Tobacco Alkaloid (WTA)) that is designed to more closely simulate traditional tobacco cigarettes than typical ECs by including higher levels of minor alkaloids than other ECs (www.aromaejuice.com). As such, we hypothesized that this EC liquid would exhibit greater abuse liability than nicotine alone.

We assessed abuse liability using two common behavioral models. The first involved examining the acute effects of nicotine alone and EC liquid in an intracranial self-stimulation (ICSS) assay. Low to moderate doses of nicotine and other addictive drugs lower the minimal (i.e., threshold) electrical stimulation intensity that supports ICSS (e.g., Harrison et al., 2002, Huston-Lyons and Kornetsky, 1992, Kornetsky et al., 1979, Negus and Miller, 2014, Paterson et al., 2008). This may reflect the ability of drugs to enhance the reinforcing effects of non-drug stimuli (e.g., sensory stimuli, food), a phenomenon that may contribute to addiction (Caggiula et al., 2009, Chaudhri et al., 2006, Wise, 2002). This assay provides excellent predictive validity for identifying whether or not a drug will be abused in humans (nominal scaling of drugs), as well as for identifying the relative degree of abuse potential between drugs (ordinal or ratio scaling of drugs; Kornetsky and Esposito, 1979, Kornetsky et al., 1979, Negus and Miller, 2014). Further supporting the sensitivity of this measure, some addictive drugs that do not produce addiction-related effects in other assays (e.g., hallucinogens) nonetheless reduce ICSS thresholds (Wise, 1996, Wise, 2002, Wise et al., 1992). At high doses, nicotine and other drugs disrupt brain reinforcement systems and elevate ICSS thresholds (Fowler et al., 2011, Kenny et al., 2003, Spiller et al., 2009). This represents a putative measure of a drug’s aversive or anhedonic effects that can limit its intake (Fowler and Kenny, 2012, Fowler and Kenny, 2013, Fowler et al., 2011). The relative abuse liability of nicotine alone and EC liquid was also examined in an i.v. self-administration (SA) assay. Differences in rate of acquisition of SA and resistance of consumption to increases in response requirements (i.e., elasticity of demand) were assessed. Combined, these behavioral models provide convergent evidence for the abuse liability of nicotine (see Fowler et al., 2011) and SA is specifically recommended by the FDA for comparing the relative abuse liability of novel compounds to established drugs (Food and Drug Administration, 2010). We also compared formulations in terms of their binding and activation of nicotinic acetylcholine receptors (nAChRs) and nicotine pharmacokinetics to determine whether these factors might mediate the observed behavioral effects.

Section snippets

Animals

Male adult Holtzman rats (Harlan, Indianapolis, IN) weighing 300-350 g at arrival were used. Upon arrival, all rats were individually housed in a temperature- and humidity controlled colony room with unlimited access to food and water under a reversed 12-h light/dark cycle (lights off at 11:00 h) for one week. Rats were then food restricted to 18 g/day for the remainder of the experiment. Protocols were approved by the Institutional Animal Care and Use Committee of the Minneapolis Medical Research

EC liquid constituent analysis

Levels of minor alkaloids (expressed as % of nicotine) in EC liquid were either lower (nornicotine, anabasine) or within the range (anatabine) of those reported for Kodiak and Camel Snus smokeless tobacco extracts in our previous study (Harris et al., 2015b) (Table 1).

Phase 1: acute dose-response determinations

Baseline ICSS thresholds (78.5 ± 5.8 μA versus 76.4 ± 5.6 μA) and response latencies (2.20 ± 0.06 s versus 2.17 ± 0.08 s) did not differ between the nicotine alone and EC liquid dose-response determinations.

Analysis of ICSS threshold data

Discussion

Given the dramatic rise in EC use among adolescents and current smokers and the FDA CTP’s intention to regulate ECs, the present study begins to address an urgent need for preclinical research on the behavioral pharmacology of EC liquids. The main findings of the present study were that EC liquid administration decreased ICSS thresholds to a similar degree as nicotine alone, but was less potent than nicotine alone at increasing ICSS thresholds at high doses. In contrast, there were no

Role of funding source

Funding for this study was provided by NIH/NCI grant U19-CA157345 (Hatsukami DH and Shields P, MPI; LeSage MG, PL), NIDA training grant T32 DA007097 (Smethells, JR; Molitor T, PI), and a Career Development Award (MGL) and Translational Research Program (ACH) from the Minneapolis Medical Research Foundation. These funding institutions had no role in the study design, data collection, data analysis, interpretation of the data, manuscript preparation, or decisions to submit the manuscript for

Contributors

MGL and ACH designed and supervised conduct of the study. MS, PM, and JRS conducted the behavioral studies. IS conducted the alkaloid analysis. PRP advised the design and data analysis for the pharmacokinetic assessment. RIV conducted the statistical analyses. MGL and ACH wrote drafts of the manuscript. All authors contributed to and approved the final manuscript.

Conflict of interest

The authors have no conflicts to disclose.

Acknowledgements

The authors thank Danielle Burroughs, Laura Tally, Theresa Harmon, Clare Schmidt, Christine Egan, and Andrew Banal for their excellent technical assistance in conducting the experiment. The authors also thank Drs. Steven Hursh and Pete Roma from the Institutes for Behavior Resources (Baltimore, MD) and Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine for providing the software for demand curve analysis and their assistance with conducting the analysis. Ki determinations and agonist/antagonist

References (103)

  • V.M. Kramlinger et al.

    Inhibition and inactivation of cytochrome P450 2A6 and cytochrome P450 2A13 by menthofuran, beta-nicotyrine and menthol

    Chem. Biol. Interact.

    (2012)
  • D. Kunin et al.

    Nicotine and ethanol interaction on conditioned taste aversions induced by both drugs

    Pharmacol. Biochem. Behav.

    (1999)
  • M.G. LeSage et al.

    Continuous nicotine infusion reduces nicotine self-administration in rats with 23-h/day access to nicotine

    Pharmacol. Biochem. Behav.

    (2002)
  • M.G. LeSage et al.

    Reinstatement of nicotine self-administration in rats by presentation of nicotine-paired stimuli, but not nicotine priming

    Pharmacol. Biochem. Behav.

    (2004)
  • M.G. LeSage et al.

    Enhanced attenuation of nicotine discrimination in rats by combining nicotine-specific antibodies with a nicotinic receptor antagonist

    Pharmacol. Biochem. Behav.

    (2012)
  • A. Markou et al.

    Construct validity of a self-stimulation threshold paradigm: effects of reward and performance manipulations

    Physiol. Behav.

    (1992)
  • W.D. Myers et al.

    Intravenous self-administration of acetaldehyde in the rat as a function of schedule, food deprivation and photoperiod

    Pharmacol. Biochem. Behav.

    (1982)
  • W.D. Myers et al.

    Effects of naloxone and buprenorphine on intravenous acetaldehyde self-injection in rats

    Physiol. Behav.

    (1984)
  • M.A. Orellana-Barrios et al.

    Electronic cigarettes-a narrative review for clinicians

    Am. J. Med.

    (2015)
  • L. Ponzoni et al.

    Different physiological and behavioural effects of e-cigarette vapour and cigarette smoke in mice

    Eur. Neuropsychopharmacol.

    (2015)
  • S.A. Roiko et al.

    Passive immunization with a nicotine-specific monoclonal antibody decreases brain nicotine levels but does not precipitate withdrawal in nicotine-dependent rats

    Pharmacol. Biochem. Behav.

    (2009)
  • C.E. Sartor et al.

    Initial response to cigarettes predicts rate of progression to regular smoking: findings from an offspring-of-twins design

    Addict. Behav.

    (2010)
  • K. Spiller et al.

    Varenicline attenuates nicotine-enhanced brain-stimulation reward by activation of alpha4beta2 nicotinic receptors in rats

    Neuropharmacology

    (2009)
  • T. Stalhandske et al.

    Nicotyrine inhibits in vivo metabolism of nicotine without increasing its toxicity

    Toxicol. Appl. Pharmacol.

    (1982)
  • A.S. Villegier et al.

    Tranylcypromine enhancement of nicotine self-administration

    Neuropharmacology

    (2007)
  • R.A. Wise

    Brain reward circuitry: insights from unsensed incentives

    Neuron

    (2002)
  • C.V. Abobo et al.

    Effect of menthol on nicotine pharmacokinetics in rats after cigarette smoke inhalation

    Nicotine Tob. Res.

    (2012)
  • S.D. Alsharari et al.

    Effects of menthol on nicotine pharmacokinetic, pharmacology and dependence in mice

    PLoS One

    (2015)
  • V. Ambrose et al.

    Tobacco particulate matter is more potent than nicotine at upregulating nicotinic receptors on SH-SY5Y cells

    Nicotine Tob. Res.

    (2007)
  • R.A. Arrazola et al.

    Tobacco use among middle and high school students − United States, 2011–2014

    MMWR

    (2015)
  • M.T. Bardo et al.

    Nornicotine is self-administered intravenously by rats

    Psychopharmacology (Berl.)

    (1999)
  • P. Bauco et al.

    Potentiation of lateral hypothalamic and midline mesencephalic brain stimulation reinforcement by nicotine: examination of repeated treatment

    J. Pharmacol. Exp. Ther.

    (1994)
  • J.D. Belluzzi et al.

    Acetaldehyde enhances acquisition of nicotine self-administration in adolescent rats

    Neuropsychopharmacology

    (2005)
  • Y. Benjamini et al.

    Controlling the false discovery rate: a powerful and practical approach to multiple testing. in behavior genetics research

    J. R. Stat. Soc. Series B Methodol.

    (1995)
  • Y. Benjamini et al.

    The control of the false discovery rate in multiple testing under dependency

    Ann. Stat.

    (2001)
  • N.L. Benowitz et al.

    Circadian blood nicotine concentrations during cigarette smoking

    Clin. Pharmacol. Ther.

    (1982)
  • N.L. Benowitz et al.

    Mentholated cigarette smoking inhibits nicotine metabolism

    J. Pharmacol. Exp. Ther.

    (2004)
  • G. Biala et al.

    Effects of varenicline and mecamylamine on the acquisition expression, and reinstatement of nicotine-conditioned place preference by drug priming in rats

    Naunyn Schmiedebergs Arch. Pharmacol.

    (2010)
  • T.H. Brandon et al.

    Electronic nicotine delivery systems: a policy statement from the American Association for Cancer Research and the American Society of Clinical Oncology

    J. Clin. Oncol.

    (2015)
  • A.B. Breland et al.

    Science and electronic cigarettes: current data, future needs

    J. Addict. Med.

    (2014)
  • K.A. Brennan et al.

    Tobacco particulate matter self-administration in rats: differential effects of tobacco type

    Addict. Biol.

    (2013)
  • K.A. Brennan et al.

    Nicotine and tobacco particulate self-administration: effects of mecamylamine: SCH23390 and ketanserin pretreatment

    Curr. Psychopharmacol.

    (2013)
  • K.A. Brennan et al.

    Nicotine-, tobacco particulate matter- and methamphetamine-produced locomotor sensitisation in rats

    Psychopharmacology (Berl.)

    (2013)
  • A.R. Caggiula et al.

    The role of nicotine in smoking: a dual-reinforcement model

    Nebr. Symp. Motiv.

    (2009)
  • J. Cao et al.

    Acetaldehyde, a major constituent of tobacco smoke, enhances behavioral, endocrine, and neuronal responses to nicotine in adolescent and adult rats

    Neuropsychopharmacology

    (2007)
  • N. Chaudhri et al.

    Complex interactions between nicotine and nonpharmacological stimuli reveal multiple roles for nicotine in reinforcement

    Psychopharmacology (Berl.)

    (2006)
  • P.B.S. Clarke et al.

    The effects of nicotine on locomotor activity in non-tolerant and tolerant rats

    Br. J. Pharmacol.

    (1983)
  • K.J. Clemens et al.

    The addition of five minor tobacco alkaloids increases nicotine-induced hyperactivity, sensitization and intravenous self-administration in rats

    Int. J. Neuropsychopharmacol.

    (2009)
  • C.O. Cobb et al.

    Electronic cigarettes and nicotine dependence: evolving products, evolving problems

    BMC Med.

    (2015)
  • M.R. Costello et al.

    Comparison of the reinforcing properties of nicotine and cigarette smoke extract in rats

    Neuropsychopharmacology

    (2014)
  • Cited by (27)

    View all citing articles on Scopus
    View full text