Threshold dose for discrimination of nicotine via cigarette smoking
- 340 Downloads
The lowest nicotine threshold “dose” in cigarettes discriminated from a cigarette containing virtually no nicotine may help inform the minimum dose maintaining dependence.
Spectrum research cigarettes (from NIDA) differing in nicotine content were used to evaluate a procedure to determine discrimination thresholds.
Dependent smokers (n = 18; 13 M, 5 F) were tested on ability to discriminate cigarettes with nicotine contents of 11, 5, 2.4, and 1.3 mg/g, one per session, from the “ultralow” cigarette with 0.4 mg/g, after having discriminated 16 mg/g from 0.4 mg/g (all had 9–10 mg “tar”). Exposure to each was limited to 4 puffs/trial. All subjects were abstinent from smoking overnight prior to each session, and the number of sessions was determined by the participant’s success in discrimination behavior on >80 % of trials. Subjective perceptions and behavioral choice between cigarettes were also assessed and related to discrimination behavior.
The median threshold was 11 mg/g, but the range was 2.4 to 16 mg/g, suggesting wide variability in discrimination threshold. Compared to the ultralow, puff choice was greater for the subject’s threshold dose but only marginal for the subthreshold (next lowest nicotine) cigarette. Threshold and subthreshold also differed on subjective perceptions but not withdrawal relief.
Under these testing conditions, threshold content for discriminating nicotine via cigarettes may be 11 mg/g or greater for most smokers, but some can discriminate nicotine contents one-half or one-quarter this amount. Further study with other procedures and cigarette exposure amounts may identify systematic differences in nicotine discrimination thresholds.
KeywordsNicotine Discrimination Cigarette smoking Threshold Choice Subjective effects
Research reported in this publication was supported by the National Institute on Drug Abuse and Food and Drug Administration Center for Tobacco Products (CTP) (U54 DA031659). The content is solely the responsibility of the authors and does not necessarily represent the official views of the NIH or the Food and Drug Administration.
Compliance with ethical standard
Conflict of interests
No authors have any potential conflicts of interest to report.
- American Psychiatric Association (APA) (2013) Diagnostic and statistical manual—v. American Psychiatric Association, Washington DCGoogle Scholar
- U.S. Govt (2009) Family Smoking Prevention and Tobacco Control Act, Pub. L. No. 111–31; http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/PLAW-111publ31/pdf/PLAW-111publ31.pdf
- Holtzman SG (1990) Discriminative stimulus effects of drugs: relationship to potential for abuse. In: Modern Methods in Pharmacology, vol 6. Wiley-Liss, Inc, New York, pp 193–210Google Scholar
- Jarvis MJ, Boreham R, Primatesta P, Feyerabend C, Bryant A (2001) Nicotine yield from machine-smoked cigarettes and nicotine intakes in smokers: evidence from a representative population. J of NCI 93:134–138Google Scholar
- Johanson C-E (1991) Discriminative stimulus effects of psychomotor stimulants and benzodiazepines in humans. In: Glennon RA, Jarbe TUC, Frankenheim J (eds) Drug discrimination: applications to drug abuse research, vol 116, NIDA Research Monograph. U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington DC, pp 181–196Google Scholar
- Perkins KA, Kunkle N, Michael VC, Karelitz JL, Donny EC (in press). Assessing discrimination of nicotine in humans via cigarette smoking. Nicotine Tob Res. (in press).Google Scholar
- Takada K (1996) Drug discrimination studies in humans: a review of methodologies. Meth Find Exp Clin Pharmacol 18(suppl 1):187–196Google Scholar
- U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (USDHHS) (2010) How tobacco smoke causes disease: the biology and behavioral basis for smoking-attributable disease. A report of the surgeon general. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, National Center for Chronic Disease Prevention and Health Promotion, Office on Smoking and Health, AtlantaGoogle Scholar