Background: For the Food and Drug Administration to effectively regulate tobacco products, the contribution of non-nicotine tobacco constituents to the abuse liability of tobacco must be well understood. Our previous work compared the abuse liability of electronic cigarette refill liquids (EC liquids) and nicotine (Nic) alone when each was available in isolation and found no difference in abuse liability (i.e., demand elasticity). Another, and potentially more sensitive measure, would be to examine abuse liability in a choice context, which also provides a better model of the tobacco marketplace.
Methods: Demand elasticity for Nic alone and an EC liquid were measured when only one formulation was available (alone-price demand) and when both formulations were concurrently available (own-price demand), allowing an assessment of the degree to which each formulation served as a substitute (cross-price demand) when available at a low fixed-price.
Results: Own-price demand for both formulations were more elastic compared to alone-price demand, indicating that availability of a substitute increased demand elasticity. During concurrent access, consumption of the fixed-price formulation increased as the unit-price of the other formulation increased. The rate of increase was similar between formulations, indicating that they served as symmetrical substitutes.
Conclusion: The cross-price model reliably quantified the substitutability of both nicotine formulations and indicated that the direct CNS effects of non-nicotine constituents in EC liquid did not alter its abuse liability compared to Nic. These data highlight the sensitivity of this model and its potential utility for examining the relative abuse liability and substitutability of tobacco products.
Keywords: Behavioral economics; Choice; Nicotine rat; Non-nicotine constituents.
Copyright © 2018 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.