A Forced-Choice Procedure to Assess the Acute Relative Reinforcing Effects of Nicotine Dose per se in Humans. Issue 10 (3rd December 2019)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: Perkins, Kenneth A; Karelitz, Joshua L
• Is Part Of: Nicotine & tobacco research. Volume 22:Issue 10(2020)
• Page Start: 1685
• Page End: 1693
• Publication Date: 2019-12-03
• Subjects: Nicotine -- Periodicals; Tobacco -- Research -- Periodicals; Tobacco habit -- Periodicals; Nicotine -- Periodicals; Tobacco -- Periodicals; Smoking -- Periodicals; 613.85
• DOI: 10.1093/ntr/ntz224
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 1462-2203

Abstract

Abstract: Introduction: A method to assess acute reinforcement due to nicotine may aid identification of doses needed to maintain dependence. After describing development of a forced-choice procedure, results are presented from two studies using it to determine the relative reinforcing effects of nicotine dose per se. Aims and Methods: Choice between a higher versus a very low or no nicotine option, via smoking (Study 1, n = 59) and via nasal spray (Study 2, n = 42), was assessed in nontreatment-seeking dependent smokers abstinent overnight. Using a within-subject design, different nicotine levels for each product were administered under blind conditions, initially to assess their discriminability (Study 1: 1.3–17 mg/g each vs. 0.4 mg/g nicotine Spectrum cigarettes; Study 2: 2.5 µg/kg vs. 0 µg/kg nicotine per spray). At the end of sessions for each study, participants engaged in forced-choice trials to assess preference, requiring a fixed number of puffs/sprays for one and/or the other. Results: Confirming the procedure's validity, the choice of the higher nicotine option was significantly greater than that for the very low or no nicotine option in both studies. In Study 1, choice relative to 0.4 mg/g was greater for cigarettes 5.3 mg/g or more but not 2.3 mg/g or less ( p = .003 for the interaction of higher content vs. 0.4 mg/g comparison). In Study 2, choice was greater for the nicotine versus placebo spray ( p < .005), as nicotine was preferred nearly twice as much as the placebo. Conclusion: This forced-choice procedure may efficiently determine the relative reinforcing value of a nicotine dose per se. Implications: The forced-choice procedure described here may identify nicotine doses that are acutely reinforcing in dependent smokers. A priori research of choice comparisons between small versus zero nicotine doses could inform clinical research in larger and more diverse samples to determine nicotine contents in cigarettes, and perhaps in other commercial products, that are not reinforcing and, thus, likely to reduce the risk of their addictiveness. This procedure may also be applicable to assessing changes in acute nicotine reinforcement due to different product formulations, novel drugs, or other manipulations, perhaps helping inform development of new interventions for cessation or harm reduction.