Short-term thread to discuss model recommendation for Dr. Eissenberg

[Mister]

This thread is for discussion of an e-cig model to recommend to Dr. Eissenberg in the context of the following post:
http://www.e-cigarette-forum.com/forum/e-cigarette-news/69409-cnn-com-today-11.html#post1043349

There hasn't been a specific suggestion which shows collective support on that thread.

I'd like to post the following recommendation to that thread but before doing so want to find out if there are opinions which agree/disagree with this. Please post a +1 if you agree, a comment if you disagree, thanks.

Proposed reply:

Dr. Eissenberg, we agree on the following device and cartridge as one which we feel certain will deliver nicotine. A two piece e-cigarette with a large capacity cartomizer is recommended to avoid some potential problems when testing naiive subjects, i.e. inhaling primer fluid or using a dry cartridge.

The recommended device is the manual Vapor King from Vapor4Life. (A manual switch device produces vapor more consistently than an automatic one.) You can purchase however many of the standard manual batteries you want (two is probably best to allow for one in-use and one charging at any given time) from this page: Vapor4Life:: Because it's your life :: Electronic Cigarettes & Alternatives to Smoking. You should purchase at least one charger from this page: Vapor4Life- Electronic Cigarette: Vapor King Charger.

The recommended cartomizers to use are the Cowboy flavor at this page: Vapor4Life- Electronic Cigarette: Vapor King Cowboy Cartomizers. Please select the 36mg strength from the dropdown options, and please also place a second order of the same cartomizers but in 0mg strength if the suggestion further down in this note makes sense to you.

The above is all you will need to test the recommended device. If you'd prefer to purchase everything as a single kit the recommended kit is the "Ultimate" at this page: Vapor King Kits. The kit is a more expensive purchase because it includes components which are unnecessary for your testing but are desirable to many consumers (case and alternate power options.)

We also suggest for your consideration that a step be added to the testing which would allow users to familiarize themselves with the device. This could be done by, on the day before testing, allowing the subject to use the device with a 0mg (no nicotine) cartomizer for 15 minutes ad libitum, encouraging the subject to learn to draw a satisfactory "puff" from the device. Also, on the test day, we suggest that the subject be permitted to draw as long as desired on the device for each puff in the test. (E-cigarettes do not equate to cigarettes on a puff duration basis. Most e-cigarette users find a longer puff duration with a lower draw rate to work well.)

 

[Kilroy]

This would seem to be a good recommendation. I've not personally used a KR8, but I have considered them. It certainly eliminates a lot of variables. I suspect that if the FDA gets its way, a somewhat similar device will be all that is available to us.

 

[voltaire]

I neither agree or disagree. I think either the KR808d or the *Joye* 510 would both be good for different reasons. I would personally recommend using both - just like the previous study used two models. I would also recommend the manual batteries for both models, particularly for new ecig users - but this isn't entirely necessary if users are allowed to familiarize themselves with operation using 0mg/ml.

KR808 +'s
-no primer issues
-more simple, fool-proof, lower maintenance design with larger capacity

510 +'s
-vapor production more on par with cigarettes which would not require new users to puff much more than they are used to
-is designed for easy liquid filling and wouldn't require any disassembly to use liquid (use of liquid to fill empty carts allows testing in advance for nicotine content and would allow atomizers to be pre-primed with same liquid)

As for liquid choices, I would have to go with Halo if you want test subjects to have maximum taste satisfaction. Harley or Freedom for regular, or Newpure or Menthol Ice for menthol smokers, all in 24mg/ml. The fact that their liquid is fresh with born-on dating and lot#'s is probably good for testing purposes.

 

[kai kane]

"longer puff -slower too" - great recommendation.

+1, with caveats:

does the length of use on batts need to be addressed?

Some foreign manufacturers' claim of performance are clearly in error -relative to batty and cart life - 510 batts always rip when fully charged, and then taper - not famliar with kr8s.​

familiarization

- with simple brief instruction - perhaps an existing you-tube put out by vendor - does a manufacturer's video exist ?​

"Vapor King Cowboy Cartomizers."

- not familiar - flavor raises issue dealt with in other NRT tests (palatability, etc.) . Perhaps unflavored nicotine? (- again no experience here).​

"Please select the 36mg strength"

pardon my ignorance - this raises a question relative to methodology - Does a heavy smoker metabolize nicotine faster, more efficiently and in such a way that they might show lower nicotine test results (than light smokers -given identical dosages?)were subjects screened for nicotine tolerance (heavy smoker vs light)?​

 

[jamie]

Agree with the V4L KR808. Think the 36mg is too high. I wouldn't be able to take even 5 puffs of that, much less 10+.

Having test subjects become ill or drop out isn't going to make things look better for the ecig, even if it proves the presence of nicotine.

 

[CES]

I think that testing both the KR808D and 501 would be optimal, but I do agree with the suggestion that they be manual . If only one can be tested then I lean toward the KR8.
+1 on lower mg e-liquid. Either 18 or 24 mg, as well as 0 mg. In the current study there was a small but not statistically significant amount (>2ng) of nic in the bloodstream. Thought this was near the level of detection, it consistent with amounts shown in studies using gum or the inhalator.
Rather than training the study participants, the people administering the tests should be well-trained with the equipment. While most people using e-cigs struggle through on their own, that’s not the point of the set of tests that we’d like to see. User error can be minimized, and the data collection better standardized if the grad students/post docs/techs know when things are and are not working properly. Would it be possible for local users to train test administrators?
Training those who administer could help could also eliminate/decrease the differences in ease of use between a 2-piece or 3-piece model, because study participants would not have to learn to assemble, clean etc. They push a button and inhale a standard flavor/or no flavor, with and without nic. Again, using the same flavor/no flavor in all tests decreases another source of variability. Participants may perceive a difference in throat hit or amount of vapor , but you can’t control for everything.

 

[curiousJan]

Think the 36mg is too high. I wouldn't be able to take even 5 puffs of that, much less 10+.

Having test subjects become ill or drop out isn't going to make things look better for the ecig, even if it proves the presence of nicotine.

I agree with this. Something in the 20-26mg range would be less likely to sicken any of the test subjects. I also doubt that they will be able to easily gain approval for the higher nic level ... so while it's important to get a higher concentration than was originally tested, we need to try to be realistic about gaining the necessary approvals, too.

Jan

 

[TropicalBob]

I'm going to try to be realistic, not idealistic, when I suggest that only widely available, off-the-shelf models should be used in a test. And two of those would be the ones the FDA is challenging: Njoy and Smoking Everywhere. Because of the massive ad campaign, I might add Blu. I'd test those three.

Forget high-nic cartridges. Too risky. 16mg is it. For many companies, that's "high".

You can prove whatever you like about your own device, through personal testing. Consumer tests must be on the standard item anyone can purchase in a mall or store. Consumer Reports does it exactly right; Buy the item, read and follow the instructions, test, report. NEVER contact a maker. NEVER modify anything. NEVER use anyone who has personal experience with the product. These are standard rules -- for good reasons.

No pre-testing. No learning ahead of time. No speeches about "how to use".

In a dream world, we might have "Vaping 101" for testers. But not in a lab whose research findings will be scrutinized by peers.

 

[Mister]

Consumer Reports does it exactly right; Buy the item, read and follow the instructions, test, report. NEVER contact a maker. NEVER modify anything. NEVER use anyone who has personal experience with the product. These are standard rules -- for good reasons.

No pre-testing. No learning ahead of time. No speeches about "how to use".

I think you are overstating things here TB. I doubt that Consumer Reports would test a bicyle with users who'd never ridden one before, a toothbrush with someone who'd never brushed before, etc. Many products require familiarity. Since Dr. Eissenberg is unwilling to test PV X using people who are familiar with vaping PVs in general (but not X), I think that a minimal amount of learning time, on the same order of magnitude as the experimentation most amokers would undertake before giving up on the device, is critical to perform a meaningful test.

 

[a2dcovert]

I think that in our pipe dream we would want strictly scientific methods for conducting the test. That one group of testers, as a control group, should be actual analog smokers smoking analog cigarettes. If blood chemistry is to be tested this is the only fair way to determine actual nicotine uptake as a base model.

I don't think that any discussion conducted here in this format will have any bearing on reality. I am pretty sure that the FDA will eventually have to conduct or direct one of the major players in the commerce side to conduct really meaningful tests. But who knows if the test will be exactly fair and truely scientificly proper.

If the tests are conducted properly I myself would like to see the results of this test. We have a lot of assumptions about the e-cig but not very many facts.

 

[TropicalBob]

I certainly didn't overstate by much, Mister, if I did. I agree with what you'd like to accomplish, but fervantly disagree with any "prep" of subjects or contact with any manufacturer. Valid testing, the kind that will withstand peer review, will never allow such bias going in.

And a manual switch e-cig cannot be used because the variables it introduces.

No one chosen for testing should even know what an e-cig is. This is akin of making sure potential jurors haven't made a hobby of learning about a crime they're about to judge.

While I know we won't agree, I also know that Dr. Eissenberg will not follow fanciful recommendations here to assure that nicotine is found in users' blood streams. And you bet he will not refute his study results: With 16mg carts, no significant nicotine was measured. It is what it is.

 

[aubergine]

+1. I guess.
But not 36! 18. or 24 at the most. If no instructions, then a manual device. But...

If the subjects are anxious, as many people naturally are, reflexively, when inhaling a strange and new substance, they are going to mouth-hold it and inhale in tentative little trickles and etc. at first. My daughter did for the first DAY, with a V4L manual, tho I was right next to her, happily inhaling away. The rationale that insists upon virgin users is absurd unless we are testing for user friendliness of a particular device- and that is not the primary aim here as I understand it.

And Bob, the instruction manual is also not what is being tested here. My computer is dandy and wouldn't be subject to claims that it didn't compute because my newbie father took 5 days to figure out how to use a mouse and found the manual bewildering. Nothing wrong with the cake mix just because I can't break an egg.

This is, at this point, a scientific study of whether or not an ecig is capable of delivering nicotine, and how much - not of the collective ability, learning aptitude, motivation, aversion level, etc., of a tiny group of subjects, or the adequacy of the printed instructions. These are confounding variables, which was the whole problem with the first study. (A really odd, obvious and singularly impressive oversight).

And ya, it's going to have very little or no bearing upon the larger concern that preoccupies us. Both sides will simply attempt to produce opposing mountains of skewed data on that front. Tobacco and Pharma always have - that's as old as the hills and any credulity re their findings is woefully naive. FDA is in bed with both. Only a wisely cynical and seasoned judge with common sense and plenty of experience with that crew might render us a good decision.

Hope Steve doesn't somehow end up under tedious and unpleasant scrutiny now that things are becoming wickeder. His product is first rate and he's a person of tremendous integrity, I do believe. And the Aggressive Dissimulatin' Stupids are very much afoot. No telling what might go which way. Sigh.

 

[Mister]

I posted a reply to Dr. Eissenberg today here: http://www.e-cigarette-forum.com/forum/e-cigarette-news/69409-cnn-com-today-14.html#post1055417

Unless a bunch of people jump in on this thread suddenly I don't think I'll add to that response, so this is now just a discussion thread.

Note: I did back off my original proposal of 36mg on this thread and recommended 24mg, or 16mg if subjects are light smokers.

[Steve]'s a person of tremendous integrity, I do believe.

I totally support that! I spoke with Steve at Vapor4Life before starting this thread, to get his reaction to having his products used for testing and to get his recommendation as to best stuff to start with. His enthusiasm is clear, as is the high level of effort he's putting in every day. I'm convinced that his beliefs and passion outweigh profit motivations beyond what's needed to succeed. (Bless him, I hope he ends up making a lot too.) He wanted to get involved with anything which would help Dr. E. including not just supplying stuff for testing but also providing access to technical resources. I ended up not including this in my note to Dr. E because it seems clear that he wants to avoid any appearance of direct contact with an e-cig supplier and might even be a bit put off by the suggestion. Sigh.

 

[DC2]

My suggestion: KR808D-1 with 24mg strength cartomizers and DEFINITELY a manual battery