Search

BackgroundA mandated reduction in the nicotine content of cigarettes could reduce smoking rate and prevalence. However, one concern is that smokers may compensate by increasing the intensity with which they smoke each cigarette to obtain more nicotine. This study assessed whether smokers engage in compensatory smoking by estimating the mouth-level nicotine intake of low nicotine cigarettes smoked during a clinical trial.MethodsSmokers were randomly assigned to receive cigarettes with one of five nicotine contents for 6 weeks. An additional group received a cigarette with the lowest nicotine content, but an increased tar yield. The obtained mouth-level nicotine intake from discarded cigarette butts for a subset of participants (51-70/group) was estimated using solanesol as described previously. A compensation index was calculated for each group to estimate the proportion of nicotine per cigarette recovered through changes in smoking intensity.ResultsThere was no significant increase in smoking intensity for any of the reduced nicotine cigarettes as measured by the compensation index (an estimated 0.4% of the nicotine lost was recovered in the lowest nicotine group; 95% confidence interval, -0.1 to 1.2). There was a significant decrease in smoking intensity for very low nicotine content cigarettes with increased tar yield.ConclusionsReductions in nicotine content did not result in compensatory changes in how intensively participants smoked research cigarettes.ImpactCombined with data from clinical trials showing a reduction in cigarettes smoked per day, these data suggest that a reduction in nicotine content is unlikely to result in increased smoke exposure.

IntroductionReports in relatively healthy smokers suggest men are more sensitive than women to the subjective effects of reduced nicotine content cigarettes (RNCCs). We know of no reports examining sex differences in the relative reinforcing effects of RNCCs, an important outcome in assessing smoking's addiction potential. The aim of the present study is to address this gap by examining sex/gender differences on reinforcing effects while examining whether sex differences in subjective effects are discernible in vulnerable populations.MethodsSecondary analysis of a within-subject, double-blinded experiment examining acute effects of cigarettes varying in nicotine content (0.4, 2.4, 5.2, 15.8 mg/g) among 169 adult smokers with psychiatric conditions or socioeconomic disadvantage. Effects of dose, sex, and their interaction were examined on reinforcing (concurrent-choice and Cigarette Purchase Task [CPT] testing), and subjective effects (Cigarette Evaluation Questionnaire [CEQ] and craving/withdrawal ratings).ResultsReducing nicotine content decreased the relative reinforcing effects of smoking in concurrent-choice and CPT testing (p's < .05) with no significant effects of sex nor dose × sex/gender interactions. Reducing nicotine content decreased CEQ ratings with only a single significant effect of sex (higher Psychological Reward scores among women than men, p = .02) and no significant dose × sex/gender interactions. Results on craving/withdrawal paralleled those on the CEQ.ConclusionsReducing nicotine content decreases the addiction potential of smoking independent of sex in populations highly vulnerable to smoking and addiction, with no indication that women are less sensitive to subjective effects of RNCCs or would benefit less from a policy reducing the nicotine content of cigarettes.ImplicationsA policy reducing the nicotine content of cigarettes has the potential to reduce the addiction potential of smoking across men and women who are especially vulnerable

IntroductionReports in relatively healthy smokers suggest men are more sensitive than women to the subjective effects of reduced nicotine content cigarettes (RNCCs). We know of no reports examining sex differences in the relative reinforcing effects of RNCCs, an important outcome in assessing smoking's addiction potential. The aim of the present study is to address this gap by examining sex/gender differences on reinforcing effects while examining whether sex differences in subjective effects are discernible in vulnerable populations.MethodsSecondary analysis of a within-subject, double-blinded experiment examining acute effects of cigarettes varying in nicotine content (0.4, 2.4, 5.2, 15.8 mg/g) among 169 adult smokers with psychiatric conditions or socioeconomic disadvantage. Effects of dose, sex, and their interaction were examined on reinforcing (concurrent-choice and Cigarette Purchase Task [CPT] testing), and subjective effects (Cigarette Evaluation Questionnaire [CEQ] and craving/withdrawal ratings).ResultsReducing nicotine content decreased the relative reinforcing effects of smoking in concurrent-choice and CPT testing (p's < .05) with no significant effects of sex nor dose × sex/gender interactions. Reducing nicotine content decreased CEQ ratings with only a single significant effect of sex (higher Psychological Reward scores among women than men, p = .02) and no significant dose × sex/gender interactions. Results on craving/withdrawal paralleled those on the CEQ.ConclusionsReducing nicotine content decreases the addiction potential of smoking independent of sex in populations highly vulnerable to smoking and addiction, with no indication that women are less sensitive to subjective effects of RNCCs or would benefit less from a policy reducing the nicotine content of cigarettes.ImplicationsA policy reducing the nicotine content of cigarettes has the potential to reduce the addiction potential of smoking across men and women who are especially vulnerable

IntroductionReports in relatively healthy smokers suggest men are more sensitive than women to the subjective effects of reduced nicotine content cigarettes (RNCCs). We know of no reports examining sex differences in the relative reinforcing effects of RNCCs, an important outcome in assessing smoking's addiction potential. The aim of the present study is to address this gap by examining sex/gender differences on reinforcing effects while examining whether sex differences in subjective effects are discernible in vulnerable populations.MethodsSecondary analysis of a within-subject, double-blinded experiment examining acute effects of cigarettes varying in nicotine content (0.4, 2.4, 5.2, 15.8 mg/g) among 169 adult smokers with psychiatric conditions or socioeconomic disadvantage. Effects of dose, sex, and their interaction were examined on reinforcing (concurrent-choice and Cigarette Purchase Task [CPT] testing), and subjective effects (Cigarette Evaluation Questionnaire [CEQ] and craving/withdrawal ratings).ResultsReducing nicotine content decreased the relative reinforcing effects of smoking in concurrent-choice and CPT testing (p's < .05) with no significant effects of sex nor dose × sex/gender interactions. Reducing nicotine content decreased CEQ ratings with only a single significant effect of sex (higher Psychological Reward scores among women than men, p = .02) and no significant dose × sex/gender interactions. Results on craving/withdrawal paralleled those on the CEQ.ConclusionsReducing nicotine content decreases the addiction potential of smoking independent of sex in populations highly vulnerable to smoking and addiction, with no indication that women are less sensitive to subjective effects of RNCCs or would benefit less from a policy reducing the nicotine content of cigarettes.ImplicationsA policy reducing the nicotine content of cigarettes has the potential to reduce the addiction potential of smoking across men and women who are especially vulnerable

BackgroundA mandated reduction in the nicotine content of cigarettes could reduce smoking rate and prevalence. However, one concern is that smokers may compensate by increasing the intensity with which they smoke each cigarette to obtain more nicotine. This study assessed whether smokers engage in compensatory smoking by estimating the mouth-level nicotine intake of low nicotine cigarettes smoked during a clinical trial.MethodsSmokers were randomly assigned to receive cigarettes with one of five nicotine contents for 6 weeks. An additional group received a cigarette with the lowest nicotine content, but an increased tar yield. The obtained mouth-level nicotine intake from discarded cigarette butts for a subset of participants (51-70/group) was estimated using solanesol as described previously. A compensation index was calculated for each group to estimate the proportion of nicotine per cigarette recovered through changes in smoking intensity.ResultsThere was no significant increase in smoking intensity for any of the reduced nicotine cigarettes as measured by the compensation index (an estimated 0.4% of the nicotine lost was recovered in the lowest nicotine group; 95% confidence interval, -0.1 to 1.2). There was a significant decrease in smoking intensity for very low nicotine content cigarettes with increased tar yield.ConclusionsReductions in nicotine content did not result in compensatory changes in how intensively participants smoked research cigarettes.ImpactCombined with data from clinical trials showing a reduction in cigarettes smoked per day, these data suggest that a reduction in nicotine content is unlikely to result in increased smoke exposure.

BackgroundThe FDA recently acquired regulatory authority over tobacco products, leading to renewed interest in whether reducing the nicotine content of cigarettes would reduce tobacco dependence in the United States. Given the association between depressive symptoms and cigarette smoking, it is important to consider whether smokers with elevated depressive symptoms experience unique benefits or negative consequences of nicotine reduction.MethodsIn this secondary analysis of a randomized clinical trial that examined the effects of cigarettes varying in nicotine content over a 6-week period in non-treatment-seeking smokers, we used linear regression to examine whether baseline depressive symptom severity (scores on the Center for Epidemiologic Studies Depression Scale [CES-D]) moderated the effects of reduced-nicotine content (RNC) cigarettes, relative to normal-nicotine content (NNC) cigarettes, on smoking rates, depressive symptom severity, and related subjective and physiological measures.ResultsOf the 717 participants included in this analysis, 109 (15.2%) had CES-D scores ≥ 16, indicative of possible clinical depression. Relative to NNC cigarettes, RNC cigarettes reduced smoking rates, nicotine dependence, and cigarette craving, and these effects were not significantly moderated by baseline CES-D score. A significant interaction between baseline CES-D score and cigarette condition on week 6 CES-D score was observed (p < .05); among those with CES-D scores ≥ 16 at baseline, those assigned to RNC cigarettes had lower week 6 CES-D scores than those assigned to NNC cigarettes. Among those in the lowest nicotine content conditions, biochemically confirmed compliance with the RNC cigarettes was associated with an increase in CES-D score for those with baseline CES-D scores < 16 and no change in CES-D score for those with baseline CES-D scores ≥ 16.ConclusionsThese findings provide initial evidence that a reduced-nicotine standard for cigarettes may reduce smoking

BackgroundThe FDA recently acquired regulatory authority over tobacco products, leading to renewed interest in whether reducing the nicotine content of cigarettes would reduce tobacco dependence in the United States. Given the association between depressive symptoms and cigarette smoking, it is important to consider whether smokers with elevated depressive symptoms experience unique benefits or negative consequences of nicotine reduction.MethodsIn this secondary analysis of a randomized clinical trial that examined the effects of cigarettes varying in nicotine content over a 6-week period in non-treatment-seeking smokers, we used linear regression to examine whether baseline depressive symptom severity (scores on the Center for Epidemiologic Studies Depression Scale [CES-D]) moderated the effects of reduced-nicotine content (RNC) cigarettes, relative to normal-nicotine content (NNC) cigarettes, on smoking rates, depressive symptom severity, and related subjective and physiological measures.ResultsOf the 717 participants included in this analysis, 109 (15.2%) had CES-D scores ≥ 16, indicative of possible clinical depression. Relative to NNC cigarettes, RNC cigarettes reduced smoking rates, nicotine dependence, and cigarette craving, and these effects were not significantly moderated by baseline CES-D score. A significant interaction between baseline CES-D score and cigarette condition on week 6 CES-D score was observed (p < .05); among those with CES-D scores ≥ 16 at baseline, those assigned to RNC cigarettes had lower week 6 CES-D scores than those assigned to NNC cigarettes. Among those in the lowest nicotine content conditions, biochemically confirmed compliance with the RNC cigarettes was associated with an increase in CES-D score for those with baseline CES-D scores < 16 and no change in CES-D score for those with baseline CES-D scores ≥ 16.ConclusionsThese findings provide initial evidence that a reduced-nicotine standard for cigarettes may reduce smoking

IntroductionBecause 30% of cigarettes sold in the United States are characterized as menthol cigarettes, it is important to understand how menthol preference may affect the impact of a nicotine reduction policy.MethodsIn a recent trial, non-treatment-seeking smokers were randomly assigned to receive very low nicotine cigarettes (VLNC; 0.4 mg nicotine/g tobacco) or normal nicotine cigarettes (NNC; 15.5 mg/g) for 20 weeks. On the basis of preference, participants received menthol or non-menthol cigarettes. We conducted multivariable regression analyses to examine whether menthol preference moderated the effects of nicotine content on cigarettes per day (CPD), breath carbon monoxide (CO), urinary total nicotine equivalents (TNE), urinary 2-cyanoethylmercapturic acid (CEMA), and abstinence.ResultsAt baseline, menthol smokers (n = 346) reported smoking fewer CPD (14.9 vs. 19.2) and had lower TNE (52.8 vs. 71.6 nmol/mg) and CO (17.7 vs. 20.5 ppm) levels than non-menthol smokers (n = 406; ps < .05). At week 20, significant interactions indicated that menthol smokers had smaller treatment effects than non-menthol smokers for CPD (-6.4 vs. -9.3), TNE (ratio of geometric means, 0.22 vs. 0.10) and CEMA (ratio, 0.56 vs. 0.37; ps < .05), and trended toward a smaller treatment effect for CO (-4.5 vs. -7.3 ppm; p = .06). Odds ratios for abstinence at week 20 were 1.88 (95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.8 to 4.4) for menthol and 9.11 (95% CI = 3.3 to 25.2) for non-menthol VLNC smokers (p = .02) relative to the NNC condition.ConclusionsAlthough menthol smokers experienced reductions in smoking, toxicant exposure, and increases in quitting when using VLNC cigarettes, the magnitude of change was smaller than that observed for non-menthol smokers.ImplicationsResults of this analysis suggest that smokers of menthol cigarettes may respond to a nicotine reduction policy with smaller reductions in smoking rates and toxicant exposure than would smokers of non-menthol cigarettes.

IntroductionBecause 30% of cigarettes sold in the United States are characterized as menthol cigarettes, it is important to understand how menthol preference may affect the impact of a nicotine reduction policy.MethodsIn a recent trial, non-treatment-seeking smokers were randomly assigned to receive very low nicotine cigarettes (VLNC; 0.4 mg nicotine/g tobacco) or normal nicotine cigarettes (NNC; 15.5 mg/g) for 20 weeks. On the basis of preference, participants received menthol or non-menthol cigarettes. We conducted multivariable regression analyses to examine whether menthol preference moderated the effects of nicotine content on cigarettes per day (CPD), breath carbon monoxide (CO), urinary total nicotine equivalents (TNE), urinary 2-cyanoethylmercapturic acid (CEMA), and abstinence.ResultsAt baseline, menthol smokers (n = 346) reported smoking fewer CPD (14.9 vs. 19.2) and had lower TNE (52.8 vs. 71.6 nmol/mg) and CO (17.7 vs. 20.5 ppm) levels than non-menthol smokers (n = 406; ps < .05). At week 20, significant interactions indicated that menthol smokers had smaller treatment effects than non-menthol smokers for CPD (-6.4 vs. -9.3), TNE (ratio of geometric means, 0.22 vs. 0.10) and CEMA (ratio, 0.56 vs. 0.37; ps < .05), and trended toward a smaller treatment effect for CO (-4.5 vs. -7.3 ppm; p = .06). Odds ratios for abstinence at week 20 were 1.88 (95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.8 to 4.4) for menthol and 9.11 (95% CI = 3.3 to 25.2) for non-menthol VLNC smokers (p = .02) relative to the NNC condition.ConclusionsAlthough menthol smokers experienced reductions in smoking, toxicant exposure, and increases in quitting when using VLNC cigarettes, the magnitude of change was smaller than that observed for non-menthol smokers.ImplicationsResults of this analysis suggest that smokers of menthol cigarettes may respond to a nicotine reduction policy with smaller reductions in smoking rates and toxicant exposure than would smokers of non-menthol cigarettes.

Combustible cigarettes remain the most harmful and addictive tobacco product, and reducing the prevalence of smoking continues to be a critical public health goal. While nicotine is the constituent primarily responsible for addiction to cigarettes, most of the harm associated with smoking comes from byproducts of tobacco combustion. Recently, two different approaches for reducing the harms of smoking have emerged, both of which focus on breaking the link between the addiction to nicotine and the harms caused by smoking. First, the addictive potential of cigarettes could be minimized by requiring a large reduction in the nicotine content of cigarettes. Evidence for a nicotine reduction policy thus far shows that the use of very low nicotine content cigarettes results in a reduction in the number of cigarettes people smoke per day and a reduction in cigarette dependence. Second, emerging alternative nicotine delivery systems (ANDS) like electronic cigarettes may provide sufficient nicotine to act as substitutes for cigarettes while delivering much lower levels of toxicants. Evidence suggests that the emergence of ANDS has increased the percentage of smokers who are able to quit. The present paper will briefly review the evidence for each of these approaches, and consider what contemporary reinforcement and addiction theories can tell us about their likely success. We argue that the most effective endgame approach is one that pursues both nicotine reduction and alternative nicotine delivery systems as complementary.

In the United States, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has initiated a public dialogue about reducing the nicotine content of cigarettes. A reduced-nicotine standard could increase withdrawal symptoms among current smokers. We examined the impact of switching smokers to cigarettes that varied in nicotine content on withdrawal symptoms over 6 weeks. A secondary analysis (N = 839) of a 10-site, double-blind clinical trial of nontreatment-seeking smokers was completed. Participants were instructed to smoke study cigarettes, containing 0.4 to 15.8 mg of nicotine/g of tobacco, for 6 weeks and were then abstinent overnight. Using latent growth curves, trajectories of individual withdrawal symptoms were compared between the reduced nicotine content (RNC) conditions and a normal nicotine content (NNC) condition. Path analyses compared symptoms after overnight abstinence. Relative to NNC cigarettes, participants smoking RNC cigarettes had increased anger/irritability/frustration and increased appetite/weight gain during the initial weeks, but the symptoms resolved by Week 6. Individuals who were biochemically verified as adherent with using only the 0.4 mg/g cigarettes had higher sadness levels (Cohen's d = .40) at Week 6 compared with the NNC condition, although symptoms were mild. After a post-Week 6 overnight abstinence challenge, some RNC conditions relative to NNC condition exhibited reduced withdrawal. Individuals who were biochemically confirmed as adherent to the lowest nicotine condition experienced only mild and transient symptom elevations. Thus, a reduced-nicotine standard for cigarettes produced a relatively mild and temporary increase in withdrawal among nontreatment-seeking smokers (ClinicalTrials.gov No. NCT01681875). (PsycINFO Database Record

In the United States, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has initiated a public dialogue about reducing the nicotine content of cigarettes. A reduced-nicotine standard could increase withdrawal symptoms among current smokers. We examined the impact of switching smokers to cigarettes that varied in nicotine content on withdrawal symptoms over 6 weeks. A secondary analysis (N = 839) of a 10-site, double-blind clinical trial of nontreatment-seeking smokers was completed. Participants were instructed to smoke study cigarettes, containing 0.4 to 15.8 mg of nicotine/g of tobacco, for 6 weeks and were then abstinent overnight. Using latent growth curves, trajectories of individual withdrawal symptoms were compared between the reduced nicotine content (RNC) conditions and a normal nicotine content (NNC) condition. Path analyses compared symptoms after overnight abstinence. Relative to NNC cigarettes, participants smoking RNC cigarettes had increased anger/irritability/frustration and increased appetite/weight gain during the initial weeks, but the symptoms resolved by Week 6. Individuals who were biochemically verified as adherent with using only the 0.4 mg/g cigarettes had higher sadness levels (Cohen's d = .40) at Week 6 compared with the NNC condition, although symptoms were mild. After a post-Week 6 overnight abstinence challenge, some RNC conditions relative to NNC condition exhibited reduced withdrawal. Individuals who were biochemically confirmed as adherent to the lowest nicotine condition experienced only mild and transient symptom elevations. Thus, a reduced-nicotine standard for cigarettes produced a relatively mild and temporary increase in withdrawal among nontreatment-seeking smokers (ClinicalTrials.gov No. NCT01681875). (PsycINFO Database Record

Combustible cigarettes remain the most harmful and addictive tobacco product, and reducing the prevalence of smoking continues to be a critical public health goal. While nicotine is the constituent primarily responsible for addiction to cigarettes, most of the harm associated with smoking comes from byproducts of tobacco combustion. Recently, two different approaches for reducing the harms of smoking have emerged, both of which focus on breaking the link between the addiction to nicotine and the harms caused by smoking. First, the addictive potential of cigarettes could be minimized by requiring a large reduction in the nicotine content of cigarettes. Evidence for a nicotine reduction policy thus far shows that the use of very low nicotine content cigarettes results in a reduction in the number of cigarettes people smoke per day and a reduction in cigarette dependence. Second, emerging alternative nicotine delivery systems (ANDS) like electronic cigarettes may provide sufficient nicotine to act as substitutes for cigarettes while delivering much lower levels of toxicants. Evidence suggests that the emergence of ANDS has increased the percentage of smokers who are able to quit. The present paper will briefly review the evidence for each of these approaches, and consider what contemporary reinforcement and addiction theories can tell us about their likely success. We argue that the most effective endgame approach is one that pursues both nicotine reduction and alternative nicotine delivery systems as complementary.

Background and aimsClinical trials on the impact and safety of reduced nicotine content cigarettes (RNCs) are ongoing, and an important methodological concern is participant compliance with smoking only RNCs. Our aims were to measure non-compliance biochemically with urine cotinine (COT) and total nicotine equivalents (TNEs), compare with self-reported non-compliance and identify associated covariates.DesignSecondary analysis of a double-blind, parallel, randomized clinical trial.SettingResearch centers from the United States, enrolling participants from June 2013 to July 2014.ParticipantsVolunteer sample of 242 participants (55% Caucasian), average age of 41.2 years, smoking at least five cigarettes per day (CPD).InterventionSmoking very low nicotine cigarettes (VLNCs; 0.4 mg nicotine/g tobacco) for 6 weeks.MeasurementsThe primary outcome was biochemically verified non-compliance, measured as thresholds of COT/CPD and TNE/CPD ratios, considering changes in nicotine content from conventional levels to VLNCs, and as an absolute threshold of week 6 TNEs. Self-reported non-compliance was measured via daily phone calls. Key predictors included age, sex, race, menthol preference, nicotine metabolite ratio, time to first cigarette, dependence, CPD, TNEs, tar level and cigarette evaluation.FindingsEstimates of non-compliance with smoking the VLNCs exclusively include: the biochemical ratios (both 78%), the week 6 TNE threshold (76%) and self-report (39%). Of the key covariates, age, dependence and cigarette evaluations of satisfaction were significant; for age, younger participants more likely to be non-compliant [P = 0.01; odds ratio (OR) = 0.98, 95% confidence interval (CI) = 0.96-0.99]. Dependence was associated significantly with self-reported non-compliance (P = 0.01; OR = 1.28, 95% CI = 1.06-1.55). Cigarette evaluations of satisfaction were associated significantly with non-compliance (P = 0.001; OR = 0.71, 95% CI = 0.61-0.82).ConclusionsAmong smokers volunteering to

Background and aimsClinical trials on the impact and safety of reduced nicotine content cigarettes (RNCs) are ongoing, and an important methodological concern is participant compliance with smoking only RNCs. Our aims were to measure non-compliance biochemically with urine cotinine (COT) and total nicotine equivalents (TNEs), compare with self-reported non-compliance and identify associated covariates.DesignSecondary analysis of a double-blind, parallel, randomized clinical trial.SettingResearch centers from the United States, enrolling participants from June 2013 to July 2014.ParticipantsVolunteer sample of 242 participants (55% Caucasian), average age of 41.2 years, smoking at least five cigarettes per day (CPD).InterventionSmoking very low nicotine cigarettes (VLNCs; 0.4 mg nicotine/g tobacco) for 6 weeks.MeasurementsThe primary outcome was biochemically verified non-compliance, measured as thresholds of COT/CPD and TNE/CPD ratios, considering changes in nicotine content from conventional levels to VLNCs, and as an absolute threshold of week 6 TNEs. Self-reported non-compliance was measured via daily phone calls. Key predictors included age, sex, race, menthol preference, nicotine metabolite ratio, time to first cigarette, dependence, CPD, TNEs, tar level and cigarette evaluation.FindingsEstimates of non-compliance with smoking the VLNCs exclusively include: the biochemical ratios (both 78%), the week 6 TNE threshold (76%) and self-report (39%). Of the key covariates, age, dependence and cigarette evaluations of satisfaction were significant; for age, younger participants more likely to be non-compliant [P = 0.01; odds ratio (OR) = 0.98, 95% confidence interval (CI) = 0.96-0.99]. Dependence was associated significantly with self-reported non-compliance (P = 0.01; OR = 1.28, 95% CI = 1.06-1.55). Cigarette evaluations of satisfaction were associated significantly with non-compliance (P = 0.0

BackgroundThe Food and Drug Administration can set standards that reduce the nicotine content of cigarettes.MethodsWe conducted a double-blind, parallel, randomized clinical trial between June 2013 and July 2014 at 10 sites. Eligibility criteria included an age of 18 years or older, smoking of five or more cigarettes per day, and no current interest in quitting smoking. Participants were randomly assigned to smoke for 6 weeks either their usual brand of cigarettes or one of six types of investigational cigarettes, provided free. The investigational cigarettes had nicotine content ranging from 15.8 mg per gram of tobacco (typical of commercial brands) to 0.4 mg per gram. The primary outcome was the number of cigarettes smoked per day during week 6.ResultsA total of 840 participants underwent randomization, and 780 completed the 6-week study. During week 6, the average number of cigarettes smoked per day was lower for participants randomly assigned to cigarettes containing 2.4, 1.3, or 0.4 mg of nicotine per gram of tobacco (16.5, 16.3, and 14.9 cigarettes, respectively) than for participants randomly assigned to their usual brand or to cigarettes containing 15.8 mg per gram (22.2 and 21.3 cigarettes, respectively; P<0.001). Participants assigned to cigarettes with 5.2 mg per gram smoked an average of 20.8 cigarettes per day, which did not differ significantly from the average number among those who smoked control cigarettes. Cigarettes with lower nicotine content, as compared with control cigarettes, reduced exposure to and dependence on nicotine, as well as craving during abstinence from smoking, without significantly increasing the expired carbon monoxide level or total puff volume, suggesting minimal compensation. Adverse events were generally mild and similar among groups.ConclusionsIn this 6-week study, reduced-nicotine cigarettes versus standard-nicotine cigarettes reduced nicotine exposure and dependence and the number of cigarettes smoked. (Funded by the N

BackgroundThe Food and Drug Administration can set standards that reduce the nicotine content of cigarettes.MethodsWe conducted a double-blind, parallel, randomized clinical trial between June 2013 and July 2014 at 10 sites. Eligibility criteria included an age of 18 years or older, smoking of five or more cigarettes per day, and no current interest in quitting smoking. Participants were randomly assigned to smoke for 6 weeks either their usual brand of cigarettes or one of six types of investigational cigarettes, provided free. The investigational cigarettes had nicotine content ranging from 15.8 mg per gram of tobacco (typical of commercial brands) to 0.4 mg per gram. The primary outcome was the number of cigarettes smoked per day during week 6.ResultsA total of 840 participants underwent randomization, and 780 completed the 6-week study. During week 6, the average number of cigarettes smoked per day was lower for participants randomly assigned to cigarettes containing 2.4, 1.3, or 0.4 mg of nicotine per gram of tobacco (16.5, 16.3, and 14.9 cigarettes, respectively) than for participants randomly assigned to their usual brand or to cigarettes containing 15.8 mg per gram (22.2 and 21.3 cigarettes, respectively; P<0.001). Participants assigned to cigarettes with 5.2 mg per gram smoked an average of 20.8 cigarettes per day, which did not differ significantly from the average number among those who smoked control cigarettes. Cigarettes with lower nicotine content, as compared with control cigarettes, reduced exposure to and dependence on nicotine, as well as craving during abstinence from smoking, without significantly increasing the expired carbon monoxide level or total puff volume, suggesting minimal compensation. Adverse events were generally mild and similar among groups.ConclusionsIn this 6-week study, reduced-nicotine cigarettes versus standard-nicotine cigarettes reduced nicotine exposure and dependence and the number of cigarettes smoked. (Funded by the N

IntroductionBoth the Tobacco Control Act in the U.S. and Article 9 of the Framework Convention on Tobacco Control enable governments to directly address the addictiveness of combustible tobacco by reducing nicotine through product standards. Although nicotine may have some harmful effects, the detrimental health effects of smoked tobacco are primarily due to non-nicotine constituents. Hence, the health effects of nicotine reduction would likely be determined by changes in behavior that result in changes in smoke exposure.MethodsHerein, we review the current evidence on nicotine reduction and discuss some of the challenges in establishing the empirical basis for regulatory decisions.ResultsTo date, research suggests that very low nicotine content cigarettes produce a desirable set of outcomes, including reduced exposure to nicotine, reduced smoking, and reduced dependence, without significant safety concerns. However, much is still unknown, including the effects of gradual versus abrupt changes in nicotine content, effects in vulnerable populations, and impact on youth.DiscussionA coordinated effort must be made to provide the best possible scientific basis for regulatory decisions. The outcome of this effort may provide the foundation for a novel approach to tobacco control that dramatically reduces the devastating health consequences of smoked tobacco.

IntroductionBoth the Tobacco Control Act in the U.S. and Article 9 of the Framework Convention on Tobacco Control enable governments to directly address the addictiveness of combustible tobacco by reducing nicotine through product standards. Although nicotine may have some harmful effects, the detrimental health effects of smoked tobacco are primarily due to non-nicotine constituents. Hence, the health effects of nicotine reduction would likely be determined by changes in behavior that result in changes in smoke exposure.MethodsHerein, we review the current evidence on nicotine reduction and discuss some of the challenges in establishing the empirical basis for regulatory decisions.ResultsTo date, research suggests that very low nicotine content cigarettes produce a desirable set of outcomes, including reduced exposure to nicotine, reduced smoking, and reduced dependence, without significant safety concerns. However, much is still unknown, including the effects of gradual versus abrupt changes in nicotine content, effects in vulnerable populations, and impact on youth.DiscussionA coordinated effort must be made to provide the best possible scientific basis for regulatory decisions. The outcome of this effort may provide the foundation for a novel approach to tobacco control that dramatically reduces the devastating health consequences of smoked tobacco.