Search

IntroductionIn response to reducing cigarette nicotine content, people who smoke could attempt to compensate by using more cigarettes or by puffing on individual cigarettes with greater intensity. Such behaviors may be especially likely under conditions where normal nicotine content (NNC) cigarettes are not readily accessible. The current within-subject, residential study investigated whether puffing intensity increased with very low nicotine content (VLNC) cigarette use, relative to NNC cigarette use, when no other nicotine products were available.Aims and methodsSixteen adults who smoke daily completed two four-night hotel stays in Charleston, South Carolina (United States) in 2018 during which only NNC or only VLNC cigarettes were accessible. We collected the filters from all smoked cigarettes and measured the deposited solanesol to estimate mouth-level nicotine delivery per cigarette. These estimates were averaged within and across participants, per each 24-h period. We then compared the ratio of participant-smoked VLNC and NNC cigarette mouth-level nicotine with the ratio yielded by cigarette smoking machines (when puffing intensity is constant).ResultsAverage mouth-level nicotine estimates from cigarettes smoked during the hotel stays indicate participants puffed VLNC cigarettes with greater intensity than NNC cigarettes in each respective 24-h period. However, this effect diminished over time (p < .001). Specifically, VLNC puffing intensity was 40.0% (95% CI: 29.9, 53.0) greater than NNC puffing intensity in the first period, and 16.1% (95% CI: 6.9, 26.0) greater in the fourth period.ConclusionAverage puffing intensity per cigarette was elevated with exclusive VLNC cigarette use, but the extent of this effect declined across four days.ImplicationsIn an environment where no other sources of nicotine are available, people who smoke daily may initially attempt to compensate for cigarette nicotine reduction by puffing on individual cigarettes with greater intensity. Ultimately, the compensatory behavior changes required to achieve usual nicotine intake from VLNC cigarettes are drastic and unrealistic. Accordingly, people are unlikely to sustain attempts to compensate for very low cigarette nicotine content.

The introduction of alternative nicotine and tobacco products (such as e-cigarettes, heat-not-burn devices, nicotine pouches) warrants an updated framework from which to conceptualize tobacco use disorder (TUD). The following review provides considerations for TUD within the context of novel products. Historically, the tobacco industry falsely claimed that cigarettes were not addictive or harmful and that those who smoked simply chose to do so. This generated an inaccurate lay perception that smoking is a free or informed choice. Research on nicotine pharmacology demonstrates the powerful addictive potential of nicotine, which is shaped by dose, speed of delivery, and other constituents generated. In addition, non-pharmacologic reinforcers motivate and maintain tobacco use behaviors for both traditional cigarettes and novel products. The negative consequences of combustible tobacco use are well known; however, these outcomes may differ for alternative products. Strategies used for combustible product cessation may be adapted for novel products, and treatment recommendations for TUD should be made within the context of a harm reduction framework wherein alternative product use may be the desired outcome. Providers must therefore be willing to modify their perceptions of products and treatment recommendations accordingly. Better public health outcomes are accomplished through promotion of abstinence from combustible smoking. For those who cannot wean from nicotine entirely, switching to less risky modes of delivery might be a secondary goal, with an eventual aim of stopping use of the alternative product. Implications: Given the advent of novel, alternative tobacco products, tobacco use disorder (TUD) must be conceptualized within a contemporary framework that includes harm reduction and alternative outcomes. The unique contributions of nicotine pharmacology, non-pharmacologic reinforcers, and consequences of use can be used to inform treatments for TUD with the ultimate goal of improving the health of individuals who use tobacco.

The available research on switching from normal nicotine to very low nicotine content cigarettes shows minimal evidence of compensatory smoking. Mathematical estimations suggest that substantial compensation after switching to very low nicotine cigarettes would be impossible. It is likely that smokers who are unable to tolerate the extent of proposed nicotine reduction would switch to other sources of nicotine, rather than try to compensate by smoking more very low nicotine content cigarettes more intensely.

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.

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, without worsening depressive symptoms, among smokers with elevated depressive symptoms.ImplicationsThis secondary analysis of a recent clinical trial examined whether depressive symptom severity moderated the effects of reduced-nicotine cigarettes on smoking and depressive symptoms. Results indicate that, regardless of baseline depressive symptoms, participants randomized to reduced-nicotine cigarettes had lower smoking rates, nicotine intake, nicotine dependence, and craving at week 6 post-randomization than those assigned to normal-nicotine cigarettes. In participants with higher baseline depressive symptoms, those assigned to reduced-nicotine cigarettes had lower week 6 depressive symptoms than those assigned to normal-nicotine cigarettes. These results suggest that a nicotine reduction policy could have beneficial effects for smokers, regardless of depressive symptom severity.

Introduction The FDA proposed rule-making to reduce nicotine in cigarettes to minimally addictive levels. Research suggests decreasing nicotine levels (i.e. very low nicotine content cigarettes [VLNCs]) produced greater quit attempts, reduced smoking, and reduced exposure to harmful constituents among smokers. The impact of long-term VLNC use among people who co-use cigarettes and cannabis on non-tobacco-specific toxicant and carcinogen exposure has not been investigated. Aims and Methods This study presents secondary analyses of a controlled clinical trial examining switching to VLNC (versus a normal nicotine cigarettes control group [NNCs]) between people who co-use cigarettes and cannabis (n = 174) versus smoked cigarettes (n = 555). Linear mixed-effects models compared changes in smoking behavior, and tobacco-specific (i.e. total nicotine equivalents [TNE], 4-[methylnitrosamino]-1-[3-pyridyl]-1-butanone [NNK; total NNAL]) and non-tobacco-specific (i.e. carbon monoxide (CO), 2-cyanoethylmercapturic acid [CEMA], phenanthrene tetraol [PheT]) toxicant and carcinogen exposure at week 20 (with random intercept for participants). Cannabis use was measured among co-use groups. Results CO was significantly lower only among the cigarette-only group assigned VLNCs (interaction: p =.015). Although both VLNC groups demonstrated decreased CEMA, greater decreases emerged among the cigarette-only group (interaction: p =.016). No significant interactions emerged for TNE, cigarettes per day (CPD), NNAL, and PheT (p s >.05); both VLNC groups decreased in TNE, CPD, and NNAL. Only the cigarette-only group assigned VLNCs demonstrated decreased PheT (p <.001). The VLNC co-use group showed increased cannabis use over time (p =.012; 0.5 more days per week by week 20). Conclusions Those who co-use cannabis and cigarettes may still be at risk for greater exposure to non-tobacco-specific toxicants and carcinogens compared to those who only smoke cigarettes. Implications The present study is the longest longitudinal, prospective comparison study of smoking behavior and exposure to harmful constituents among those who co-use cigarettes and cannabis versus cigarette-only after immediately switching to very low nicotine content cigarettes (VLNC). Those who co-use experienced similar reductions in CPD and tobacco-specific exposure, compared to those who only use cigarettes. However, co-use groups experienced smaller reductions in non-tobacco-specific toxicants and carcinogens compared to the cigarette-only group, potentially because of combustible cannabis use. Additionally, those who co-use and switched to VLNC may be susceptible to slight increases in cannabis use (approximately two more days per year). [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Introduction: A nicotine-reduction policy could have major benefits for smokers with serious mental illness (SMI). However, potential unintended consequences, such as compensatory smoking, should be considered to ensure that such a policy does not negatively affect this population. The purpose of this secondary analysis was to examine the impact of smoking very low nicotine content (VLNC) cigarettes for 6 weeks on smoking topography characteristics, indicators of compensatory smoking, among smokers with SMI.Aims and Methods: After a baseline usual brand smoking phase, smokers with SMI (N = 58) were randomly assigned under double-blind conditions to receive either VLNC (0.4 mg nicotine per g tobacco) or normal nicotine content (NNC; 15.8 mg nicotine per g tobacco) research cigarettes for 6 weeks. During two study visits scheduled 6 weeks apart, participants smoked either their usual brand (baseline) or assigned study cigarettes (postrandomization) through a handheld smoking topography device. Univariate analysis of variance compared smoking topography indices with cigarette condition (VLNC vs. NNC) as the between-subjects factor with corresponding baseline topography results included as covariates.Results: At week 6, participants in the VLNC condition smoked fewer puffs per cigarette and had shorter interpuff intervals compared to participants in the NNC condition (ps < .05). There were no differences between research cigarette conditions at week 6 for cigarette volume, puff volume, puff duration, peak flow rate, or carbon monoxide boost.Conclusions: Findings are consistent with acute VLNC cigarette topography studies and indicate that a nicotine-reduction policy is unlikely to lead to compensation among smokers with SMI.Implications: Given the high smoking rates among people with SMI, understanding how a nicotine-reduction policy may affect this population is critically important. When considering the smoking topography results as a whole, smokers with SMI did not engage in compensatory smoking behavior when using VLNC cigarettes during a 6-week trial. Study findings suggest that compensatory smoking is not likely to occur among smokers with SMI if nicotine content is lowered to minimally addictive levels. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Introduction: Smoking to reduce negative affect has been identified as a key motivational feature of tobacco use. Our recent work suggests that smoking very low nicotine content (VLNC) cigarettes reduces the relationship between negative affect and smoking behavior over a 6-week period. Here, we sought to extend our findings by evaluating whether a gradual or immediate approach to switching to VLNC cigarettes led to a differential reduction in the relationship between affect and smoking behavior over a longer (20-week) period.Aims and Methods: Participants (n = 1250) were adult smokers from 10 US sites randomized to one of three groups: gradual nicotine reduction (15.5, 11.7, 5.2, 2.4, and 0.4 mg of nicotine per gram of tobacco [mg/g]), immediate nicotine reduction (0.4 mg/g), or standard nicotine content cigarettes (15.5 mg/g; control), for 20 weeks. We examined whether the relationship between affect-both negative and positive-and cigarettes per day differed as a function of reduction group.Results: We found that both negative and positive affect were associated with cigarette consumption in the control group, but not in the gradual or immediate reduction groups across the 20 weeks of exposure.Conclusions: Our results extend previous findings that switching to VLNC cigarettes disrupts the relationship between affect and cigarette consumption by showing that either gradually or immediately reducing cigarette nicotine content achieves this disruption. These findings provide further evidence that switching to VLNC cigarettes reduces nicotine-related reinforcement of cigarette smoking.Implications: These findings support the notion that switching to very low nicotine content cigarettes reduces the association between affect and smoking behavior, and that either a gradual or immediate nicotine reduction approach achieves this reduction. This provides further evidence that switching to very low nicotine content cigarettes weakens reinforcement mechanisms associated with nicotine dependence. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Introduction: Cannabis and tobacco couse is common and could expose users to higher levels of toxicants. No studies have examined biomarkers of toxicant exposure in cousers of cannabis and cigarettes, compared with cigarette smokers (CS).Aims and Methods: Adult daily CS were recruited from 10 US sites for a study of reduced nicotine cigarettes. In this analysis of baseline data, participants were categorized as either cousers of cannabis and tobacco (cousers; N = 167; urine positive for 11-nor-9-carboxy-Δ 9-tetrahydrocannnabinol and self-reported cannabis use ≥1×/week), or CS (N = 911; negative urine and no self-reported cannabis use). Participants who did not meet either definition (N = 172) were excluded. Self-reported tobacco and cannabis use and tobacco and/or combustion-related biomarkers of exposure were compared between groups.Results: Compared to CS, cousers were younger (couser Mage = 38.96, SD = 13.01; CS Mage = 47.22, SD = 12.72; p < .001) and more likely to be male (cousers = 67.7%, CS = 51.9%, p < .001). There were no group differences in self-reported cigarettes/day, total nicotine equivalents, or breath carbon monoxide, but cousers had greater use of non-cigarette tobacco products. Compared to CS, cousers had higher concentrations of 3-hydroxypropylmercapturic acid, 2-cyanoethylmercapturic acid, S-phenylmercapturic acid, 3-hydroxy-1-methylpropylmercapturic acid (ps < .05), and phenanthrene tetraol (p < .001). No biomarkers were affected by number of cannabis use days/week or days since last cannabis use during baseline (ps > .05).Conclusions: Cousers had higher concentrations of biomarkers of exposure than CS, but similar number of cigarettes per day and nicotine exposure. Additional studies are needed to determine whether cannabis and/or alternative tobacco products are driving the increased toxicant exposure.Implications: Cousers of cannabis and tobacco appear to be exposed to greater levels of harmful chemicals (ie, volatile organic compounds and polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons), but similar levels of nicotine as CS. It is unclear if the higher levels of toxicant exposure in cousers are due to cannabis use or the increased use of alternative tobacco products compared with CS. It is important for studies examining biomarkers of exposure among CS to account for cannabis use as it may have a significant impact on outcomes. Additionally, further research is needed examining exposure to harmful chemicals among cannabis users. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Introduction: Patients with schizophrenia (SCZ) smoke at a rate of 4-5 times higher than the general population, contributing to negative health consequences in this group. One possible explanation for this increased smoking is that individuals with SCZ find nicotine (NIC) more reinforcing. However, data supporting this possibility are limited.Methods: The present experiments examined self-administration of NIC, alone or in combination with other reinforcers, across a range of doses in the methylazoxymethanol acetate (MAM) rodent model of SCZ.Results: MAM and control animals did not differ in NIC self-administration across a range of doses and schedules of reinforcement, in both standard 1-hour self-administration sessions and 23-hour extended access sessions. However, MAM animals responded less for sucrose or reinforcing visual stimuli alone or when paired with NIC.Conclusions: To the extent that MAM-treated rats are a valid model of SCZ, these results suggest that increased NIC reinforcement does not account for increased smoking in SCZ patients.Implications: This study is the first to utilize nicotine self-administration, the gold standard for studying nicotine reinforcement, in the methylazoxymethanol acetate model of schizophrenia, which is arguably the most comprehensive animal model of the disease currently available. Our assessment found no evidence of increased nicotine reinforcement in methylazoxymethanol acetate animals, suggesting that increased reinforcement may not perpetuate increased smoking in schizophrenia patients. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]