Search

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. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Nicotine addiction is the proximate cause of disease and death from cigarette smoking. In 1994, we proposed reducing the nicotine content of cigarettes to non-addicting levels to reduce the risk of youth becoming addicted smokers and promoting quitting in established smokers. In 2009, the Family Smoking Prevention and Tobacco Control Act provided the authority to FDA to reduce nicotine levels as appropriate to benefit public health. Over the past 15 years, considerable research has determined that nicotine reduction is feasible and safe, resulting in reduced nicotine dependence with little evidence of compensatory over-smoking. The availability of acceptable non-combusted form of nicotine would provide support and enhance acceptability of nicotine reduction in tobacco. Most recently, the FDA promulgated a nicotine-based regulatory framework, which includes nicotine reduction combined with ready availability of noncombustible nicotine products. Nicotine reduction could contribute to a virtual end to the use of cigarette smoking, with enormous benefits to public health. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

A national nicotine reduction policy has the potential to reduce cigarette smoking and associated adverse health impacts among vulnerable populations. However, possible unanticipated adverse effects of reducing nicotine content in cigarettes, such as increasing the use of alcohol or other abused substances, must be examined. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the effects of exposure to varying doses of nicotine in cigarettes on use of other substances. This was a secondary analysis (n = 753) of three simultaneous, multisite, double-blind, randomized-controlled trials examining 12 weeks of exposure to study cigarettes varying in nicotine content (0.4, 2.4, 15.8 mg nicotine/g tobacco) among daily smokers from three vulnerable populations: individuals with affective disorders (n = 251), individuals with opioid use disorder (n = 256), and socioeconomically-disadvantaged women of reproductive age (n = 246). Effect of study cigarette assignment on urine toxicology screens (performed weekly) and responses to drug and alcohol use questionnaires (completed at study weeks 6 and 12) were examined using negative binomial regression, logistic regression, or repeated measures analysis of variance, controlling for sex, age, and menthol status. The most common substances identified using urine toxicology included tetrahydrocannabinol (THC; 44.8%), cocaine (9.2%), benzodiazepine (8.6%), and amphetamines (8.0%), with 57.2% of participants testing positive at least once for substance use (27.3% if excluding THC). No significant main effects of nicotine dose were found on any of the examined outcomes. These results suggest that reducing nicotine content does not systematically increase use of other substances, even among individuals at increased risk of substance use. ClinicalTrials.gov Identifiers: NCT02232737, NCT2250664, NCT2250534. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The United States Food and Drug Administration has the authority to reduce the nicotine content in cigarettes to minimal or non-addictive levels and could do so immediately or gradually over time. A large clinical trial compared the two approaches. This secondary analysis assesses abstinence and cessation-related outcomes one month after the trial concluded, when participants no longer had access to very low nicotine content (VLNC) research cigarettes. Smokers not interested in quitting (N = 1250) were recruited for the parent trial from 2014 to 2016 across 10 sites throughout the US and randomized to a 20-week study period during which they immediately switched to VLNC cigarettes, gradually transitioned to VLNC cigarettes with five monthly dose reductions, or smoked normal nicotine research cigarettes (control). At the one-month follow-up, both immediate and gradual reduction resulted in greater mean cigarette-free days (4.7 and 4.6 respectively) than the control group (3.2, both p < .05). Immediate reduction resulted in fewer mean cigarettes per day (CPD = 10.3) and lower Fagerström Test for Cigarette Dependence (FTCD = 3.7) than the gradual (CPD = 11.7, p = .001; FTCD = 3.8, p = .039) and control (CPD = 13.5, p < .001; FTCD = 4.0, p < .001) groups. Compared to controls, gradual reduction resulted in reduced CPD (p = .012) but not FTCD (p = .13). Differences in CO-verified 7-day point-prevalence abstinence were not significant. Findings demonstrate that switching to VLNC cigarettes resulted in reduced smoking and nicotine dependence severity that was sustained for at least a month after the VLNC trial period in smokers who were not interested in cessation. The greatest harm reduction endpoints were observed in those who immediately transitioned to VLNC cigarettes. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

There has been long-standing interest in a reduced-nicotine product standard for combusted tobacco, which is within the regulatory purview of the Food and Drug Administration (FDA). In weighing whether to establish this standard, it is important to consider potential responses among people who are at elevated risk for tobacco-related health harms. In this narrative review, we summarize studies of very low nicotine content (VLNC) cigarettes conducted between 2010 and 2021 in groups that the FDA has identified as vulnerable populations. Studies conducted to date in adults with mental health conditions, adults with opioid use disorder, socioeconomically-disadvantaged adults, and youth or young adults indicate that immediate switching to VLNC cigarettes decreases smoking, with minimal or no unintended negative consequences. Few studies have investigated the effects of VLNC cigarettes in racial or ethnic minorities, people who smoke menthol cigarettes, and pregnant women, but initial findings suggest that responses of these individuals are similar to responses observed in other vulnerable populations. We are not aware of studies that have investigated VLNC cigarettes in military/veteran populations, sexual or gender minority individuals, or people living in underserved rural environments. Future research directions include understanding how to promote cessation in the context of a reduced-nicotine standard, and how to correct VLNC misperceptions in vulnerable populations. Nevertheless, the evidence to date indicates that a reduced-nicotine standard is likely to have the same beneficial effects on smoking reductions as it does in less vulnerable populations, which should provide some confidence in pursuing this regulatory approach. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Cigarette preference increases as a function of greater nicotine content, but manipulating cost can shift preference. The aims of the present study are to model whether (1) the behavioral-economic metric unit price (cost/reinforcer magnitude) accounts for preference shifts and (2) whether preference shifts toward reduced nicotine content are associated with smoking reductions. In a multisite study between 2015 and 2016, 169 daily smokers from vulnerable populations completed two concurrent-choice conditions examining preference for smoking normal (15.8 mg/g) and reduced (0.4 mg/g) nicotine content cigarettes. In Condition 1, both products were available at 10 responses/choice. In Condition 2, availability of the 0.4 mg/g dose remained at 10 responses/choice while the 15.8 mg/g dose was available on a progressive-ratio (PR) schedule wherein response cost increased following each choice. Unit prices were calculated by dividing dose by response requirement. Results were analyzed using ANOVA and binomial tests (p < .05). Participants preferred the 15.8 over 0.4 mg/g dose in Condition 1, but shifted preference to the 0.4 mg/g dose in Condition 2 (p < .001) immediately before the point in the PR progression where unit price for 15.8 dose exceeded unit price for the 0.4 dose (p < .001). This shift was associated with a reduction in smoking (p < .001). The unit price of nicotine appears to underpin cigarette product preference and may provide a metric for predicting preference and potentially impacting it through tobacco regulations. These results also demonstrate that reduced compared to normal nicotine content cigarettes sustain lower smoking rates discernible even under acute laboratory conditions and in vulnerable populations. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]