Search

BACKGROUND: Reducing cigarette addictiveness has the potential to avert millions of yearly tobacco-related deaths worldwide. Substantially reducing nicotine in cigarettes decreases cigarette consumption, but no large clinical trial has determined the effects of reduced-nicotine cigarettes when other nicotine-containing products are available. The aim of this study was to examine the effects of reduced-nicotine cigarettes in the context of the availability of alternative nicotine delivery systems. METHODS: In a U.S. six-site, open-label, parallel-arm study, smokers were randomized for twelve weeks to an experimental marketplace containing cigarettes with either 0.4 mg or 15.8 mg nicotine per gram of tobacco; all had access to non-combusted alternative nicotine delivery systems (e.g., e-cigarettes; medicinal nicotine). Group differences in the primary outcomes (cigarettes per day, number of smoke-free days) were examined using linear and negative binomial regression, respectively (Trial Registration: NCT03272685). FINDINGS: Among 438 randomized participants (mean [standard deviation (SD), range] age, 44.5 [11.9, 20-73] years, 225 [51.4%] women, 282 [64.4%] White and 339 [77.4%] trial completers), those in the 0.4 mg vs. 15.8 mg nicotine cigarette condition experienced significantly lower cigarettes per day at the end of intervention (mean [SD], 7.05 [7.88] vs. 12.95 [9.07], adjusted mean difference, -6.21 [95% CI, -7.66 to -4.75], P

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.

INTRODUCTION: We assessed patterns and correlates, including demographic characteristics, psychological factors, and social role transitions, of young adults tobacco use over time. METHODS: In the fall of 2010, we recruited a cohort of 3146 students from 11 colleges in North Carolina and Virginia. Participants completed baseline and at least two survey waves between 2010 and 2019. RESULTS: The sample was 49.8% female, 15.7% non-white, and 6.6% Hispanic. Longitudinal latent class analysis revealed a five-class model with distinct patterns and correlates of tobacco use. Limited Use (52.6% of sample) had minimal use. College-Limited Combustible Tobacco Users (18.6%) had moderate probability of cigarette, cigar, and waterpipe smoking, which decreased to no use post-college. Intermittent Sustained Polytobacco Users (10.9%) had low probability of use that continued post-college. College Polytobacco with Continued Cigarette and E-Cigarette Users (14.5%) had high probability of use of cigarette smoking and increasing probability of e-cigarette, both of which continued post-college. Sustained Polytobacco Users (5.7%) had moderate probability of use of tobacco products across all waves. CONCLUSIONS: Patterns of tobacco use varied considerably. In most classes, tobacco use was highest during freshman year and in three classes, use continued post-college. Prevention activities should focus on first-year students and target those at risk for post-college tobacco use.

BackgroundThe U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is considering a low-nicotine product standard for cigarettes. The purpose of this qualitative study was to explore participants' experiences after 72 hours of exclusively smoking very low nicotine content (VLNC) cigarettes.MethodsWe conducted a residential study during which participants who smoked cigarettes (N = 16) stayed in a smoking-friendly hotel for 5 days/4 nights. Participants only had access to VLNC cigarettes and were told the cigarettes had 97% less nicotine compared to conventional cigarettes. We conducted individual interviews with participants to assess their initial expectations about VLNC cigarettes, subjective experiences when smoking VLNC cigarettes, opinions regarding a low-nicotine product standard, and predicted use behavior if only VLNC cigarettes were available. Interviews were transcribed verbatim and analyzed using thematic analysis methods.ResultsSeveral participants expected, prior to trying VLNC cigarettes, to compensate for the reduced nicotine levels by smoking more cigarettes but were surprised when they did not increase their smoking. A subset of participants reported experiencing minor withdrawal symptoms, such as irritability and fatigue. Several participants reported feeling less dependent after exclusively smoking VLNC cigarettes. Most participants said they would smoke VLNC cigarettes if they were the only cigarettes available to purchase. Some also said that smoking VLNC cigarettes could help people taper down or quit smoking.ConclusionsHealth communication strategies are needed to inform people who smoke about what to expect from a low-nicotine product standard for cigarettes in order to maximize the public health impact of the policy and increase support.

BACKGROUND: The FDA is considering a mandated reduction in the nicotine content of cigarettes. Clinical trials have been limited by non-study cigarette use (noncompliance), which could mask compensation. The goal of this study was to assess whether compensation occurs when smokers provided with very low nicotine cigarettes cannot access normal nicotine cigarettes. METHODS: In a within-subjects, crossover design, current smokers (n = 16) were confined to a hotel for two 4-night hotel stays during which they were only able to access the research cigarettes provided. The hotel stays offered normal nicotine cigarettes or very low nicotine content (VLNC) cigarettes, in an unblinded design, available for purchase via a study bank. RESULTS: In the context of complete compliance with the study cigarettes (n = 16), there was not a significant increase during the VLNC condition for cigarettes smoked per day, expired carbon monoxide, or N-acetyl-S-(cyanoethyl)-l-cysteine (cyanoethyl-MA, metabolite of acrylonitrile). There was a significant nicotine × time interaction on urine N-acetyl-S-(3-hydroxypropyl)-l-cysteine (hydroxypropyl-MA, metabolite of acrolein), driven by an increase in the VLNC condition during the first 24 hours. By the end of the VLNC condition, there was no evidence of compensation across any measure of smoking or smoke exposure. CONCLUSIONS: Among current smokers who exclusively used VLNC cigarettes for 4 days, there was no significant compensatory smoking behavior. IMPACT: These data, combined with the larger body of work, suggest that a mandated reduction in nicotine content is unlikely to result in an increase in smoking behavior to obtain more nicotine.

INTRODUCTION: Because 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. METHODS: In 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. RESULTS: At 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. CONCLUSIONS: Although 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. IMPLICATIONS: Results 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.

The urinary metabolites cyanoethyl mercapturic acid (CEMA) and 3-hydroxypropyl mercapturic acid (3-HPMA) have been widely used as biomarkers of exposure to acrylonitrile and acrolein, respectively, but there are no published data on their consistency over time in the urine of cigarette smokers. We provided, free of charge over a 20 week period, Spectrum NRC600/601 research cigarettes to cigarette smokers in the control arm of a randomized clinical trial of the reduced nicotine cigarette. Urine samples were collected at weeks 4, 8, 12, 16, and 20 and analyzed for CEMA and 3-HPMA, and total nicotine equivalents (TNE) using validated methods. Creatinine-corrected intra-class correlation coefficients for CEMA, 3-HPMA, and TNE were 0.67, 0.46, and 0.68, respectively, indicating good longitudinal consistency for CEMA, while that of 3-HPMA was fair. A strong correlation between CEMA and TNE values was observed. These data support the use of CEMA as a reliable biomarker of tobacco smoke exposure. This is the first report of the longitudinal stability of the biomarkers of acrylonitrile and acrolein exposure in smokers. The data indicate that CEMA, the biomarker of acrylonitrile exposure, is consistent over time in cigarette smokers, supporting its use. While 3-HPMA levels were less stable over time, this biomarker is nevertheless a useful monitor of human acrolein exposure because of its specificity to this toxicant.

The urinary metabolites (Z)-7-[1R,2R,3R,5S)-3,5-dihydroxy-2-[(E,3S)-3-hydroxyoct-1-enyl]cyclopentyl]hept-5-enoic acid (8-iso-PGF2α), an F2-isoprostane and biomarker of oxidative damage, and "prostaglandin E2 metabolite" (PGE-M), a biomarker of inflammation, are elevated in cigarette smokers. However, there is little information in the literature on the longitudinal stability of these widely used biomarkers. In a large clinical trial involving 10 institutional sites, smokers were given, free of charge over a period of 20 weeks, Spectrum NRC600/601 research cigarettes containing 15.5 mg nicotine/g tobacco. All participants were instructed to smoke these cigarettes for the duration of the study. At weeks 4, 8, 12, 16, and 20, first morning urine voids were collected and analyzed for 8-iso-PGF2α and PGE-M using validated liquid chromatography-electrospray ionization-tandem mass spectrometry methods. The mean level of 8-iso-PGF2α at Week 4 was 1.34 ± 1.08 (S.D.) pmol/mg creatinine (N = 226) while that of PGE-M was 73.7 ± 113 (S.D.) pmol/mg creatinine (N = 232). The corresponding levels at Week 20 were 1.35 ± 0.93 (S.D.) pmol/mg creatinine (N = 209) for 8-iso-PGF2α and 74.2 ± 142 (S.D.) pmol/mg creatinine (N = 210) for PGE-M. There was variation in these values in the intervening weeks. The intra-class correlation coefficients (ICC) were 0.51 (95% CI, 0.45, 0.57) and 0.36 (0.30, 0.43), for 8-iso-PGF2α and PGE-M, respectively, indicating fair longitudinal stability for 8-iso-PGF2α and poorer longitudinal stability for PGE-M in cigarette smokers. Males had higher ICC values than females for both 8-iso-PGF2α and PGE-M. These results indicate that, in addition to cigarette smoking, endogenous processes of oxidative damage and inflammation influence the levels of these biomarkers over time among current smokers.

ImportanceThe optimal temporal approach for reducing nicotine to minimally or nonaddictive levels in all cigarettes sold in the United States has not been determined.ObjectivesTo determine the effects of immediate vs gradual reduction in nicotine content to very low levels and as compared with usual nicotine level cigarettes on biomarkers of toxicant exposure.Design, setting, and participantsA double-blind, randomized, parallel-design study with 2 weeks of baseline smoking and 20 weeks of intervention was conducted at 10 US sites. A volunteer sample of daily smokers with no intention to quit within 30 days was recruited between July 2014 and September 2016, with the last follow-up completed in March 2017.Interventions(1) Immediate reduction to 0.4 mg of nicotine per gram of tobacco cigarettes; (2) gradual reduction from 15.5 mg to 0.4 mg of nicotine per gram of tobacco cigarettes with 5 monthly dose changes; or (3) maintenance on 15.5 mg of nicotine per gram of tobacco cigarettes.Main outcomes and measuresBetween-group differences in 3 co-primary biomarkers of smoke toxicant exposure: breath carbon monoxide (CO), urine 3-hydroxypropylmercapturic acid (3-HPMA, metabolite of acrolein), and urine phenanthrene tetraol (PheT, indicator of polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons) calculated as area under the concentration-time curve over the 20 weeks of intervention.ResultsAmong 1250 randomized participants (mean age, 45 years; 549 women [44%]; 958 [77%] completed the trial), significantly lower levels of exposure were observed in the immediate vs gradual reduction group for CO (mean difference, -4.06 parts per million [ppm] [95% CI, -4.89 to -3.23]; P

BackgroundThe Food and Drug Administration can reduce the nicotine content in cigarettes to very low levels. This potential regulatory action is hypothesised to improve public health by reducing smoking, but may have unintended consequences related to weight gain.MethodsWeight gain was evaluated from a double-blind, parallel, randomised clinical trial of 839 participants assigned to smoke 1 of 6 investigational cigarettes with nicotine content ranging from 0.4 to 15.8 mg/g or their own usual brand for 6 weeks. Additional analyses evaluated weight gain in the lowest nicotine content cigarette groups (0.4 and 0.4 mg/g, high tar) to examine the effect of study product in compliant participants as assessed by urinary biomarkers. Differences in outcomes due to gender were also explored.FindingsThere were no significant differences in weight gain when comparing the reduced nicotine conditions with the 15.8 mg/g control group across all treatment groups and weeks. However, weight gain at week 6 was negatively correlated with nicotine exposure in the 2 lowest nicotine content cigarette conditions. Within the 2 lowest nicotine content cigarette conditions, male and female smokers biochemically verified to be compliant on study product gained significantly more weight than non-compliant smokers and control groups.ConclusionsThe effect of random assignment to investigational cigarettes with reduced nicotine on weight gain was likely obscured by non-compliance with study product. Men and women who were compliant in the lowest nicotine content cigarette conditions gained 1.2 kg over 6 weeks, indicating weight gain is a likely consequence of reduced exposure to nicotine.Trial registration numberNCT01681875, Post-results.

This document explores the challenges faced by mentees in the field of Tobacco Regulatory Science (TRS) and emphasizes the importance of mentorship in addressing these challenges. It highlights the need for diversity, equity, inclusion, and accessibility (DEIA) in training and mentorship to achieve TRS objectives. The article discusses various challenges, including bias and polarization, funding uncertainty, and research scope considerations, and provides case scenarios and potential approaches to addressing these challenges. It emphasizes the role of mentors in supporting mentees' professional growth and navigating their career paths. The study was supported by the National Institute on Drug Abuse and the U.S. Food and Drug Administration Center for Tobacco Products. [Extracted from the article]

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]