Using an experimental tobacco marketplace to pilot test the substitutability of JUUL e-cigarettes and other alternative nicotine and tobacco products for conventional cigarettes among vulnerable populations.

The Experimental Tobacco Marketplace (ETM) is an online research marketplace where increasing the cost of cigarettes is used to investigate the substitutability of other fixed-price tobacco products such as electronic nicotine delivery systems (ENDS). The ETM is useful for modeling effects of potential policy changes on use of various concurrently available products. To our knowledge, the ETM has not been used to investigate substitutability of newer generation e-cigarettes or populations at increased risk for smoking, heavy smoking, nicotine dependence, and smoking-attributable adverse effects. In the current pilot study, participants were 30 adult daily smokers with socioeconomic disadvantage or comorbid psychiatric conditions (substance-use disorder or mental illness). In each session, cigarette prices increased ($0.12, $0.25, $0.50, $1.00. and $2.00 per cigarette) while prices for alternative products remained fixed. Across three ETM sessions, either all products, all products except little cigars and cigarillos (LCCs), or all products except ENDS (JUUL e-cigarettes) were available. Linear regression was performed on individual participant data using log-transformed cigarette price to determine demand and substitution. Cigarette demand decreased as price increased across sessions (significantly non-zero slopes, ps ≤ 0.0001). When all products were available, ENDS substitution increased as cigarette price increased (significantly non-zero slope, p = .016). When LCCs were unavailable, ENDS again were a significant substitute (p = .008). When ENDS were unavailable, LCCs did not substitute (ps ≥ 0.48). In all sessions, participants rarely purchased other products (e.g., snus). Overall, ENDS were the most robust substitute for cigarettes, further underscoring the potential importance of ENDS availability on the impact of tobacco regulatory policies.

Sustainment of Contingency Management within Opioid Treatment Programs: COVID-Related Barriers and Innovative Workflow Adaptations.

Introduction: Contingency Management (CM) is one of the most effective interventions for persons with opioid use disorder, but one of the least available interventions in community settings, including opioid treatment programs. Project MIMIC is a NIDA-funded cluster randomized trial that is measuring CM implementation and sustainment across 30 opioid treatment programs in the New England region of the United States. The advent of the COVID-19 pandemic occurred in the midst of Project MIMIC's first cohort of eight opioid treatment programs, presenting a natural opportunity to document and analyze novel challenges to CM sustainment. Utilizing both quantitative and qualitative data collection, we aimed to identify both COVID-related barriers to CM sustainment and innovative workflow strategies to mitigate these barriers. Methods: Quantitative analysis was conducted using data collected from a study-specific CM tracker tool on various CM implementation metrics over three distinct, successive time intervals: prior to COVID-19 social distancing orders with active support; during COVID-19 social distancing orders with active support; and during COVID-19 social distancing orders after removal of support. Semi-structured qualitative interviews were conducted with a representative from each of the eight opioid treatment programs. Using a reflexive team approach, transcripts were coded by independent raters to identify both COVID-related barriers to sustainment and innovative workflow adaptations. Results: Quantitative data revealed a substantial decrease in the number of CM encounters following social distancing orders from 31.8 encounters weekly across eight programs to 6.9 encounters weekly across five programs. A further decline to 1.8 weekly encounters across three programs was observed after implementation support was removed. Four COVID-related barriers were identified via thematic analysis: fear of contagion; difficulty engaging patients remotely; challenges re-defining the CM attendance target due to changing regulations; and staff shortages. Potential adjustments discussed to help address one or more of these barriers included an electronic prize generator; use of technology to promote engagement; brief individual remote check-ins; and expansion of training to non-counseling staff. Conclusion: Although CM implementation challenges emerged during the pandemic, associated workflow adaptations also emerged. The feedback solicited in this study will inform multi-level strategies to aid with CM sustainment post-pandemic.

Both reducing cigarettes per day and transitioning to very low-nicotine-content cigarettes decreases demand for usual-brand cigarettes.

Reducing cigarettes per day (CPD) and transitioning to very low-nicotine-content (VLNC) cigarettes appear to decrease nicotine dependence. Other well-accepted measures of the addictiveness of cigarettes involve behavioral economic simulation models, such as the cigarette purchase task (CPT), which characterizes the reinforcing efficacy of cigarettes. Currently it is unclear whether reducing CPD or reducing nicotine through VLNC cigarettes leads to greater reductions in the reinforcing efficacy of cigarettes. The current paper reports a secondary analysis of a 5-week, 2-arm unblinded randomized trial, in which participants were instructed to gradually reduce to 70%, 35%, 15%, and 3% of baseline nicotine over 4 weeks by either (a) reducing CPD (n = 32) or (b) switching to VLNC cigarettes (n = 36). Participants completed the CPT for their usual-brand cigarettes at baseline and again at a 1-month follow-up. Demand was significantly reduced for participants' usual-brand cigarettes in both the CPD, t(18) = 7.65, p < .0001, and the VLNC groups, t(18) = 7.39, p < .0001, from prereduction procedure to the 1-month follow-up. Maximum consumption at zero price (intensity), and maximum expenditure (Omax), were reduced significantly for both the CPD group, t(16) = 3.23, p = .005; t(16) = 3.71, p = .002, respectively, and the VLNC group, t(22) = 3.62, p = .002; t(22) = 3.14, p = .005, respectively, prereduction procedure to the 1-month follow-up. Thus, despite the different mechanisms by which the value of cigarettes was manipulated, both interventions reduced the reinforcing efficacy of cigarettes. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2021 APA, all rights reserved).

Comparing participant estimated demand intensity on the cigarette Purchase Task to consumption when usual-brand cigarettes were provided free.

Accumulating evidence suggests that the hypothetical Cigarette Purchase Task (CPT), especially its demand Intensity index (i.e., estimated cigarettes participants would smoke if free), is associated with individual differences in smoking risk. Nevertheless, few studies have examined the extent to which hypothetical CPT demand Intensity may differ from consumption when participants are provided with free cigarettes. That topic is the overarching focus of the present study. Participants were 745 adult smokers with co-morbid psychiatric conditions or socioeconomic disadvantage. CPT was administered for usual-brand cigarettes prior to providing participants with seven days of their usual-brand cigarettes free of cost and consumption was recorded daily via an Interactive Voice Response (IVR) System. Demand Intensity was correlated with IVR smoking rate (rs 0.670-0.696, ps < 0.001) but estimates consistently exceeded IVR smoking rates by an average of 4.4 cigarettes per day (ps < 0.001). Importantly, both measures were comparably sensitive to discerning well-established differences in smoking risk, including greater cigarettes per day among men versus women (F(1,732) = 18.74, p < 0.001), those with versus without opioid-dependence (F(1,732) = 168.37, p < 0.001), younger versus older adults (F(2,730) = 32.93, p < 0.001), and those with lower versus greater educational attainment (F(1,732) = 38.26, p < 0.001). Overall, CPT demand Intensity appears to overestimate consumption rates relative to those observed when participants are provided with free cigarettes, but those deviations are systematic (i.e., consistent in magnitude and direction, Fs all <1.63; ps > 0.19 for all interactions with subgroups). This suggests that demand Intensity was sensitive to established group differences in smoking rate, supporting its utility as an important measure of addiction potential.