Preliminary evidence on cigarette nicotine reduction with concurrent access to an e-cigarette: Manipulating cigarette nicotine content, e-liquid nicotine content, and e-liquid flavor availability.

The reinforcing characteristics of e-cigarettes could moderate the impact of reducing cigarette nicotine content. In this study, people who smoke daily were recruited from North Carolina and Pennsylvania (US) in 2018 and 2019. Within a randomized 2 × 2 × 2 factorial design, participants received investigational cigarettes and an e-cigarette for 12 weeks. Cigarette nicotine content was very low (0.4 mg/g of tobacco; VLNC) or normal (15.8 mg/g; NNC). E-liquids were 0.3% ("low") or 1.8% ("moderate") freebase nicotine, and available in tobacco flavors or tobacco, fruit, dessert and mint flavors. Study recruitment concluded before reaching the planned sample size (N = 480). Fifty participants were randomized and 32 completed the study. We found that randomization to VLNC, relative to NNC cigarettes, reduced self-reported cigarettes per day (CPD; mean difference: -12.96; 95% CI: -21.51, -4.41; p = 0.005); whereas e-liquid nicotine content and flavor availability did not have significant effects. The effect of cigarette nicotine content was larger in the moderate vs. low nicotine e-liquid groups and in the all flavors versus tobacco flavors e-liquid groups; tests of the interaction between e-liquid characteristics and cigarette nicotine content were not significant. Biomarkers of smoke exposure at Week 12 did not differ across conditions, which may reflect variability in adherence to only using VLNC cigarettes. In conclusion this study offers preliminary evidence that the extent to which cigarette nicotine reduction decreases smoking may depend on the reinforcing characteristics of alternative products, including the available nicotine contents and flavors of e-cigarettes.

Centering racial justice for Black/African American and Indigenous American people in commercial tobacco product regulation.

Although overall health in the United States (US) has improved dramatically during the past century, long-standing health inequities, particularly the unequal and unjust burden of tobacco-related disease and death among racialized populations, persist. A considerable gap exists in our understanding of how commercial tobacco product regulations and policies cause and/or exacerbate race-based health inequities among Black/African American (B/AA) and Indigenous American people. The purpose of this paper is to 1) describe how existing US commercial tobacco regulatory policies may contribute to structural racism and undermine the full benefits of tobacco prevention and control efforts among B/AA and Indigenous American groups; and 2) initiate a call to action for researchers and regulators of tobacco products to examine policies using an equity lens. These actions are imperative if empirically-informed regulation of commercial tobacco products is to address health equity.

Early Changes in Puffing Intensity When Exclusively Using Open-Label Very Low Nicotine Content Cigarettes.

INTRODUCTION: In 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 METHODS: Sixteen 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). RESULTS: Average 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. CONCLUSION: Average puffing intensity per cigarette was elevated with exclusive VLNC cigarette use, but the extent of this effect declined across four days. IMPLICATIONS: In 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.

Educating the Public on the Health Risks of Very Low Nicotine Content Cigarettes: Results From a US-Based Convenience Sample.

INTRODUCTION: US FDA issued an advance notice of proposed rulemaking to reduce nicotine in cigarettes. To maximize the benefits of this potential standard, very low nicotine content (VLNC) cigarettes must be communicated in a way that does not result in misperceptions. AIMS AND METHODS: Adults (n = 567 who smoke; n = 610 non-smokers) from an online platform were randomized to a control message previously associated with accurate addictiveness perceptions of VLNC cigarettes but health misperceptions or to one of five messages that also included messaging on nicotine morbidity effects or VLNC cigarettes morbidity or mortality effects. p value <.01 was significant. RESULTS: In participants who smoke, perceived lung cancer risk (responses: 1, very little risk to 10, very high risk) if smoked VLNC cigarettes regularly was higher in conditions that communicated mortality effects of VLNC cigarettes compared to the control (7.12-7.18 vs. 5.97, p values < .01). In non-smokers, perceived lung cancer risk was higher in all five message conditions when compared with the control (7.58-8.22 vs. 6.35, p values < .01). Proportion who responded accurately (ie, False) to the statement Cigarettes with 95% less nicotine are safer than cigarettes with normal nicotine levels was higher in conditions describing VLNC morbidity or mortality effects when compared with the control in both participants who smoke (52.04-67.37% vs. 30.85%, p values < .01) and do not smoke (62.50-72.38% vs. 32.00%, p values < .01). CONCLUSIONS: Messaging on mortality effects of VLNC cigarettes (ie, cigarettes with 95% less nicotine are as deadly as current cigarettes) was associated with more accurate perceptions of the health risks of VLNC cigarettes than the control; however, misperceptions remained in one-third of participants. IMPLICATIONS: One approach to communicating a VLNC cigarette standard to the public is to include messaging on the mortality effects of VLNC cigarettes. However, further study and possible refinement of this message condition are recommended since approximately one-third of participants exposed to this message still perceived VLNC cigarettes to be safer than normal nicotine content cigarettes.

A review of the evidence on cigarettes with reduced addictiveness potential.

BACKGROUND: In May 2018, the Secretariat for the World Health Organization Framework Convention on Tobacco Control convened a meeting to discuss the potential for reducing the addictiveness of tobacco products. A central focus was to review research findings on the behavioral effects of reducing the addictiveness of cigarettes. METHODS: This manuscript reports the results of a review of the behavioral science literature, updated through April 2021, with special attention to both the potential benefits and unintended consequences of reducing nicotine in cigarettes. RESULTS: Available evidence suggests that reducing nicotine content in cigarettes to very low levels could benefit public health in three primary ways, by 1) decreasing uptake of regular smoking, 2) decreasing the amount people smoke, and 3) increasing the likelihood of smoking cessation. Current evidence also suggests that reducing nicotine in cigarettes may produce similar benefits across many important subpopulations of people who smoke, including those with psychiatric comorbidities, those who use other substances, those with low socioeconomic status, young people, people who smoke infrequently and people who prefer menthol cigarettes. Cigarette nicotine reduction could also lead to some undesirable outcomes, such as experiencing withdrawal, product manipulation, an illicit market, and harm misperceptions; strategies that may mitigate each are discussed. CONCLUSION: Overall, behavioral research suggests product standards that limit the nicotine content of combusted tobacco products could render cigarettes and similar products less addictive. The availability of legal, non-combusted products that effectively substitute for cigarettes and the dissemination of public health campaigns that clarify misperceptions about the relationship between nicotine, tobacco and disease may facilitate the extent to which a nicotine reduction policy reduces smoking.

"I actually finally feel like the cigarettes aren't controlling me." - Interviews with participants smoking very low nicotine content cigarettes during a residential study.

BACKGROUND: The 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. METHODS: We 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. RESULTS: Several 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. CONCLUSIONS: Health 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.

Reducing the relative value of cigarettes: Considerations for nicotine and non-nicotine factors.

Despite notable progress in recent decades, cigarette smoke persists as a leading cause of premature death and preventable disease. To weaken the link between nicotine reinforcement and the toxicity associated with combusted tobacco, the United States Food and Drug Administration is considering a product standard targeting cigarette nicotine content. In this review, we summarize research assessing the potential impacts of reducing nicotine in cigarettes. Evidence to date suggests cigarette smoking, toxicant exposure and dependence would decline following substantial reductions in nicotine content. However, reduced nicotine content may not eliminate smoking entirely. Regulatory efforts that shape the nicotine and tobacco marketplace should consider that non-nicotine reinforcing factors and decision-making biases can contribute to the value of smoking. The impact of reducing nicotine in cigarettes will likely depend on the alternative nicotine products available to current smokers. This article is part of the special issue on 'Contemporary Advances in Nicotine Neuropharmacology'.

The Impact of Exclusive Use of Very Low Nicotine Cigarettes on Compensatory Smoking: An Inpatient Crossover Clinical Trial.

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.

Whether to push or pull? Nicotine reduction and non-combusted alternatives - Two strategies for reducing smoking and improving public health.

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.