The effect of neighborhood socioeconomic disadvantage on smoking status, quit attempts, and receipt of cessation support among adults with cancer: Results from nine ECOG-ACRIN Cancer Research Group trials.

BACKGROUND: Tobacco use is associated with adverse outcomes among patients diagnosed with cancer. Socioeconomic determinants influence access and utilization of tobacco treatment; little is known about the relationship between neighborhood socioeconomic disadvantage (NSD) and tobacco assessment, assistance, and cessation among patients diagnosed with cancer. METHODS: A modified Cancer Patient Tobacco Use Questionnaire (C-TUQ) was administered to patients enrolled in nine ECOG-ACRIN clinical trials. We examined associations of NSD with (1) smoking status, (2) receiving tobacco cessation assessment and support, and (3) cessation behaviors. NSD was classified by tertiles of the Area Deprivation Index. Associations between NSD and tobacco variables were evaluated using logistic regression. RESULTS: A total of 740 patients completing the C-TUQ were 70% male, 94% White, 3% Hispanic, mean age 58.8 years. Cancer diagnoses included leukemia 263 (36%), lymphoma 141 (19%), prostate 131 (18%), breast 79 (11%), melanoma 69 (9%), myeloma 53 (7%), and head and neck 4 (0.5%). A total of 402 (54%) never smoked, 257 (35%) had formerly smoked, and 81 (11%) were currently smoking. Patients in high disadvantaged neighborhoods were approximately four times more likely to report current smoking (odds ratio [OR], 3.57; 95% CI, 1.69-7.54; p = .0009), and more likely to report being asked about smoking (OR, 4.24; 95% CI, 1.64-10.98; p = .0029), but less likely to report receiving counseling (OR, 0.11; 95% CI, 0.02-0.58; p = .0086) versus those in the least disadvantaged neighborhoods. CONCLUSIONS: Greater neighborhood socioeconomic disadvantage was associated with smoking but less cessation support. Increased cessation support in cancer care is needed, particularly for patients from disadvantaged neighborhoods.

Interventions for smoking cessation in hospitalised patients.

BACKGROUND: In 2020, 32.6% of the world's population used tobacco. Smoking contributes to many illnesses that require hospitalisation. A hospital admission may prompt a quit attempt. Initiating smoking cessation treatment, such as pharmacotherapy and/or counselling, in hospitals may be an effective preventive health strategy. Pharmacotherapies work to reduce withdrawal/craving and counselling provides behavioural skills for quitting smoking. This review updates the evidence on interventions for smoking cessation in hospitalised patients, to understand the most effective smoking cessation treatment methods for hospitalised smokers. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effects of any type of smoking cessation programme for patients admitted to an acute care hospital. SEARCH METHODS: We used standard, extensive Cochrane search methods. The latest search date was 7 September 2022. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised and quasi-randomised studies of behavioural, pharmacological or multicomponent interventions to help patients admitted to hospital quit. Interventions had to start in the hospital (including at discharge), and people had to have smoked within the last month. We excluded studies in psychiatric, substance and rehabilitation centres, as well as studies that did not measure abstinence at six months or longer. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We used standard Cochrane methods. Our primary outcome was abstinence from smoking assessed at least six months after discharge or the start of the intervention. We used the most rigorous definition of abstinence, preferring biochemically-validated rates where reported. We used GRADE to assess the certainty of the evidence. MAIN RESULTS: We included 82 studies (74 RCTs) that included 42,273 participants in the review (71 studies, 37,237 participants included in the meta-analyses); 36 studies are new to this update. We rated 10 studies as being at low risk of bias overall (low risk in all domains assessed), 48 at high risk of bias overall (high risk in at least one domain), and the remaining 24 at unclear risk. Cessation counselling versus no counselling, grouped by intensity of intervention Hospitalised patients who received smoking cessation counselling that began in the hospital and continued for more than a month after discharge had higher quit rates than patients who received no counselling in the hospital or following hospitalisation (risk ratio (RR) 1.36, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.24 to 1.49; 28 studies, 8234 participants; high-certainty evidence). In absolute terms, this might account for an additional 76 quitters in every 1000 participants (95% CI 51 to 103). The evidence was uncertain (very low-certainty) about the effects of counselling interventions of less intensity or shorter duration (in-hospital only counselling ≤ 15 minutes: RR 1.52, 95% CI 0.80 to 2.89; 2 studies, 1417 participants; and in-hospital contact plus follow-up counselling support for ≤ 1 month: RR 1.04, 95% CI 0.90 to 1.20; 7 studies, 4627 participants) versus no counselling. There was moderate-certainty evidence, limited by imprecision, that smoking cessation counselling for at least 15 minutes in the hospital without post-discharge support led to higher quit rates than no counselling in the hospital (RR 1.27, 95% CI 1.02 to 1.58; 12 studies, 4432 participants). Pharmacotherapy versus placebo or no pharmacotherapy Nicotine replacement therapy helped more patients to quit than placebo or no pharmacotherapy (RR 1.33, 95% CI 1.05 to 1.67; 8 studies, 3838 participants; high-certainty evidence). In absolute terms, this might equate to an additional 62 quitters per 1000 participants (95% CI 9 to 126). There was moderate-certainty evidence, limited by imprecision (as CI encompassed the possibility of no difference), that varenicline helped more hospitalised patients to quit than placebo or no pharmacotherapy (RR 1.29, 95% CI 0.96 to 1.75; 4 studies, 829 participants). Evidence for bupropion was low-certainty; the point estimate indicated a modest benefit at best, but CIs were wide and incorporated clinically significant harm and clinically significant benefit (RR 1.11, 95% CI 0.86 to 1.43, 4 studies, 872 participants). Hospital-only intervention versus intervention that continues after hospital discharge Patients offered both smoking cessation counselling and pharmacotherapy after discharge had higher quit rates than patients offered counselling in hospital but not offered post-discharge support (RR 1.23, 95% CI 1.09 to 1.38; 7 studies, 5610 participants; high-certainty evidence). In absolute terms, this might equate to an additional 34 quitters per 1000 participants (95% CI 13 to 55). Post-discharge interventions offering real-time counselling without pharmacotherapy (RR 1.23, 95% CI 0.95 to 1.60, 8 studies, 2299 participants; low certainty-evidence) and those offering unscheduled counselling without pharmacotherapy (RR 0.97, 95% CI 0.83 to 1.14; 2 studies, 1598 participants; very low-certainty evidence) may have little to no effect on quit rates compared to control. Telephone quitlines versus control To provide post-discharge support, hospitals may refer patients to community-based telephone quitlines. Both comparisons relating to these interventions had wide CIs encompassing both possible harm and possible benefit, and were judged to be of very low certainty due to imprecision, inconsistency, and risk of bias (post-discharge telephone counselling versus quitline referral: RR 1.23, 95% CI 1.00 to 1.51; 3 studies, 3260 participants; quitline referral versus control: RR 1.17, 95% CI 0.70 to 1.96; 2 studies, 1870 participants). AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Offering hospitalised patients smoking cessation counselling beginning in hospital and continuing for over one month after discharge increases quit rates, compared to no hospital intervention. Counselling provided only in hospital, without post-discharge support, may have a modest impact on quit rates, but evidence is less certain. When all patients receive counselling in the hospital, high-certainty evidence indicates that providing both counselling and pharmacotherapy after discharge increases quit rates compared to no post-discharge intervention. Starting nicotine replacement or varenicline in hospitalised patients helps more patients to quit smoking than a placebo or no medication, though evidence for varenicline is only moderate-certainty due to imprecision. There is less evidence of benefit for bupropion in this setting. Some of our evidence was limited by imprecision (bupropion versus placebo and varenicline versus placebo), risk of bias, and inconsistency related to heterogeneity. Future research is needed to identify effective strategies to implement, disseminate, and sustain interventions, and to ensure cessation counselling and pharmacotherapy initiated in the hospital is sustained after discharge.

Relating individual differences in the reinforcing value of smoking and dependence severity to nicotine exposure levels in vulnerable populations.

Cigarette smoking is overrepresented in populations with psychiatric conditions and socioeconomic disadvantage. Greater understanding of the role of reinforcement and nicotine dependence in smoking among vulnerable populations may facilitate development of better targeted interventions to reduce smoking. Prior research demonstrated that individual differences in the reinforcing value of smoking and nicotine-dependence severity predicted total nicotine-exposure in vulnerable populations. The present study uses multivariate regression to address two aims: (1) Quantify the degree to which the reinforcing value of smoking, assessed using the Cigarette Purchase Task (CPT), and dependence severity assessed using the Fagerström Test of Nicotine Dependence and Brief Wisconsin Inventory of Smoking Dependence Motives (B-WISDM) each account for individual differences in cotinine-plus-3'-hydroxycotinine (COT+3HC) levels. (2) Explore whether there is overlap in the variance accounted for by the CTP, FTND, and B-WISDM. Participants were 628 adults with co-morbid psychiatric conditions or socioeconomic disadvantage who smoked daily. The CPT, FTND, and B-WISDM models accounted for 23.76%, 32.45%, and 29.61% of the variance in COT+3HC levels, respectively. Adding CPT to the FTND model failed to increase the variance accounted for and adding it to the B-WISDM model did so by only 1.2% demonstrating considerable overlap in the variance in nicotine exposure levels accounted for by these three instruments. These results provide new knowledge on the relationship between individual differences in the reinforcing value of smoking and nicotine-exposure levels and suggest differences in reinforcing value may underpin a considerable portion of the variance in nicotine exposure accounted for by dependence severity.

Interest in Electronic Cigarettes for Smoking Cessation Among Adults With Opioid Use Disorder in Buprenorphine Treatment: A Mixed-Methods Investigation.

INTRODUCTION: Individuals in treatment for opioid use disorder (OUD) have high smoking rates and limited success with Food and Drug Administration (FDA)-approved cessation aids, suggesting need for novel approaches. Electronic cigarettes (e-cigarettes) might benefit this population, but e-cigarettes' acceptability for tobacco reduction or cessation among smokers in OUD treatment is not known. METHODS: A cross-sectional mixed-methods study of 222 adults in OUD treatment with buprenorphine in the Boston, Massachusetts metropolitan area was conducted in 2020. We used quantitative and qualitative data to investigate individuals' experience with and interest in e-cigarettes and other methods for smoking cessation and assessed factors associated with interest in e-cigarette use. RESULTS: One hundred sixty (72%) of the 222 participants were past 30-day cigarette smokers. They most frequently reported having ever used nicotine replacement therapy (NRT; 83%) and e-cigarettes (71%) for smoking cessation and most often indicated interest in using NRT (71%) and e-cigarettes (44%) for future smoking cessation. In multiple logistic regression analysis, interest in using e-cigarettes for future smoking cessation was independently associated with having ever used e-cigarettes for smoking cessation, current e-cigarette use, and perceiving e-cigarettes to be less harmful than cigarettes (ps < .05). In qualitative data, many current vapers/former smokers reported that e-cigarettes had been helpful for quitting cigarettes. For current smokers who currently or formerly vaped, frequently reported challenges in switching to e-cigarettes were concerns about replacing one addiction with another and e-cigarettes not adequately substituting for cigarettes. CONCLUSIONS: E-cigarettes had a moderate level of acceptability for smoking cessation among cigarette smokers in OUD treatment. More research is warranted to test the efficacy of this approach. IMPLICATIONS: Individuals in treatment for opioid use disorder (OUD) have high smoking rates and limited success with existing smoking cessation tools, suggesting a need for novel cessation treatment approaches. In this mixed-methods study of individuals receiving medication treatment for OUD with buprenorphine in Massachusetts in 2020, we found a moderate level of acceptability of e-cigarettes for smoking cessation.

Longitudinal Electronic Cigarette Use Among Patients Recently Diagnosed With Cancer Enrolled in a Smoking Cessation Trial.

INTRODUCTION: Many cancer patients who smoke report concurrent e-cigarette use. Using a mixed-methods approach, we aimed to (1) describe longitudinal e-cigarette use over 6 months after a cancer diagnosis and (2) assess the association between e-cigarette use and smoking cessation, among cancer patients in a smoking cessation trial. AIMS AND METHODS: Data were from a 2-site randomized controlled trial of Standard (brief counseling) versus Intensive treatment (sustained counseling plus smoking cessation medication) in individuals who smoke recently diagnosed with cancer. Participants (n = 303) reported e-cigarette use at baseline, 3 months, and 6 months. Biochemically-verified past 7-day cigarette abstinence was collected at 6 months. Qualitative interviews at 6 months explored factors related to e-cigarette use. RESULTS: E-cigarette use prevalence was highest between baseline and 3 months (16%) and declined over time. Participants using e-cigarettes at follow-up had higher baseline cigarette dependence and smoked more heavily. Multivariable analyses found no significant association between follow-up e-cigarette use and 6-month cigarette abstinence. E-cigarette use at follow-up was higher in the Standard versus Intensive treatment group (p = .003 and .001 at 3 and 6 mo, respectively). Smoking cessation and health concerns were primary reasons for using e-cigarettes. CONCLUSIONS: Among individuals who smoke recently diagnosed with cancer and enrolled in a smoking cessation intervention trial, e-cigarette use during trial participation was not associated with smoking abstinence. Individuals who chose to use e-cigarettes were less likely to be receiving intensive cessation support as part of the trial. Further studies are needed to evaluate the association between e-cigarette use and smoking cessation in cancer patients. IMPLICATIONS: E-cigarette use was not associated with cigarette abstinence at 6 months among adults who smoke recently diagnosed with cancer enrolled in a smoking cessation trial. Individuals with easier access to evidence-based smoking cessation treatment may be less likely to use e-cigarettes.

Effects of Reduced Nicotine Content Cigarettes on Fractional Exhaled Nitric Oxide and Self-Reported Respiratory Health Outcomes Among Smokers With Psychiatric Conditions or Socioeconomic Disadvantage.

INTRODUCTION: This study examined whether exposure to reduced-nicotine-content cigarettes (RNCCs) for 12 weeks alters respiratory health using Fractional Exhaled Nitric Oxide (FeNO), a validated biomarker of respiratory epithelial health, and the Respiratory Health Questionnaire (RHQ), a subject-rated questionnaire on respiratory symptoms. Participants were 747 adult daily smokers enrolled in three double-blind, randomized clinical trials evaluating effects of cigarette nicotine content (0.4, 2.4, 15.8 mg nicotine/g tobacco) in people with affective disorders, opioid use disorder (OUD), or socioeconomic disadvantage. AIMS AND METHODS: FeNO levels and RHQ ratings were collected at baseline and Weeks 6 and 12 following randomization. Multiple regression was used to assess associations of FeNO and RHQ with smoking characteristics. Mixed-model repeated-measures ANOVA was used to evaluate the effects of nicotine content on FeNO and RHQ outcomes over the 12-week study period. RESULTS: FeNO levels but not RHQ ratings varied inversely with smoking characteristics at baseline (Ps < 0.0001) in smokers with affective disorders and socioeconomic disadvantage but less so in those with OUD. Participants with affective disorders and socioeconomic disadvantage, but not those with OUD, who were assigned to RNCCs had higher FeNO levels at Week 12 than those assigned to the 15.8 mg/g dose [F(2,423) = 4.51, p = .01, Cohen's d = 0.21]. No significant dose-related changes in RHQ scores were identified. CONCLUSIONS: Use of RNCCs across a 12-week period attenuates smoking-related reductions in FeNO levels in smokers with affective disorders and socioeconomic disadvantage although not those with OUD. FeNO changes were not accompanied by changes in respiratory-health ratings. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Inclusion and exclusion criteria for the sample and experimental manipulation of the nicotine content of assigned cigarettes are registered: NCT02232737, NCT02250664, NCT02250534. The FeNO measure reported in this manuscript is an exploratory outcome that was not registered. IMPLICATIONS: Should a reduced nicotine content standard be implemented; these results suggest that reduced nicotine content in cigarettes will not exacerbate and instead may attenuate smoking-related decreases in FeNO. This is significant as NO is an important component in maintaining a healthy respiratory system and necessary to defend against infection. Furthermore, the results of the current study demonstrate that the adoption of the reduced nicotine content standard may result in beneficial impacts on respiratory epithelial health among vulnerable populations that are disproportionally affected by the adverse health outcomes precipitated by combustible tobacco use.

Investigating documentation of alcohol and non-medical substance use in oncology treatment: an electronic health record review.

PURPOSE: Little is known about non-tobacco substance use (SU) and its treatment in cancer patients. National guidelines address tobacco only, and assessment of SU in cancer patients is not standardized. It is not clear how oncology clinicians assess, document, and follow-up on SU. METHODS: We conducted an electronic health record review of patients enrolled in a smoking cessation trial at one large hospital site (N = 176). Chart review of oncology treatment notes assessed whether SU assessment was documented, the content of the documentation/assessment (e.g., frequency of use), and details about documentation (e.g., where/who documented). RESULTS: Sixty-nine percent (121/176) of cancer patients had SU documented. Many patients (42%, 74/176) had only one substance documented; 66% (116/176) had alcohol use documented. For a substantial minority of patients (43/176; 24%), the provider did not specify the substance assessed (e.g., "drug use," "illicits"). SU was primarily documented by physicians (84%, 102/121), in routine progress notes (56%, 68/121), in the "social history" section of the note (84%, 102/121). Only 4 patients had a documented SU follow-up plan. When examining the subset of patients who reported problematic alcohol use (N = 27), the content of documentation was inconsistent (e.g., number of drinks/day vs. qualitative descriptors of use). CONCLUSIONS: About 1/3 of oncology patients did not have SU assessment documented. SU other than alcohol use was infrequently documented, many clinicians documented SU but did not specify substance type, and few clinicians documented a follow-up plan for problematic SU. Oncology settings should utilize standardized assessment and referral for SU treatment.

Prevalence of Cannabis Use and Cannabis Route of Administration among Massachusetts Adults in Buprenorphine Treatment for Opioid Use Disorder.

BACKGROUND: Recent prevalence estimates of cannabis use among individuals receiving medication treatment for OUD (MOUD) are lacking, and no study has characterized cannabis route of administration (cROA) in this population. These knowledge gaps are relevant because cannabis' effects and health outcomes vary by cROA and the availability and perceptions of cROA (e.g., vaping devices) are changing. METHODS: The Vaping In Buprenorphine-treated patients Evaluation (VIBE) cross-sectional survey assessed the prevalence and correlates of cannabis use and cROA among adults receiving buprenorphine MOUD from 02/20 to 07/20 at five community health centers in Massachusetts, a state with legal recreational and medical cannabis use. RESULTS: Among the 92/222 (41%) respondents reporting past 30-day cannabis use, smoking was the most common cROA (75%), followed by vaping (38%), and eating (26%). Smoking was more often used as a single cROA vs. in combination others (p = 0.01), whereas vaping, eating, and dabbing were more often used in combination with another cROA (all p < 0.05). Of the 39% of participants reporting multiple cROA, smoking and vaping (61%), and smoking and eating (50%), were the most prevalent combinations. Nonwhite race (vs. white) and current cigarette smoking (vs. no nicotine use) were associated with past 30-day cannabis use in multiple logistic regression. CONCLUSIONS: Prevalence of past 30-day cannabis use among individuals receiving buprenorphine MOUD in Massachusetts in 2020 was nearly double the prevalence of cannabis use in Massachusetts' adult general population in 2019 (21%). Our data are consistent with state and national data showing smoking as the most common cROA.

National Trends in Suicide Thoughts and Behavior among US Adults with Opioid Use Disorder from 2015 to 2020.

INTRODUCTION: Suicide thoughts and behavior (STB) are associated with premature mortality and is disproportionately represented among those with opioid use disorder (OUD). Recent trends in STB among those with OUD are lacking. We investigated trends in STB among US adults with versus without OUD using six waves of cross-sectional, nationally-representative, epidemiological data. METHODS: Data came from the 2015-2020 National Survey on Drug Use and Health (combined n = 241,675). We compared past-year STB outcomes (i.e., thoughts of seriously considering killing self (SI), suicide plan (SP), suicide attempt (SA)) among adults with versus without past-year OUD. Unadjusted and adjusted logistic regression tested the association between survey-year and past-year STB outcomes (i.e., SI, SP/SA) stratified by OUD status. RESULTS: Between 2015 and 2020, 26% versus 4% of those with and without OUD, respectively, reported SI, 10% versus 1% reported a SP, and 6% versus 1% reported SA (all ps < 0.001). In adjusted analyses, across survey years, no changes in the prevalence of SI were observed for adults with or without OUD, and no changes were observed over time for SP/SA in adults with or without OUD. OUD severity and treatment status did not moderate the relationship between OUD and STB outcomes. CONCLUSIONS: Among US adults, OUD was associated with thoughts of suicide and suicide behavior. The heightened prevalence of STB in adults with OUD has not changed in recent years. Screening for SI is needed among those reporting opioid misuse and should be routinely integrated into OUD prevention and treatment.

Cumulative vulnerabilities as a potential moderator of response to reduced nicotine content cigarettes.

Risk for smoking increases in a summative manner corresponding to the number of co-occurring vulnerabilities present (cumulative vulnerability). We examined whether cumulative vulnerabilities moderate response to reduced nicotine content cigarettes in a secondary analysis of results from 775 participants in three 12-week randomized clinical trials examining research cigarettes varying in nicotine content (0.4, 2.4, 15.8 mg nicotine/g tobacco). Participants were categorized as having 0-1, 2-3, or ≥ 4 cumulative vulnerabilities. Vulnerabilities included: rural residence, current substance use disorder, current affective disorder, low educational attainment, poverty, unemployment, physical disability. The primary outcome was total cigarettes per day (CPD) during Week 12; secondary outcomes included CPD across weeks, toxin exposure, dependence severity, craving/withdrawal (17 dependent measures). Results were analyzed using repeated measures analysis of covariance and growth-curve modeling. Total CPD during Week 12 increased as cumulative-vulnerability increased (P = 0.004), and decreased as nicotine content decreased (P < 0.001), with no significant interaction of cumulative vulnerability and dose (P = 0.67). Effects on other outcomes generally followed that same pattern. The only exception across the other outcomes was on Questionnaire-on-Smoking-Urges Factor-2 ratings for usual-brand cigarettes where cumulative vulnerability, dose, and time interacted (P = 0.007), with craving at the 0.4 and 2.4 mg/g doses decreasing over time, but inconsistently across vulnerability categories. Overall, we saw little evidence that cumulative vulnerabilities moderate response to reduced nicotine content cigarettes suggesting that a policy reducing nicotine content in cigarettes to minimally addictive levels could benefit even highly vulnerable smokers including those residing in rural or other regions with overrepresentation of co-occurring vulnerabilities. Clinicaltrials.gov identifiers: NCT02232737, NCT02250664, NCT02250534.

Possible New Symptoms of Tobacco Withdrawal III: Reduced Positive Affect-A Review and Meta-analysis.

INTRODUCTION: Most descriptions of tobacco withdrawal have not changed in >30 years despite new research. This meta-analysis tested whether abstinence leads to decreased positive affect (PA) because abstinence-induced symptom changes are a core feature of the tobacco withdrawal syndrome. In addition, we examined whether reduced PA was due to withdrawal (ie, temporary decrease in a "U-shaped" curve) or offset (ie, return to baseline) effect. METHODS: Our main inclusion criterion was a prospective within-participant test of change in PA during abstinence conditions among people who smoke cigarettes daily who were not using a cessation medication. Our search of PubMed, PsycINFO, and personal libraries yielded a total of 32 tests with 2054 participants. RESULTS: There was a medium effect size indicating an overall decrease in PA following abstinence from cigarettes (Cohen's d = -0.40, 95% CI = -0.30 to -0.49). There was large heterogeneity (I2 = 70.7%). Most (79%) of the 24 trials that conducted significance tests reported that reduction in PA was significant. Seven tests were adequately designed to detect a withdrawal versus offset effect. Over half (57%) displayed a U-shaped curve for abstinence-induced change in PA indicative of a withdrawal symptom rather than offset effect. CONCLUSIONS: Abstinence from cigarettes is associated with a decrease in PA. Whether low PA should be added to withdrawal measures and diagnostic criteria requires replication of the time-course of change in PA and tests of whether abstinence-induced changes in PA and negative affect occur independently. IMPLICATIONS: Though there was substantial heterogeneity among trials, our findings suggest that (1) abstinence from cigarettes decreases positive affect and (2) this decrease may represent a withdrawal effect (vs. an offset effect). However, it is unclear whether abstinence-induced losses in positive affect are independent from increased negative affect.

Impact of Current Pain Status on Low-Barrier Buprenorphine Treatment Response Among Patients with Opioid Use Disorder.

OBJECTIVE: Chronic non-cancer pain (CNCP) is prevalent among individuals with opioid use disorder (OUD). However, the impact of CNCP on buprenorphine treatment outcomes is largely unknown. In this secondary analysis, we examined treatment outcomes among individuals with and without CNCP who received a low-barrier buprenorphine maintenance regimen during waitlist delays to more comprehensive opioid treatment. METHODS: Participants were 28 adults with OUD who received 12 weeks of buprenorphine treatment involving bimonthly clinic visits, computerized medication dispensing, and phone-based monitoring. At intake and monthly follow-up assessments, participants completed the Brief Pain Inventory, Beck Anxiety Inventory, Beck Depression Inventory (BDI-II), Brief Symptom Inventory (BSI), Addiction Severity Index, and staff-observed urinalysis. RESULTS: Participants with CNCP (n = 10) achieved comparable rates of illicit opioid abstinence as those without CNCP (n = 18) at weeks 4 (90% vs 94%), 8 (80% vs 83%), and 12 (70% vs 67%) (P = 0.99). Study retention was also similar, with 90% and 83% of participants with and without CNCP completing the 12-week study, respectively (P = 0.99). Furthermore, individuals with CNCP demonstrated significant improvements on the BDI-II and Global Severity Index subscale of the BSI (P < 0.05). However, those with CNCP reported more severe medical problems and smaller reductions in legal problems relative to those without CNCP (P = 0.03). CONCLUSIONS: Despite research suggesting that chronic pain may influence OUD treatment outcomes, participants with and without CNCP achieved similar rates of treatment retention and significant reductions in illicit opioid use and psychiatric symptomatology during low-barrier buprenorphine treatment.

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.

Relating individual differences in nicotine dependence severity to underpinning motivational and pharmacological processes among smokers from vulnerable populations.

We examined whether elucidating underpinning smoking motivation and related pharmacological processes enhances understanding of nicotine dependence among smokers from vulnerable populations. Data were obtained between Oct, 2016 and Sept, 2019 from 745 adult smokers with co-morbid psychiatric conditions or socioeconomic disadvantage at University of Vermont, Brown University, Johns Hopkins University. Smoking motivation was assessed using the Cigarette Purchase Task (CPT), a behavioral-economic task that models the relative reinforcing value of smoking under varying monetary constraint. Dependence severity was measured using the Heaviness of Smoking Index (HSI), Fagerström Test for Nicotine Dependence total scores (FTND), and FTND total scores minus items 1 and 4 (FTND2,3,5,6). We also assessed associations between dependence severity and smoking motivation with nicotine levels and metabolism rate. Principal Component Analysis was used to examine the latent structure of the conventional five CPT indices; bivariate and multivariable modeling was used to test associations. Factor analysis resulted in a two-factor solution, Amplitude (demand unconstrained by price) and Persistence (price sensitivity). CPT latent factors were associated with each dependence-severity measure (ps ≤ 0.0001), with associations stronger for Amplitude than Persistence across each, especially HSI which was exclusively associated with Amplitude. Amplitude and each dependence measure were associated with nicotine intake (ps ≤ 0.0002); Persistence was not (p = .19). Demand Amplitude more than Persistence appears key to understanding individual differences in dependence severity. Regarding potential application, the results suggest a need for interventions that more effectively target demand Amplitude to make greater headway in reducing smoking in vulnerable populations. Trial Registration:clinicaltrials.gov identifiers: NCT02232737, NCT02250664, NCT02250534.

Cigarette Smoking Quit Rates Among Persons With Serious Psychological Distress in the United States From 2008 to 2016: Are Mental Health Disparities in Cigarette Use Increasing?

INTRODUCTION: Prior work suggests that the prevalence of cigarette smoking is persistently higher among people with mental health problems, relative to those without. Lower quit rates are one factor that could contribute to higher prevalence of smoking in this group. This study estimated trends in the cigarette quit rates among people with and without past-month serious psychological distress (SPD) from 2008 to 2016 in the United States. METHODS: Data were drawn from 91 739 adult participants in the 2008-2016 National Survey on Drug Use and Health, a repeated, cross-sectional, national survey. Linear time trends of cigarette quit rates, stratified by past-month SPD, were assessed using logistic regression models with continuous year as the predictor. RESULTS: Cigarette quit rates among individuals with past-month SPD were lower than among those without SPD every year from 2008 to 2016. Quit rates did not change appreciably among those with past-month SPD (odds ratio = 1.02 [0.99, 1.06]) from 2008 to 2016, whereas quit rates increased among those without past-month SPD (odds ratio = 1.02 [1.01, 1.02]). CONCLUSIONS: In the United States, quit rates among individuals with past-month SPD are approximately half than quit rates of those without SPD and have not increased over the past decade. This discrepancy in quit rates may be one factor driving increasing disparities in prevalence of smoking among those with versus without mental health problems. Tobacco control efforts require effective and targeted interventions for those with mental health problems. IMPLICATIONS: Cigarette smoking quit rates have not increased among persons with serious mental health problems over the past decade. This work extends prior findings showing that smoking prevalence is not declining as quickly among persons with serious mental health problems. Findings suggest that diverging trends in quit rates are one possible driver of the persistent disparity in smoking by mental health status. Innovation in both tobacco control and targeted interventions for smokers with mental health problems is urgently needed.

Defining and Measuring Abstinence in Clinical Trials of Smoking Cessation Interventions: An Updated Review.

BACKGROUND: Changes in tobacco products, use patterns, and assessment technology in the last 15 years led the Society for Research on Nicotine and Tobacco (SRNT) Treatment Research Network to call for an update to the 2003 SRNT recommendations for assessing abstinence in clinical trials of smoking cessation interventions. METHODS: The SRNT Treatment Research Network convened a group of investigators with decades of experience in conducting tobacco treatment clinical trials. To arrive at the updated recommendations, the authors reviewed the recommendations of the prior SRNT Workgroup as well as current literature. Ten additional experts in the field provided feedback on this paper and these recommendations. RESULTS: With respect to defining abstinence, the authors recommend: (1) continuing to use the definition of no use of combustible tobacco products (regardless of use of noncombustible tobacco products [e.g., snus] and alternative products [e.g., e-cigarettes]) and collecting additional data to permit alternate abstinence definitions; (2) no use of combustible or smokeless tobacco products; and (3) no use of combustible or smokeless tobacco products or alternative products, as appropriate for the research question being addressed. The authors also recommend reporting point prevalence and prolonged abstinence at multiple timepoints (end of treatment, ≥3 months after the end of treatment, and ≥6 months postquit or posttreatment initiation). CONCLUSIONS: Defining abstinence requires specification of which products a user must abstain from using, the type of abstinence (i.e., point prevalence or continuous), and the duration of abstinence. These recommendations are intended to serve as guidelines for investigators as they collect the necessary data to accurately describe participants' abstinence during smoking cessation clinical trials. IMPLICATIONS: This paper provides updated recommendations for defining abstinence in the context of smoking cessation treatment clinical trials.

Potential Moderating Effects of Sex/Gender on the Acute Relative Reinforcing and Subjective Effects of Reduced Nicotine Content Cigarettes in Vulnerable Populations.

INTRODUCTION: Reports in relatively healthy smokers suggest men are more sensitive than women to the subjective effects of reduced nicotine content cigarettes (RNCCs). We know of no reports examining sex differences in the relative reinforcing effects of RNCCs, an important outcome in assessing smoking's addiction potential. The aim of the present study is to address this gap by examining sex/gender differences on reinforcing effects while examining whether sex differences in subjective effects are discernible in vulnerable populations. METHODS: Secondary analysis of a within-subject, double-blinded experiment examining acute effects of cigarettes varying in nicotine content (0.4, 2.4, 5.2, 15.8 mg/g) among 169 adult smokers with psychiatric conditions or socioeconomic disadvantage. Effects of dose, sex, and their interaction were examined on reinforcing (concurrent-choice and Cigarette Purchase Task [CPT] testing), and subjective effects (Cigarette Evaluation Questionnaire [CEQ] and craving/withdrawal ratings). RESULTS: Reducing nicotine content decreased the relative reinforcing effects of smoking in concurrent-choice and CPT testing (p's < .05) with no significant effects of sex nor dose × sex/gender interactions. Reducing nicotine content decreased CEQ ratings with only a single significant effect of sex (higher Psychological Reward scores among women than men, p = .02) and no significant dose × sex/gender interactions. Results on craving/withdrawal paralleled those on the CEQ. CONCLUSIONS: Reducing nicotine content decreases the addiction potential of smoking independent of sex in populations highly vulnerable to smoking and addiction, with no indication that women are less sensitive to subjective effects of RNCCs or would benefit less from a policy reducing the nicotine content of cigarettes. IMPLICATIONS: A policy reducing the nicotine content of cigarettes has the potential to reduce the addiction potential of smoking across men and women who are especially vulnerable to smoking, addiction, and tobacco-related adverse health impacts.

Examining effects of unit price on preference for reduced nicotine content cigarettes and smoking rate.

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.

Examining Age as a Potential Moderator of Response to Reduced Nicotine Content Cigarettes in Vulnerable Populations.

INTRODUCTION: Young adults (aged 18-24 years) have a higher smoking prevalence than younger and older age groups and young adulthood is an important developmental period during which long-term behavior patterns like cigarette smoking are established. The aim of the current study was to examine how young adult smokers with additional vulnerabilities to smoking respond to reduced nicotine content cigarettes. METHODS: This is a secondary analysis of a double-blind, within-subject experiment conducted with 169 cigarette smokers recruited from populations with comorbid psychiatric conditions or socioeconomic disadvantage assessing acute effects of research cigarettes varying in nicotine content (0.4, 2.4, 5.2, 15.8 mg/g). Participants were dichotomized by chronological age (18-24 vs. ≥25 years). Across 14 laboratory sessions effects of nicotine content were examined on measures of relative reinforcing efficacy (Cigarette Purchase Task [CPT] and Concurrent Choice testing), subjective effects, craving/withdrawal, and smoking topography. Repeated measures analysis of variances were used to examine potential moderating effects of age. RESULTS: Young adults exhibited lower demand for reduced nicotine content cigarettes than older adults across three of five CPT indices (ps < .05). No differences by age were observed on other measures of reinforcing efficacy, subjective effects, craving/withdrawal, or smoking topography where effects generally decreased as an orderly function of decreasing nicotine content (ps <.05). CONCLUSION: Overall, these findings suggest that reducing the nicotine content of cigarettes would decrease the addiction potential of cigarette smoking in young adult smokers as much or perhaps more than older adult smokers from populations at increased vulnerability to smoking, addiction, and smoking-related health consequences. IMPLICATIONS: Reducing the nicotine content in cigarettes to lower addiction potential of smoking has been proposed as a means to improve overall population health. It is imperative to examine how young adults may respond to a nicotine reduction policy. We saw minimal evidence that age moderates acute response and where there was evidence it was in the direction of reduced nicotine content cigarettes having less addictive potential among young versus older adults (eg, steeper decreases in demand for very low nicotine content cigarettes among young versus older adults). Overall, a nicotine reduction policy has the potential to reduce smoking across age groups.

Response to reduced nicotine content cigarettes among smokers differing in tobacco dependence severity.

This study examines whether tobacco dependence severity moderates the acute effects of reducing nicotine content in cigarettes on the addiction potential of smoking, craving/withdrawal, or smoking topography. Participants (N = 169) were daily smokers with mild, moderate, or high tobacco-dependence severity using the Heaviness of Smoking Index. Following brief abstinence, participants smoked research cigarettes varying in nicotine content (0.4, 2.4, 5.2, 15.8 mg nicotine/g tobacco) in a within-subject design. Results were analyzed using repeated measures analysis of co-variance. No main effects of dependence severity or interactions with nicotine dose were noted in relative reinforcing effects in concurrent choice testing or subjective effects on the modified Cigarette Evaluation Questionnaire. Demand for smoking in the Cigarette Purchase Task was greater among more dependent smokers, but reducing nicotine content decreased demand independent of dependence severity. Dependence severity did not significantly alter response to reduced nicotine content cigarettes on the Minnesota Tobacco Withdrawal Scale nor Questionnaire of Smoking Urges-brief (QSU) Factor-2 scale; dependence severity and dose interacted significantly on the QSU-brief Factor-1 scale, with reductions dependent on dose among highly but not mildly or moderately dependent smokers. Dependence severity and dose interacted significantly on only one of six measures of smoking topography (i.e., maximum flow rate), which increased as dose increased among mildly and moderately but not highly dependent smokers. These results suggest that dependence severity has no moderating influence on the ability of reduced nicotine content cigarettes to lower the addiction potential of smoking, and minimal effects on relief from craving/withdrawal or smoking topography.