Effects of Very Low Nicotine Content Cigarettes on Smoking Behavior and Biomarkers of Exposure in Menthol and Non-menthol Smokers.

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 importance of early evaluation after cardiac resynchronization therapy to redefine response: Pooled individual patient analysis from 5 prospective studies.

BACKGROUND: Cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) reduces mortality and improves outcomes in appropriately selected patients with heart failure (HF); however, response may vary. OBJECTIVE: We sought to correlate 6-month CRT response assessed by clinical composite score (CCS) and left ventricular end-systolic volume index (LVESVi) with longer-term mortality and HF-related hospitalizations. METHODS: Individual patient data from 5 prospective CRT studies-Multicenter InSync Randomized Clinical Evaluation (MIRACLE), Multicenter InSync ICD Randomized Clinical Evaluation (MIRACLE ICD), InSync III Marquis, predictors of response to cardiac resynchronization therapy (PROSPECT), and Adaptive CRT-were pooled. Classification of CRT response status using CCS and LVESVi were made at 6 months. Kaplan-Meier analyses were used to assess time to mortality. Cox proportional hazards regression models were used to compute hazard ratios (HRs) for the 3 levels of CRT response: improved, stabilized, and worsened. Adjusted models controlled for baseline factors known to influence both CRT response and mortality. HF-related hospitalization was compared between CRT response categories using incidence rate ratios. RESULTS: Among a total of 1603 patients, 1426 and 1165 were evaluated in the CCS and LVESVi outcome assessments, respectively. Mortality was significantly lower for patients in the improved (CCS: HR 0.22; 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.15-0.31; LVESVi: HR 0.40; 95% CI 0.27-0.60) and stabilized (CCS: HR 0.38; 95% CI 0.24-0.61; LVESVi: HR 0.41; 95% CI 0.25-0.68) groups than in the worsened group for both measures after adjusting for potential confounders. CONCLUSION: Patients with a worsened CRT response status have a high mortality rate and HF-related hospitalizations. Stabilized patients have a more favorable prognosis than do worsened patients and thus should not be considered CRT nonresponders.