Immediate Switching to Reduced Nicotine Cigarettes in a U.S.-Based Sample: The Impact on Cannabis Use and Related Variables at 20 Weeks.

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 (ps > .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).

Older age is associated with greater misperception of the relative health risk of e-cigarettes and cigarettes among US adults who smoke.

INTRODUCTION: The prevalence of cigarette smoking among adults aged ≥55 has remained stagnant over the past decade. National data modelling suggests no reduction in cigarette smoking prevalence attributable to e-cigarette use in the USA among people aged ≥45. Misperceptions about the absolute risks (ie, cigarettes are not harmful) and relative risks (ie, e-cigarettes are more harmful than cigarettes) of tobacco products may contribute to sustained smoking prevalence and hesitancy to switch from cigarettes to e-cigarettes among older adults. METHODS: Participants reported cigarette use (n=8072) at Wave 5 (2018-2019) of the Population Assessment of Tobacco and Health Study. Weighted multivariable logistic regressions included six age categories (independent variable) and cigarette and e-cigarette risk perceptions (outcomes). Additional models assessed the associations between dichotomous age (≥55 vs 18-54), risk perceptions and an interaction term (independent variables) with past 12-month quit attempts and past-month e-cigarette use (outcomes). RESULTS: Adults aged ≥65 were less likely than adults aged 18-24 to rate cigarettes as very/extremely harmful (p<0.05). Odds of rating e-cigarettes as more harmful than cigarettes among adults aged 55-64 and ≥65 were 1.71 (p<0.001) and 1.43 (p=0.024) greater than for adults aged 18-24. This misperception was negatively associated with past-month e-cigarette use and was stronger among adults aged ≥55 (p<0.001) than adults aged <55 (p<0.001). DISCUSSION: Adults aged ≥55 are more likely to have misperceptions about the absolute and relative risks of tobacco products, which may contribute to continued smoking. Health communications targeting this age group could modify beliefs about the perceived harms of tobacco products.

Effects of very low nicotine content cigarettes on smoking across vulnerable populations.

There has been long-standing interest in a reduced-nicotine product standard for combusted tobacco, which is within the regulatory purview of the Food and Drug Administration (FDA). In weighing whether to establish this standard, it is important to consider potential responses among people who are at elevated risk for tobacco-related health harms. In this narrative review, we summarize studies of very low nicotine content (VLNC) cigarettes conducted between 2010 and 2021 in groups that the FDA has identified as vulnerable populations. Studies conducted to date in adults with mental health conditions, adults with opioid use disorder, socioeconomically-disadvantaged adults, and youth or young adults indicate that immediate switching to VLNC cigarettes decreases smoking, with minimal or no unintended negative consequences. Few studies have investigated the effects of VLNC cigarettes in racial or ethnic minorities, people who smoke menthol cigarettes, and pregnant women, but initial findings suggest that responses of these individuals are similar to responses observed in other vulnerable populations. We are not aware of studies that have investigated VLNC cigarettes in military/veteran populations, sexual or gender minority individuals, or people living in underserved rural environments. Future research directions include understanding how to promote cessation in the context of a reduced-nicotine standard, and how to correct VLNC misperceptions in vulnerable populations. Nevertheless, the evidence to date indicates that a reduced-nicotine standard is likely to have the same beneficial effects on smoking reductions as it does in less vulnerable populations, which should provide some confidence in pursuing this regulatory approach.

Decreases in smoking and vaping during COVID-19 stay-at-home orders among a cohort of young adults in the United States.

In Spring 2020, most US states and territories implemented stay-at-home orders to slow transmission of the novel coronavirus SARS-CoV2, the cause of COVID-19. Little is known about the impact of stay-at-home orders on tobacco and nicotine use including among young adults. The current study examined participants (N = 1727) completing three recent survey waves from a longitudinal cohort of young adults recruited in 2010 from North Carolina and Virginia, USA: Wave 13 (Spring 2019), Wave 14 (Fall 2019), and Wave 15 (Spring 2020) to assess changes in cigarette and e-cigarette use. We conducted logistic regression analyses to compare the odds that participants reported smoking or vaping in Wave 14 relative to Wave 13 to establish if there was a trend of use pre-pandemic. Then, we conducted logistic regression analyses to compare the odds that participants reported smoking or vaping in Wave 15 relative to Wave 14 to determine the impact of COVID-19 stay-at-home orders. When comparing the odds of reporting tobacco use at Wave 14 to Wave 13, no differences emerged (p > 0.05). However, when comparing tobacco use at Wave 15 to Wave 14, participants had 40% lower odds of reporting past 30-day cigarette use (p = 0.02) and 50% lower odds of reporting past 30-day e-cigarette use (p < 0.01). The current study provides initial evidence that young adults may have reduced their tobacco and nicotine use during the stay-at-home orders. However, more work is needed to determine the long-term impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on tobacco use and cessation in this population.

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.

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.

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.

Cigar Harm Beliefs and Associations with Cigar Use among Young Adults.

BACKGROUND: Cigar use, including little cigars and cigarillos (LCCs) and large traditional cigars, continues to harm young adults. Research on harm beliefs about cigars, particularly large cigars, is sparse. The current study examined cigar harm beliefs and associations with cigar use. Methods: Data are from a 2019 survey of a young adult cohort study recruited in fall 2010. Participants were asked questions about their beliefs about the harm of LCC and large cigar use. Those reporting ever use of cigars were asked how frequently they inhale the smoke into their lungs. Results: Participants (N = 1910) were 51.9% female with a mean age of 26.7 (SD = 0.6). Ever cigar use was 44.2% for large cigars and 43% for LCCs. Compared to those who have never used large cigars or LCCs, those reporting ever use of large cigars or LCCs reported lower harm beliefs about inhaling harmful chemicals and becoming addicted (ps <.0001). Those who reported higher harm beliefs also reported inhaling the smoke into their lungs more frequently for large cigars and LCCs (ps<.05). Conclusions: Cigar use harm beliefs were lower among participants reporting ever use of cigars compared to those reporting never use. Contrary to predictions, those reporting greater harm beliefs were more likely to report inhaling smoke more frequently than those with lower harm beliefs.

An Evaluation of Potential Unintended Consequences of a Nicotine Product Standard: A Focus on Drinking History and Outcomes.

INTRODUCTION: A nicotine product standard reducing the nicotine content in cigarettes could improve public health by reducing smoking. This study evaluated the potential unintended consequences of a reduced nicotine product standard by examining its effects on (1) smoking behaviors based on drinking history; (2) drinking behavior; and (3) daily associations between smoking and drinking. METHODS: Adults who smoke daily (n = 752) in the United States were randomly assigned to smoke very low nicotine content (VLNC) cigarettes versus normal nicotine content (NNC; control) cigarettes for 20 weeks. Linear mixed models determined if baseline drinking moderated the effects of VLNC versus NNC cigarettes on Week 20 smoking outcomes. Time-varying effect models estimated the daily association between smoking VLNC cigarettes and drinking outcomes. RESULTS: Higher baseline alcohol use (vs no use or lower use) was associated with a smaller effect of VLNC on Week 20 urinary total nicotine equivalents (ps < .05). No additional moderation was supported (ps > .05). In the subsample who drank (n = 415), in the VLNC versus NNC condition, daily alcohol use was significantly reduced from Weeks 17 to 20 and odds of binge drinking were significantly reduced from Weeks 9 to 17. By Week 7, in the VLNC cigarette condition (n = 272), smoking no longer predicted alcohol use but remained associated with binge drinking. CONCLUSIONS: We did not support negative unintended consequences of a nicotine product standard. Nicotine reduction in cigarettes generally affected smoking behavior for individuals who do not drink or drink light-to-moderate amounts in similar ways. Extended VLNC cigarette use may improve public health by reducing drinking behavior. IMPLICATIONS: There was no evidence that a VLNC product standard would result in unintended consequences based on drinking history or when considering alcohol outcomes. Specifically, we found that a very low nicotine standard in cigarettes generally reduces smoking outcomes for those who do not drink and those who drink light-to-moderate amounts. Furthermore, an added public health benefit of a very low nicotine standard for cigarettes could be a reduction in alcohol use and binge drinking over time. Finally, smoking VLNC cigarettes may result in a decoupling of the daily associations between smoking and drinking.

Biopsychosocial mechanisms associated with tobacco use in smokers with and without serious mental illness.

Smokers with serious mental illness (SMI) are less responsive to cessation treatments than those without SMI. In this study, we compared smokers with and without SMI on validated measures of biological and psychosocial factors associated with tobacco use. Smokers with (n = 58) and without SMI (n = 83) who were enrolled in parallel clinical trials were compared on measures of carbon monoxide (CO) exposure, nicotine exposure, tobacco-specific nitrosamine exposure, craving, smoking motives, affect, perceived stress, environmental exposure to smoke/smokers, respiratory symptoms, tobacco-related health risk perceptions, and whether they had received recent advice to quit smoking from a health care provider. Data were collected between 2013 and 2017 in Providence, Rhode Island, USA. Samples were compared using independent-sample t-tests and chi-squared tests. Smokers with SMI had higher CO, nicotine, and tobacco-specific nitrosamine exposure levels, greater cigarette dependence, higher craving, and higher scores on eight out of eleven smoking motives (p's < 0.05). Smokers with SMI reported more severe respiratory symptoms but lower perceived health risks of tobacco (p's < 0.05). These smokers were more likely to report having received advice to quit from a medical provider in the past 6 weeks (p < 0.05). Affect, stress, and exposure to smoke/smokers did not differ across samples. Our findings advance the understanding of the elevated smoking rates of people with SMI by comparing smokers with and without SMI on validated biopsychosocial measures. There is a need for interventions that reduce craving, reduce smoking motives, and increase risk awareness among smokers with SMI.

Smoking Topography Characteristics During a 6-Week Trial of Very Low Nicotine Content Cigarettes in Smokers With Serious Mental Illness.

INTRODUCTION: A nicotine-reduction policy could have major benefits for smokers with serious mental illness (SMI). However, potential unintended consequences, such as compensatory smoking, should be considered to ensure that such a policy does not negatively affect this population. The purpose of this secondary analysis was to examine the impact of smoking very low nicotine content (VLNC) cigarettes for 6 weeks on smoking topography characteristics, indicators of compensatory smoking, among smokers with SMI. AIMS AND METHODS: After a baseline usual brand smoking phase, smokers with SMI (N = 58) were randomly assigned under double-blind conditions to receive either VLNC (0.4 mg nicotine per g tobacco) or normal nicotine content (NNC; 15.8 mg nicotine per g tobacco) research cigarettes for 6 weeks. During two study visits scheduled 6 weeks apart, participants smoked either their usual brand (baseline) or assigned study cigarettes (postrandomization) through a handheld smoking topography device. Univariate analysis of variance compared smoking topography indices with cigarette condition (VLNC vs. NNC) as the between-subjects factor with corresponding baseline topography results included as covariates. RESULTS: At week 6, participants in the VLNC condition smoked fewer puffs per cigarette and had shorter interpuff intervals compared to participants in the NNC condition (ps < .05). There were no differences between research cigarette conditions at week 6 for cigarette volume, puff volume, puff duration, peak flow rate, or carbon monoxide boost. CONCLUSIONS: Findings are consistent with acute VLNC cigarette topography studies and indicate that a nicotine-reduction policy is unlikely to lead to compensation among smokers with SMI. IMPLICATIONS: Given the high smoking rates among people with SMI, understanding how a nicotine-reduction policy may affect this population is critically important. When considering the smoking topography results as a whole, smokers with SMI did not engage in compensatory smoking behavior when using VLNC cigarettes during a 6-week trial. Study findings suggest that compensatory smoking is not likely to occur among smokers with SMI if nicotine content is lowered to minimally addictive levels.

Very Low Nicotine Content Cigarettes Disrupt the Feedback Loop of Affective States and Smoking Behavior.

INTRODUCTION: Smoking to reduce negative affect has been identified as a key motivational feature of tobacco use. Our recent work suggests that smoking very low nicotine content (VLNC) cigarettes reduces the relationship between negative affect and smoking behavior over a 6-week period. Here, we sought to extend our findings by evaluating whether a gradual or immediate approach to switching to VLNC cigarettes led to a differential reduction in the relationship between affect and smoking behavior over a longer (20-week) period. AIMS AND METHODS: Participants (n = 1250) were adult smokers from 10 US sites randomized to one of three groups: gradual nicotine reduction (15.5, 11.7, 5.2, 2.4, and 0.4 mg of nicotine per gram of tobacco [mg/g]), immediate nicotine reduction (0.4 mg/g), or standard nicotine content cigarettes (15.5 mg/g; control), for 20 weeks. We examined whether the relationship between affect-both negative and positive-and cigarettes per day differed as a function of reduction group. RESULTS: We found that both negative and positive affect were associated with cigarette consumption in the control group, but not in the gradual or immediate reduction groups across the 20 weeks of exposure. CONCLUSIONS: Our results extend previous findings that switching to VLNC cigarettes disrupts the relationship between affect and cigarette consumption by showing that either gradually or immediately reducing cigarette nicotine content achieves this disruption. These findings provide further evidence that switching to VLNC cigarettes reduces nicotine-related reinforcement of cigarette smoking. IMPLICATIONS: These findings support the notion that switching to very low nicotine content cigarettes reduces the association between affect and smoking behavior, and that either a gradual or immediate nicotine reduction approach achieves this reduction. This provides further evidence that switching to very low nicotine content cigarettes weakens reinforcement mechanisms associated with nicotine dependence.

Anticipated Effects of Nicotine Reduction on Youth Smoking Initiation and Maintenance.

This commentary summarizes emerging findings on the potential impact of a nicotine reduction policy on youth and young adults. We conclude that: (1) adolescent smokers and nonsmokers alike are likely to be less sensitive to reinforcement from very low nicotine content (VLNC) cigarettes compared with adults; (2) reducing nicotine in cigarettes to 0.4 mg/g would reduce the abuse potential of cigarettes in adolescents and young adults; (3) findings to date do not support concerns that nicotine reduction leads to compensatory smoking in young smokers; and (4) if the scope of a reduced nicotine product standard were applied to all combusted tobacco products, that would likely maximize public health benefit of this policy.

Reducing the Nicotine Content of Cigarettes: Effects in Smokers With Mental Health Conditions and Socioeconomic Disadvantages.

In this commentary, we review results from laboratory studies and randomized clinical trials that have examined the effects of very low-nicotine-content cigarette use in smokers with mental health conditions and socioeconomic disadvantages. On the basis of scientific evidence to date, we conclude that a reduced-nicotine standard for cigarettes would likely reduce cigarette smoking in these populations, without increasing psychiatric symptoms or compensatory smoking.

Effects of Cigarette Nicotine Content and Menthol Preference on Perceived Health Risks, Subjective Ratings, and Carbon Monoxide Exposure Among Adolescent Smokers.

INTRODUCTION: Minimal research exists on adolescent smokers' perceptions of very low-nicotine-content (VLNC) cigarettes. As approximately half of adolescent smokers prefer menthol cigarettes, it is important to consider the influence of menthol preference on VLNC cigarette perceptions and to what extent menthol preference may affect VLNC smoking behavior. This study examined the effects of cigarette nicotine content and menthol preference or menthol smoking on health risk perceptions, subjective ratings, and carbon monoxide (CO) boost in adolescent smokers. METHODS: Across two counterbalanced sessions, adolescent smokers sampled VLNC and normal nicotine content (NNC) research cigarettes following overnight abstinence. Cigarettes were mentholated or non-mentholated consistent with participants' usual brand. In each session, participants smoked the research cigarette and then completed the Perceived Health Risk Scale and Cigarette Evaluation Scale. Breath CO readings were obtained pre- and post-smoking. Mixed-factor ANOVA tests compared outcomes with cigarette type (VLNC vs. NNC) as the within-subjects factor and menthol preference as the between-subjects factor. RESULTS: Participants (N = 50) were M = 17.7 years old, smoked M = 8.2 cigarettes/day, and 56% typically smoked menthol cigarettes. Participants reported lower risk of developing lung cancer, other cancers, emphysema, bronchitis, and heart disease (ps ≤ .05) when smoking VLNC cigarettes relative to NNC cigarettes. Perceived risk of addiction and stroke did not differ by nicotine content. Menthol preference or menthol smoking did not moderate risk perceptions, subjective ratings, or CO boost. CONCLUSIONS: Adolescents may incorrectly perceive that VLNC cigarettes are less harmful products. Health communication campaigns could help to correct VLNC misperceptions and potentially minimize unintended consequences of a nicotine reduction policy.

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.

Effects of 6-Week Use of Very Low Nicotine Content Cigarettes in Smokers With Serious Mental Illness.

INTRODUCTION: The US Food and Drug Administration is considering implementing a reduced-nicotine standard for cigarettes. Given the high rate of smoking among people with serious mental illness (SMI), it is important to examine the responses of these smokers to very low nicotine content (VLNC) cigarettes. METHODS: This trial compared the effects of VLNC (0.4 mg nicotine/g tobacco) and normal nicotine content cigarettes (15.8 mg/g) over a 6-week period in non-treatment-seeking smokers with schizophrenia, schizoaffective disorder, or bipolar disorder (n = 58). Linear regression was used to examine the effects of cigarette condition on cigarettes per day, subjective responses, nicotine and tobacco toxicant exposure, craving, withdrawal symptoms, and psychiatric symptoms. RESULTS: At week 6, participants in the VLNC condition smoked fewer cigarettes per day, had lower breath carbon monoxide levels, lower craving scores, and rated their study cigarettes lower in satisfaction, reward, enjoyment, and craving reduction than those in the normal nicotine content condition (ps < .05). Week 6 psychiatric and extrapyramidal symptoms did not differ by condition, except for scores on a measure of parkinsonism, which were lower in the VLNC condition (p < .05). There were no differences across conditions on total nicotine exposure, 4-(methylnitrosamino)-1-(3-pyridyl)-1-butanol, withdrawal symptoms, or responses to abstinence. CONCLUSIONS: These results suggest that a reduced-nicotine standard for cigarettes would reduce smoking among smokers with SMI. However, the lack of effect on total nicotine exposure indicates VLNC noncompliance, suggesting that smokers with SMI may respond to a reduced-nicotine standard by substituting alternative forms of nicotine. IMPLICATIONS: Results from this trial suggest that a reduced-nicotine standard for cigarettes would reduce smoking rates and smoke exposure in smokers with SMI, without increasing psychiatric symptoms. However, noncompliance with VLNC cigarettes was observed, suggesting that these smokers might respond to a reduced-nicotine standard by substituting alternative forms of nicotine.

The Impact of Gradual and Immediate Nicotine Reduction on Subjective Cigarette Ratings.

BACKGROUND: A recent clinical trial showed that an immediate transition to very low nicotine content (VLNC) cigarettes, compared with a gradual transition, produced greater reductions in smoking behavior, smoke exposure, and dependence. However, there was less compliance with the instruction to smoke only VLNC cigarettes in the immediate versus gradual reduction condition. The goal of this study was to test whether nicotine reduction method alters subjective ratings of VLNC cigarettes, and whether subjective ratings mediate effects of nicotine reduction method on smoking behavior, smoke exposure, dependence, and compliance. METHODS: This is a secondary analysis of a randomized trial conducted across 10 sites in the United States. Smokers (n = 1250) were randomized to either a control condition, or to have the nicotine content of their cigarettes reduced immediately or gradually to 0.04 mg nicotine/g of tobacco during a 20-week study period. Participants completed the modified Cigarette Evaluation Questionnaire (mCEQ). RESULTS: After Week 20, the immediate reduction group scored significantly lower than the gradual reduction group on multiple subscales of the mCEQ (ps < .001). The Satisfaction subscale of the mCEQ mediated the impact of nicotine reduction method on smoke exposure, smoking behavior, dependence, compliance, and abstinence. Other subscales also mediated a subset of these outcomes. CONCLUSIONS: An immediate reduction in nicotine content resulted in lower product satisfaction than a gradual reduction, suggesting that immediate reduction further reduces cigarette reward value. This study will provide the Food and Drug Administration with information about the impact of nicotine reduction method on cigarette reward value. IMPLICATIONS: These data suggest that an immediate reduction in nicotine content will result in greater reductions in cigarette satisfaction than a gradual reduction, and this reduction in satisfaction is related to changes in smoking behavior and dependence.