Experiences With Smoking Cessation Attempts and Prior Use of Cessation Aids in Smokers With HIV: Findings From a Focus Group Study Conducted in Durham, North Carolina.

Cigarette smoking remains disproportionately prevalent and is increasingly a cause of death and disability among people with HIV (PWH). Many PWH are interested in quitting, but interest in and uptake of first-line smoking cessation pharmacotherapies are varied in this population. To provide current data regarding experiences with and perceptions of smoking cessation and cessation aids among PWH living in Durham, North Carolina, the authors conducted five focus group interviews (total n = 24; 96% African American) using semistructured interviews. Interviews were recorded, transcribed, coded, and thematically analyzed. Major themes included ambivalence and/or lack of interest in cessation; presence of cessation barriers; perceived perceptions of ineffectiveness of cessation aids; perceived medication side effects; and conflation of the harms resulting from use of tobacco products and nicotine replacement therapy. Innovative and effective interventions must account for the aforementioned multiple barriers to cessation as well as prior experiences with and misperceptions regarding cessation aids.

Support for a nicotine reduction policy among participants enrolled in a 20-week trial of very low nicotine content cigarettes.

INTRODUCTION: The Food and Drug Administration is considering a policy to drastically reduce the allowable nicotine content of cigarettes. The current study examined whether the policy implementation approach, i.e., either immediately reducing nicotine content to very low levels or gradually reducing nicotine content over an extended period, influences policy support among people who smoke cigarettes. METHODS: Adults who smoked daily were randomly assigned (double-blind) to an immediate nicotine reduction condition (0.4 mg/g nicotine cigarettes), a gradual nicotine reduction condition (15.5 to 0.4 mg/g), or a control condition (15.5 mg/g) for 20 weeks. Participants were asked if they would "support or oppose a law that reduced the amount of nicotine in cigarettes, to make cigarettes less addictive." Logistic regression analyses assessed if policy support was affected by treatment condition, demographic covariates, interest in quitting, and subjective cigarette effects. RESULTS: At Week 20 (N = 957 completers), 60.4% of participants supported the policy, 17.4% opposed, and 22.2% responded "Don't know." Policy support did not differ by treatment condition. Support was greater among those interested in quitting (OR = 3.37, 95% CI = 2.49, 4.55). Support was lower among males (OR = 0.49, 95% CI = 0.37, 0.67), those with greater dependence scores (OR = 0.92, 95% CI = 0.86, 0.99) and participants aged 18-24 (OR = 0.53, 95% CI = 0.28, 0.99). No other covariates were associated with policy support. CONCLUSIONS: The majority of participants supported a nicotine reduction policy. The implementation approach, immediate or gradual reduction, did not affect policy support. Participants interested in quitting smoking were more likely to support a nicotine reduction policy.

Perceived nicotine content of reduced nicotine content cigarettes is a correlate of perceived health risks.

BACKGROUND: Reducing cigarette nicotine content may reduce smoking. Studies suggest that smokers believe that nicotine plays a role in smoking-related morbidity. This may lead smokers to assume that reduced nicotine means reduced risk, and attenuate potential positive effects on smoking behaviour. METHODS: Data came from a multisite randomised trial in which smokers were assigned to use cigarettes varying in nicotine content for 6 weeks. We evaluated associations between perceived and actual nicotine content with perceived health risks using linear regression, and associations between perceived nicotine content and perceived health risks with smoking outcomes using linear and logistic regression. FINDINGS: Perceived-not actual-nicotine content was associated with perceived health risks; compared with those perceiving very low nicotine, individuals who perceived low (ß=0.72, 95% CI 0.26 to 1.17), moderate (ß=1.02, 95% CI 0.51 to 1.53) or high/very high nicotine (ß=1.66, 95% CI 0.87 to 2.44) perceived greater health risks. Nevertheless, individuals perceiving low (OR=0.48, 95% CI 0.32 to 0.71) or moderate nicotine (OR=0.42, 95% CI 0.27 to 0.66) were less likely than those perceiving very low nicotine to report that they would quit within 1 year if only investigational cigarettes were available. Lower perceived risk of developing other cancers and heart disease was also associated with fewer cigarettes/day at week 6. CONCLUSIONS: Although the perception of reduced nicotine is associated with a reduction in perceived harm, it may not attenuate the anticipated beneficial effects on smoking behaviour. These findings have implications for potential product standards targeting nicotine and highlight the need to clarify the persistent harms of reduced nicotine combusted tobacco products.

Nicotine increases anterior insula activation to expected and unexpected outcomes among nonsmokers.

RATIONALE: Tobacco has a higher rate of dependence than other drugs of abuse. However, the psychopharmacological effects of nicotine are incongruent with the tenacity of tobacco addiction since nicotine does not produce robust euphoria in humans or self-administration in rodents. A potential explanation is that nicotine amplifies the salience of other stimuli that have some incentive value, which could influence the initiation and persistence of smoking. However, the neural mechanisms of this process are unknown. OBJECTIVES: One way that nicotine may amplify the salience of other stimuli is by enhancing reward prediction errors. We hypothesized that nicotine would enhance the neural response to unexpected (relative to expected) rewards compared to placebo. METHODS: Twenty-three nonsmokers underwent two fMRI scans, following nicotine (1 mg) or placebo administration, while performing an outcome expectation task. In the task, a pair of cues was associated with either a subsequent reward (the image of a $100 bill) or a nonreward (the image of a blurry rectangle). On 20% of trials, the cue was followed by an unexpected outcome. RESULTS: Although nicotine did not affect the magnitude of prediction errors relative to placebo, nicotine did increase BOLD activation in the anterior insula/inferior frontal gyrus and decrease activation in the caudate across all outcome types (including both rewards and nonrewards). CONCLUSIONS: The insula and caudate could play a role in the initial effects of nicotine in nonsmokers, and these changes in baseline may be the mechanism that underlies how nicotine amplifies the salience of nondrug stimuli.