Dataset Information

Effect of Immediate vs Gradual Reduction in Nicotine Content of Cigarettes on Biomarkers of Smoke Exposure: A Randomized Clinical Trial.

ABSTRACT: Importance:The optimal temporal approach for reducing nicotine to minimally or nonaddictive levels in all cigarettes sold in the United States has not been determined. Objectives:To determine the effects of immediate vs gradual reduction in nicotine content to very low levels and as compared with usual nicotine level cigarettes on biomarkers of toxicant exposure. Design, Setting, and Participants:A double-blind, randomized, parallel-design study with 2 weeks of baseline smoking and 20 weeks of intervention was conducted at 10 US sites. A volunteer sample of daily smokers with no intention to quit within 30 days was recruited between July 2014 and September 2016, with the last follow-up completed in March 2017. Interventions:(1) Immediate reduction to 0.4 mg of nicotine per gram of tobacco cigarettes; (2) gradual reduction from 15.5 mg to 0.4 mg of nicotine per gram of tobacco cigarettes with 5 monthly dose changes; or (3) maintenance on 15.5 mg of nicotine per gram of tobacco cigarettes. Main Outcomes and Measures:Between-group differences in 3 co-primary biomarkers of smoke toxicant exposure: breath carbon monoxide (CO), urine 3-hydroxypropylmercapturic acid (3-HPMA, metabolite of acrolein), and urine phenanthrene tetraol (PheT, indicator of polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons) calculated as area under the concentration-time curve over the 20 weeks of intervention. Results:Among 1250 randomized participants (mean age, 45 years; 549 women [44%]; 958 [77%] completed the trial), significantly lower levels of exposure were observed in the immediate vs gradual reduction group for CO (mean difference, -4.06 parts per million [ppm] [95% CI, -4.89 to -3.23]; P?

SUBMITTER: Hatsukami DK

PROVIDER: S-EPMC6372240 | biostudies-literature | 2018 Sep

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Effect of Immediate vs Gradual Reduction in Nicotine Content of Cigarettes on Biomarkers of Smoke Exposure: A Randomized Clinical Trial.

Hatsukami Dorothy K DK Luo Xianghua X Jensen Joni A JA al'Absi Mustafa M Allen Sharon S SS Carmella Steven G SG Chen Menglan M Cinciripini Paul M PM Denlinger-Apte Rachel R Drobes David J DJ Koopmeiners Joseph S JS Lane Tonya T Le Chap T CT Leischow Scott S Luo Kai K McClernon F Joseph FJ Murphy Sharon E SE Paiano Viviana V Robinson Jason D JD Severson Herbert H Sipe Christopher C Strasser Andrew A AA Strayer Lori G LG Tang Mei Kuen MK Vandrey Ryan R Hecht Stephen S SS Benowitz Neal L NL Donny Eric C EC

JAMA 20180901 9

<h4>Importance</h4>The optimal temporal approach for reducing nicotine to minimally or nonaddictive levels in all cigarettes sold in the United States has not been determined.<h4>Objectives</h4>To determine the effects of immediate vs gradual reduction in nicotine content to very low levels and as compared with usual nicotine level cigarettes on biomarkers of toxicant exposure.<h4>Design, setting, and participants</h4>A double-blind, randomized, parallel-design study with 2 weeks of baseline smo ...[more]

PMID: 30193275

Similar Datasets

Project description:AIM:A previous study showed significantly greater reductions in number of cigarettes smoked and biomarkers of toxicant and carcinogen exposure in smokers assigned to immediate reduction of nicotine in cigarettes to very low levels versus gradually over time or continued smoking of normal nicotine content cigarettes. This study examines the effects of these approaches on selected biomarkers associated with harmful biological effects. DESIGN:Three-arm, randomized controlled trial. SETTING:Ten United States academic institutional sites. PARTICIPANTS:Daily smokers uninterested in quitting smoking with a mean age of 45.1 [standard deviation (SD) = 13.4)] years and smoking 17.1 (SD = 8.5) cigarettes/day; 43.9% (549 of 1250) female; 60.6% (758 of 1250) white ethnicity. INTERVENTIONS:(1) Smoking cigarettes where nicotine content was immediately reduced to very low levels (n = 503); (2) smoking cigarettes where nicotine content was gradually reduced, with dose changes occurring monthly (n = 498); and (3) continued smoking with normal nicotine content cigarettes (n = 249). MEASUREMENTS:Smokers were assessed at baseline while smoking their usual brand cigarettes, and again at 4, 8, 12, 16 and 20 weeks. Outcomes were areas under the concentration time curve (AUC) for the period of study of biomarkers of inflammation, oxidative stress and hematological parameters. FINDINGS:No consistent significant differences were observed across groups (Bayes factors showing data to be insensitive), with the only exception being red blood cell size variability, which was observed to be lower in the immediate versus gradual nicotine reduction [mean difference = -0.11; 95% confidence interval (CI) = -0.18, -0.04, P = 0.004] and normal nicotine control groups (mean difference = - 0.15, 95% CI = -0.23, -0.06, P = 0.001). CONCLUSION:It remains unclear whether switching to very low nicotine cigarettes leads to a short-term reduction in biomarkers of tobacco-related harm.

Project description:BackgroundA 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.MethodsThis 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).ResultsAfter 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.ConclusionsAn 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.ImplicationsThese 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.

Project description:IntroductionMany people incorrectly think that very low nicotine content (VLNC) cigarettes are less carcinogenic than current cigarettes. This risk misperception by people who smoke could reduce motivation to quit under a nicotine reduction policy. We qualitatively examined perspectives on campaign messages designed to reduce misperceptions.Aims and methodsAdults who smoke from North Carolina participated in online interviews. After being introduced to the idea of a VLNC policy, participants were shown VLNC messages and asked about their perceptions on the clarity, understandability, persuasiveness, and meaning of the messages. We conducted a thematic content analysis of the transcripts.ResultsThirty adults who smoke cigarettes participated (15 females, 13 males, 2 nonbinary) with a mean age of 43 years. Central themes that emerged were: (1) Confusion about the proposed VLNC cigarette policy affected how messages were interpreted; (2) Messages that promote self-efficacy for quitting rather than guilt or fear were better received; and (3) Direct and succinct messages were seen as more able to grab attention and inform people who smoke. Some participant concerns focused on whether VLNC cigarettes would relieve their nicotine cravings and whether they would need to smoke more VLNC cigarettes to feel satisfied.ConclusionCampaign messages to educate the public about the harmful effects of smoking VLNC cigarettes may be more effective if people who smoke are informed about the policy's rationale to understand why nicotine is removed rather than the other harmful chemicals. Messages should also acknowledge the difficulty of quitting and be short and direct to capture attention.ImplicationsAdults who smoke have some confusion about nicotine reduction in cigarettes and this affects how they perceive potential communication campaign messages about the risk of smoking VLNC cigarettes. In our qualitative research, we found that adults who smoke prefer messages about VLNC cigarettes that acknowledge the challenge of quitting and that are direct and succinct. With further development, campaign messages may be able to reduce misperceptions about VLNC cigarettes and maximize the public health benefit of a nicotine reduction policy.

Project description:ImportanceThe US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has announced its intention to reduce the nicotine content in combustible cigarettes but must base regulation on public health benefits. Fast nicotine metabolizers may be at risk for increased smoking following a national nicotine reduction policy. We hypothesized that using reduced nicotine content (RNC) cigarettes would be associated with increases in smoking behaviors and exposure among smokers with a fast-but not slow-nicotine-metabolite ratio (NMR).ObjectivesTo examine the association of RNC cigarettes with smoking behaviors and biomarkers of exposure and to compare these associations in fast and slow metabolizers of nicotine based on the NMR.Design setting and participantsA 35-day, 3-period, within-participant nonrandomized clinical trial was conducted at an academic medical center in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. A 5-day baseline period using the smokers' preferred brand of cigarettes was followed by 2 consecutive 15-day periods using free investigational RNC cigarettes. A total of 100 daily, non-treatment-seeking, nonmenthol cigarette smokers (59 fast, 41 slow metabolizers) were recruited from December 24, 2013, to December 2, 2015. Data analysis was performed from December 12, 2016, to January 3, 2018.InterventionsTwo 15-day periods using cigarettes containing 5.2 mg (RNC1) and 1.3 mg (RNC2) of nicotine per gram of tobacco.Main outcomes and measuresSmoking behaviors (number of cigarettes per day [CPD], total puff volume) and biomarkers of exposure (carbon monoxide [CO], urine total nicotine equivalents [TNE], and 4-[methylnitrosamino]-1-[3-pyridyl]-1-butanol [NNAL]).ResultsSmokers (73 [73.0%] men; 74 [74.0%] white; mean [SD] age, 43.02 [12.13] years; mean [SD] CPD, 17.31 [5.72]) consumed 2.62 (95% CI, 1.54-3.70) more CPD during the RNC1 period vs their preferred brand during baseline (P < .001) and approximated baseline CPD during the RNC2 period (mean difference, 0.96 [95% CI, -0.36 to 2.28]; P = .24). Additional outcome measures were lower during both RNC periods vs baseline (total puff volume, mean [95% CI]: RNC1, 537 mL [95% CI, 479-595 mL]; RNC2, 598 mL [95% CI, 547-649 mL] vs baseline, 744 mL [95% CI, 681-806 mL]; TNE, mean [95% CI]: RNC1, 30.9 nmoL/mg creatinine [95% CI, 26.0-36.6 nmoL/mg]; RNC2, 22.8 nmoL/mg creatinine [95% CI, 17.8-29.0 nmoL/mg] vs baseline, 54.6 nmoL/mg creatinine [95% CI, 48.1-62.1 nmoL/mg]; and NNAL, mean [95% CI]: RNC1, 229 pg/mg creatinine [95% CI, 189-277 pg/mg]; RNC2, 190 pg/mg creatinine [95% CI, 157-231 pg/mg] vs baseline, 280 pg/mg creatinine [95% CI, 231-339 pg/mg]; all P < .001). Carbon monoxide measures were similar across study periods (CO boost [SD], RNC1, 4.6 ppm [4.1-5.1 ppm]; RNC2, 4.2 ppm [3.7-4.6 ppm]; and baseline, 4.4 ppm [3.8-4.9 ppm]). The RNC cigarette associations did not differ by NMR.Conclusions and relevanceBoth RNC cigarettes were associated with decreased puffing and urinary biomarker exposure but not with decreased daily cigarette consumption or CO levels. The NMR did not moderate associations at the nicotine levels tested, suggesting that fast metabolizers may not be at greater risk of increasing use or exposure from these products should the FDA mandate an RNC standard for cigarettes.

Project description:IntroductionRegulators are considering reducing the nicotine content in cigarettes to a minimally addictive level. This could particularly benefit smokers from populations vulnerable to heavy smoking and difficulties quitting. We assessed predictors of adherence among adults from vulnerable populations assigned to use very low nicotine content cigarettes (VLNCs) in randomized clinical trials, to identify characteristics of those who require additional assistance if a nicotine reduction policy were implemented.Aims and methodsData came from three populations of vulnerable adult smokers assigned to use VLNC cigarettes (0.4 mg/g nicotine) during 12-week randomized controlled trials (n = 286): Socioeconomically disadvantaged women of reproductive age, opioid-maintained adults, and adults with affective disorders. Logistic and linear regressions modeled predictors of adherence based on changes in cotinine at week-6 and week-12 assessments relative to baseline, and as a 90% reduction in cotinine relative to baseline (full adherence: yes/no). Predictors included satisfaction with study cigarettes, craving, nicotine dependence severity, withdrawal, population membership, baseline affective-disorder symptoms, and sociodemographic characteristics.ResultsDependence severity was negatively associated with both adherence measures at week 6 (p < .01), whereas increased satisfaction with study cigarettes and age were positively associated with both measures at weeks 6 and 12 (p < .01). Opioid-maintained adults exhibited reduced adherence and were less likely to reach full adherence at week 12 compared to disadvantaged women (p = .02).ConclusionsFactors associated with VLNC adherence in vulnerable populations are similar to those in the general population of smokers. Furthermore, studies are indicated investigating nicotine supplements (e.g., e-cigarettes, NRT) to support highly dependent adults faced with using VLNCs.ImplicationsThis study identified factors predicting difficulty maintaining adherence to a regimen of very low nicotine content cigarettes (VLNC) among adults from vulnerable populations. Findings suggested that factors predicting difficulty maintaining adherence (greater nicotine dependence and low satisfaction with study-provided VLNC) were common across vulnerable smokers and the general population of adults who smoke. Furthermore, research should investigate alternatives to support highly dependent adults, such as pairing VLNC with supplemental, noncombusted nicotine. Some vulnerable populations (e.g., opioid-maintained adults) may be especially in need of supplemental, noncombusted nicotine.

Project description:IntroductionBecause 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.MethodsIn 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.ResultsAt 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.ConclusionsAlthough 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.ImplicationsResults 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.

Dataset Information

Effect of Immediate vs Gradual Reduction in Nicotine Content of Cigarettes on Biomarkers of Smoke Exposure: A Randomized Clinical Trial.

Publications

Effect of Immediate vs Gradual Reduction in Nicotine Content of Cigarettes on Biomarkers of Smoke Exposure: A Randomized Clinical Trial.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets