Impact of Cigarette Filter Ventilation on U.S. Smokers' Perceptions and Biomarkers of Exposure and Potential Harm.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT: Background
Relationships between cigarette filter ventilation levels, biomarkers of exposure (BOE) and potential harm (BOPH), and harm perceptions were examined.Methods
Filter ventilation levels in cigarette brands were merged with Wave 1 (2013-2014) Population Assessment of Tobacco Use and Health study. Data were restricted to smokers who reported a usual brand and not regular users of other tobacco products. BOEs included nicotine, tobacco-specific nitrosamines, volatile organic compounds (VOC), and polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons. BOPHs measured inflammation and oxidative stress. Perceived harm was assessed as self-reported risk of one's usual brand compared with other brands.Results
Filter ventilation ranged from 0.2% to 61.1% (n = 1,503). Adjusted relationships between filter ventilation and BOE or BOPH were nonsignificant except for VOC N-acetyl-S-(phenyl)-L-cysteine (PHMA) and high-sensitivity C-reactive protein (hsCRP). In pairwise comparisons, PHMA was higher in quartile (Q) 4 (4.23 vs. 3.36 pmol/mg; P = 0.0103) and Q3 (4.48 vs. 3.36 pmol/mg; P = 0.0038) versus Q1 of filter ventilation and hsCRP comparisons were nonsignificant. Adjusted odds of perceiving one's own brand as less harmful was 26.87 (95% confidence interval: 4.31-167.66), 12.55 (3.01-52.32), and 19.18 (3.87-95.02) times higher in the Q2, Q3, and Q4 of filter ventilation compared with Q1 (P = 0.0037).Conclusions
Filter ventilation was not associated with BOE or BOPH, yet smokers of higher ventilated cigarettes perceived their brand as less harmful than other brands compared with smokers of lower ventilated cigarettes.Impact
Research to understand the impact of this misperception is needed, and remedial strategies, potentially including a ban on filter ventilation, are recommended.
SUBMITTER: Carroll DM
PROVIDER: S-EPMC7855960 | biostudies-literature |
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Similar Datasets
Project description:BackgroundE-cigarettes are increasingly being viewed, incorrectly, as more harmful than cigarettes. This may discourage smokers from switching to e-cigarettes. One potential explanation for these increasingly harmful attitudes is conflicting information presented in the media and online, and from public health bodies.Aims and methodsIn this prospectively registered online study, we aimed to examine the impact of conflicting public health information on smokers' and vapers' e-cigarette harm perceptions. Daily UK smokers who do not vape (n = 334) and daily UK vapers (n = 368) were randomized to receive either: (1) a consistent harm reduction statement from two different public health bodies (Harm Reduction), (2) a consistent negative statement about e-cigarette harms from two different public health bodies (Negative), (3) a harm reduction statement from one public health body and a negative statement from another (Conflict), and (4) a statement of the risks of smoking followed by a harm reduction statement from one public health body and a negative statement from another (Smoking Risk + Conflict). Participants then answered questions regarding their perceptions of e-cigarette harm.ResultsThe Negative condition had the highest e-cigarette harm perceptions, significantly higher than the Smoking Risk + Conflict condition (MD = 5.4, SE = 1.8, p < .016, d = 0.3 [CI 0.73 to 10.04]), which did not differ from the Conflict condition (MD = 1.5, SE = 1.8, p = .836, d = 0.1 [CI -3.14 to 6.17]). The Conflict condition differed from the Harm Reduction condition, where harm perceptions were lowest (MD = 5.4, SE = 1.8, p = .016, d = 0.3 [CI 0.74 to 10.07]).ConclusionsThese findings are the first to demonstrate that, compared to harm reduction information, conflicting information increases e-cigarette harm perceptions amongst vapers, and smokers who do not vape.ImplicationsThis research provides the first empirical evidence that conflicting information increases smokers' and vapers' e-cigarette harm perceptions, compared to harm reduction information. This may have a meaningful impact on public health as e-cigarette harm perceptions can influence subsequent smoking and vaping behavior. Conflicting information may dissuade smokers, who have the most to gain from accurate e-cigarette harm perceptions, from switching to e-cigarettes. These findings indicate that public health communications that are consensus-based can lower harm perceptions of e-cigarettes, and have the potential to reduce morbidity and mortality attributable to tobacco smoking.
| S-EPMC9653072 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectivesWe compared biomarkers of exposure and potential harm in smokers of American Spirit (AS) to smokers of Marlboro, Newport, Camel, and Pall Mall.MethodsWe conducted secondary analysis on: (1) data from a randomized clinical trial (RCT); and (2) the Population Assessment of Tobacco Use and Health (PATH) Study. Biomarkers analyzed included: total nicotine equivalents (TNE); 4-(methylnitrosamino)-1-(3-pyridyl)-1-butanol and its glucuronides (total NNAL); N'-nitrosonornicotine and its N-glucuronide (total NNN);3-hydroxypropylmercapturic acid(3-HPMA); 2-hydroxypropylmercapturic acid (2-HPMA), 3-hydroxy-1 methylpropylmercapturic acid (HMPMA); S-phenylmercapturic acid(SPMA); 2-cyanoethylmercapturic acid (CEMA); phenanthrene tetraol(PheT);1-hydroxypyrene (1-HOP);8-iso-PGF2α; white blood count(WBC); prostaglandin E metabolite(PGEM); and high sensitivity C-reactive protein(hsCRP).ResultsAS smokers did not differ in TNE but had higher TNE per cigarette compared to other brands. Total NNAL, total NNN, CEMA, and 3-HPMA were lower in AS smokers. All other biomarkers were no different in AS smokers compared to all or the majority of the other brands.ConclusionsLevels of total NNAL, total NNN, acrylonitrile, and acrolein were reduced in AS smokers; however, it is not known whether reductions in exposure to these toxicants contribute to reduced harm. Higher TNE per cigarette smoked in AS smokers suggests a greater addictive potential compared to other brands. Regulatory action to ensure that consumers are not misled about the risks of the AS brand are recommended.
| S-EPMC7810336 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundThe sensory belief that 'light/low tar' cigarettes are smoother can also influence the belief that 'light/low tar' cigarettes are less harmful. However, the 'light' concept is one of several factors influencing beliefs. No studies have examined the impact of the sensory belief about one's own brand of cigarettes on perceptions of harm.ObjectiveThe current study examines whether a smoker's sensory belief that their brand is smoother is associated with the belief that their brand is less harmful and whether sensory beliefs mediate the relation between smoking a 'light/low tar' cigarette and relative perceptions of harm among smokers in China.MethodsData are from 5209 smokers who were recruited using a stratified multistage sampling design and participated in Wave 3 of the International Tobacco Control (ITC) China Survey, a face-to-face survey of adult smokers and non-smokers in seven cities.ResultsSmokers who agreed that their brand of cigarettes was smoother were significantly more likely to say that their brand of cigarettes was less harmful (p<0.001, OR=6.86, 95% CI 5.64 to 8.33). Mediational analyses using the bootstrapping procedure indicated that both the direct effect of 'light/low tar' cigarette smokers on the belief that their cigarettes are less harmful (b=0.24, bootstrapped bias corrected 95% CI 0.13 to 0.34, p<0.001) and the indirect effect via their belief that their cigarettes are smoother were significant (b=0.32, bootstrapped bias-corrected 95% CI 0.28 to 0.37, p<0.001), suggesting that the mediation was partial.ConclusionsThese results demonstrate the importance of implementing tobacco control policies that address the impact that cigarette design and marketing can have in capitalising on the smoker's natural associations between smoother sensations and lowered perceptions of harm.
| S-EPMC4743031 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundSmokers may react to cigarette excise tax increases by engaging in price-minimization strategies (i.e., finding ways to reduce the cost of cigarette smoking) rather than by quitting or reducing their cigarette use, thereby reducing the public health benefits of such tax increases.PurposeTo evaluate the state and national prevalence of five common cigarette price-minimization strategies and the size of price reductions obtained from these strategies.MethodsUsing data from the 2009-2010 National Adult Tobacco Survey, the prevalence of five common price-minimization strategies by type of strategy and by smoker's cigarette consumption level were estimated. The price reductions associated with these price-minimization strategies also were evaluated. Analyses took place in November 2012.ResultsApproximately 55.4% of U.S. adult smokers used at least one of five price-minimization strategies in the previous year, with an average reduction of $1.27 per pack (22.0%). Results varied widely by state.ConclusionsCigarette price-minimization strategies are practiced widely among current smokers, and resulting price reductions are relatively large. Policies that decrease opportunities to effectively apply cigarette price-minimization strategies would increase the public health gains of cigarette excise tax increases.
| S-EPMC4603745 | biostudies-literature
Project description:IntroductionLong-term health effects of e-vapor products (EVPs) are not well-established. We compared biomarkers of exposure (BoE) to select harmful and potentially harmful constituents and biomarkers of potential harm (BoPH) in adult smokers who switched to EVPs versus continued smoking for 24 weeks.MethodsAdult smokers (n = 450, >10 cigarettes per day for ≥10 years) were randomly assigned to continue smoking (control) or switch to one of two cartridge-based EVPs (test 1: classic; test 2: menthol, 4% nicotine). BoE and BoPH were measured at baseline and 12 weeks. The results presented here are from a subset of 150 control and EVP subjects (switchers with exhaled carbon monoxide <8 ppm and <10% baseline cigarettes per day) followed for 24 total weeks.ResultsTotal 4-(methylnitrosamino)-1-(3-pyridyl)-1-butanol and carboxyhemoglobin were significantly reduced (p < .0001) in tests 1 and 2 at 24 weeks. Urinary nicotine equivalents were not statistically significantly different between the control and EVP groups. At week 24, statistically significant reductions (p < .05) were observed for white blood cell counts, 11-dehydrothromboxane β2, and sICAM in both test groups, and there were several significant changes in measures of pulmonary function. High-density lipoprotein cholesterol and 8-epi-prostaglandin-F2α were directionally favorable in both EVP groups versus control.ConclusionsWe demonstrate that significant reductions of selected harmful and potentially harmful constituents in EVP aerosol results in significant reductions in BoEs and favorable changes in BoPHs after switching to EVPs for 24 weeks. These changes approached those reported for smoking cessation, suggesting that switching to exclusive use of the EVPs may be less harmful than continuing smoking.ImplicationsCigarette smoking causes serious diseases. Switching from cigarettes to a noncombustible product is a potential harm reduction pathway for adult smokers unable or unwilling to quit. Long-term health effects of e-vapor products (EVPs) compared with continued smoking have not been extensively studied. We present biomarker of exposure evidence on select harmful and potentially harmful constituents and biomarkers of potential harm related to inflammation and oxidative stress in adult smokers switching to two EVPs. This study demonstrates significant reductions in biomarkers of exposure (except for nicotine) accompanied with favorable changes in various biomarkers of potential harm, including pulmonary function. The totality of evidence suggests that exclusive EVP use may present lower health risks compared with smoking cigarettes.
| S-EPMC9199942 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Although no tobacco products are safe, tobacco companies in the United States may request regulatory authorization to make certain "modified risk tobacco product" (MRTP) claims in their marketing. However, few qualitative studies have explored consumer perceptions and understanding of comparative risk messages and wordings. We examined consumer perceptions of statements indicating reduced risks and exposure to chemicals from snus and e-cigarettes relative to smoking. We conducted 12 focus groups with adult smokers (ages 21-66) and young adult (YA) non-smokers (ages 18-25) (n = 57) in the USA in 2019. Participants shared reactions to modified risk and exposure messages and message variations. Participants largely understood claims, including language about "switching completely." However, participants expressed desire for more message specificity, evidence, risk reduction reasons, and statistics/quantitative information. Claim believability and acceptance was also limited by existing negative product beliefs and experiences, negative media reports, and skepticism about message source. YAs did not express product interest based on message exposure. Some YAs suggested the included "smoker" language made the messages less interesting/relevant. Given existing proposals for and use of MRTP messages, additional research on their wording, framing, delivery, and effects may help inform regulatory or organizational decisions about such messages, optimize potential benefits, and mitigate unintended consequences.
| S-EPMC7558440 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundWe examined the nicotine metabolite ratio's (NMR) relationship with smoking intensity, nicotine dependence, and a broad array of biomarkers of exposure and biological effect in commercial cigarette smokers.MethodsSecondary analysis was conducted on two cross-sectional samples of adult, daily smokers from Wave 1 (2013-2014) of the Population Assessment of Tobacco Use and Health (PATH) Study and baseline data from a 2014-2017 randomized clinical trial. Data were restricted to participants of non-Hispanic, white race. The lowest quartile of NMR (<0.26) in the nationally representative PATH Study was used to distinguish slow from normal/fast nicotine metabolizers. NMR was modeled continuously in secondary analysis.ResultsCompared with slow metabolizers, normal/fast metabolizers had greater cigarettes per day and higher levels of total nicotine equivalents, tobacco-specific nitrosamines, volatile organic componds, and polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons. A novel finding was higher levels of inflammatory biomarkers among normal/fast metabolizers versus slow metabolizers. With NMR modeled as a continuous measure, the associations between NMR and biomarkers of inflammation were not significant.ConclusionsThe results are suggestive that normal/fast nicotine metabolizers may be at increased risk for tobacco-related disease due to being heavier smokers, having higher exposure to numerous toxicants and carcinogens, and having higher levels of inflammation when compared with slow metabolizers.ImpactThis is the first documentation that NMR is not only associated with smoking exposure but also biomarkers of biological effects that are integral in the development of tobacco-related disease. Results provide support for NMR as a biomarker for understanding a smoker's exposure and potential risk for tobacco-related disease.
| S-EPMC7437528 | biostudies-literature
Project description:The WHO study group on tobacco product regulation (TobReg) advised regulating and lowering toxicant levels in cigarette smoke. Aldehydes are one of the chemical classes on the TobReg smoke toxicants priority list. To provide insight in factors determining aldehyde yields, the levels of 12 aldehydes in mainstream cigarette smoke of 11 Dutch brands were quantified. Variations in smoking behavior and cigarette design affecting human exposure to aldehydes were studied by using four different machine testing protocols. Machine smoking was based on the International Standardization Organization (ISO) and Health Canada Intense (HCI) regime, both with and without taping the filter vents. The 11 cigarette brands differed in (i) design and blend characteristics; (ii) tar, nicotine, and carbon monoxide (TNCO) levels; (iii) popularity; and (iv) manufacturer. Cigarette smoke was trapped on a Cambridge filter pad and carboxen cartridge. After being dissolved in methanol/CS2 and derivatization with DNPH, the aldehyde yields were determined using HPLC-DAD. Using an intense smoking regime (increased puff volume, shorter puff interval) significantly increased aldehyde yields, following the pattern: ISO < ISO-taped < HCI-untaped < HCI. For all of the regimes, acetaldehyde and acrolein yields were strongly correlated ( r = 0.804). The difference in TNCO and aldehyde levels between regular and highly ventilated low-TNCO cigarettes (as measured using ISO) diminished when smoking intensely; this effect is stronger when combined with taping filter vents. The highly ventilated low-TNCO brands showed six times more aldehyde production per mg nicotine for the intense smoking regimes. In conclusion, acetaldehyde and acrolein can be used as representatives for the class of volatile aldehydes for the different brands and smoking regimes. The aldehyde-to-nicotine ratio increased when highly ventilated cigarettes were smoked intensely, similar to real smokers. Thus, a smoker of highly ventilated low-TNCO cigarettes has an increased potential for higher aldehyde exposures compared to a smoker of regular cigarettes.
| S-EPMC6008735 | biostudies-literature
Project description:INTRODUCTION:We evaluated how effective an advertising campaign that was piloted by Cancer Research UK in January/February 2018 was at promoting quit attempts by increasing awareness of the relative harms of e-cigarettes compared with smoking. METHODS:Adults (≥16 years, n = 2217) living in Greater Manchester (campaign region), Yorkshire & Humber and the North East of England (control regions) completed cross-sectional surveys immediately before and after the campaign period. Surveys measured socio-demographics, perceptions and use of e-cigarettes, and motivation and attempts to quit smoking. We tested interactions between time (pre, post) and region (campaign, control). RESULTS:36.7% (95% CI 33.0%-40.6%) of those in the intervention region recognized the campaign. In the general population, interactions were nonsignificant for all outcomes except for perception of e-cigarettes as effective cessation aids, with smaller increases from pre- to post-campaign in the campaign (49.9% to 54.0%) compared with the control region (40.5% to 55.0%; odds ratio [OR] = 0.66, 95% CI .45-0.98). Among smokers, motivation to quit increased in the intervention region (44.0% to 48.0%) but decreased in the control region (40.5% to 21.5%; OR = 2.97, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.25-7.16), with no other significant differences between regions over time. Bayes factors confirmed that nonsignificant results were inconclusive. CONCLUSIONS:Compared with the control region, the campaign was associated with an increase in smokers' motivation to quit but a smaller increase in adults' perception of e-cigarettes as an effective cessation aid. There was insufficient evidence to determine whether the campaign affected other outcomes. IMPLICATIONS:Past extended mass media tobacco control campaigns have been shown to change public attitudes towards smoking, improve motivation to quit smoking, and reduce smoking prevalence. Much less is known about shorter, targeted campaigns. Here we show that using mass media to communicate accurate information about the relative harms of e-cigarettes compared with smoking may be an effective strategy in increasing smokers' motivation to quit. Moreover, even when only run for a month, such campaigns can reach a large proportion of the targeted population. Further research is needed to evaluate effects on quit attempts and success.
| S-EPMC7291809 | biostudies-literature
Project description:E-cigarettes are the most popular tobacco product among youth. Although harm perceptions have been linked to youth e-cigarette use, little research focuses on vulnerable populations, such as Appalachian youth. This study examines associations between e-cigarette harm perceptions and tobacco use among a sample of Appalachian youth. Using data from the 2014-2016 Youth Appalachian Tobacco Study (n=1074), distributions of six e-cigarette harm perceptions by tobacco use (never, ever non-e-cigarette, ever e-cigarette) were examined, and multivariable multinomial logistic regression was used. Nearly one-fourth (23.4%) of the sample were ever e-cigarette users. More e-cigarette users were male (53.4%) and in high school (57.0%). Fewer e-cigarette users strongly agreed that e-cigarettes cause health problems (15.1%), breathing problems (20.3%), and oral health problems (18.7%) and that e-cigarettes are addictive (25.1%), compared to never and non-e-cigarette users. More e-cigarette users strongly agreed (32.3%) that e-cigarettes are healthier alternatives to cigarettes compared to never (24.1%) and non-e-cigarette (25.7%) users. Regression models indicate that e-cigarette users had greater odds of strongly disagreeing with e-cigarettes being harmful or addictive, compared to never users. E-cigarette users had approximately six-fold odds of strongly disagreeing with e-cigarettes causing health problems (OR=6.12; 95% CI: 3.16-11.90) and two times greater odds of disagreeing with e-cigarettes being addictive (OR=2.09; 95% CI: 1.07-4.08) compared to never users. Appalachian youth ever e-cigarette users perceive e-cigarettes as less harmful and less addictive compared to never users. Better informing youth, especially youth tobacco users, of the harms associated with e-cigarettes is vital.
| S-EPMC8411871 | biostudies-literature