Dataset Information

The Public Health Gains Had Cigarette Companies Chosen to Sell Very Low Nicotine Cigarettes.

ABSTRACT:

Introduction

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has proposed lowering the nicotine content of cigarettes to a minimally addictive level to increase smoking cessation and reduce initiation. This study has two aims: (1) to determine when cigarette manufacturers had the technical capability to reduce cigarette nicotine content and (2) to estimate the lost public health benefits of implementing a standard in 1965, 1975, or 1985.

Methods

To determine the technical capability of cigarette companies, we reviewed public patents and internal cigarette company business records using the Truth Tobacco Industry Documents. To evaluate the impact of a very low nicotine content cigarette (VLNC) standard on smoking attributable deaths (SADs) and life-years lost (LYLs), we applied a validated (CISNET) model that uses past smoking data, along with estimates of the potential impact of VLNCs derived from expert elicitation.

Results

Cigarette manufacturers recognized that cigarettes were deadly and addictive before 1964. Manufacturers have had the technical capability to lower cigarette nicotine content for decades. Our model projected that a standard implemented in 1965 could have averted 21 million SADs (54% reduction) and 272 million LYLs (64% reduction) from 1965 to 2064, a standard implemented in 1975 could have averted 18.9 million SADs and 245.4 million LYLs from 1975 to 2074, and a standard implemented in 1985 could have averted 16.3 million SADs and 211.5 million LYLs from 1985 to 2084.

Conclusions

Millions of premature deaths could have been averted if companies had only sold VLNCs decades ago. FDA should act immediately to implement a VLNC standard.

Implications

Prior research has shown that a mandated reduction in the nicotine content of cigarettes could reduce the prevalence of smoking and improve public health. Here we report that cigarette manufacturers have had the ability to voluntarily implement such a standard for decades. We use a well-validated model to demonstrate that millions of smoking attributable deaths and life-years lost would have been averted if the industry had implemented such a standard.

SUBMITTER: Levy DT

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7885770 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:ImportanceThe US Food and Drug Administration is considering limiting cigarettes to very low nicotine levels. Cigarette consumption of nondaily intermittent smokers (ITS), who compose one-third of US adult smokers, could feasibly increase or could be unaffected if their smoking is not motivated by nicotine seeking.ObjectiveTo compare cigarette consumption in ITS receiving very low-nicotine-content cigarettes (VLNCCs) or identical normal-nicotine-content cigarettes (NNCCs).Design, setting, and participantsThis randomized double-blind clinical trial was conducted from June 2015 to July 2017 at a single US site. Volunteer ITS not planning to quit were recruited via media. Overall, 297 individuals enrolled, and 238 were randomized. Analyses were intent-to-treat.InterventionsAfter a 2-week baseline of smoking their own brand of cigarettes provided gratis, ITS were randomized to VLNCCs or NNCCs for 10 weeks.Main outcomes and measuresThe number of cigarettes per day (CPD) was assessed by real-time reporting, timeline follow-back reports, and cigarette butt counts. The primary outcome was change in CPD from baseline to weeks 9 to 10 of intervention, adjusting for baseline CPD.ResultsThe mean (SD) age of the 238 randomized participants was 37.9 (13.8) years. Of 238 participants, 108 (45%) were men. At baseline, the mean (SD) CPD was 3.1 (2.9). In intent-to-treat analyses using multiple imputation to address missing data, the VLNCC group had a mean decrease of 1.6 CPD (95% CI, 1.1-2.0; 51% of baseline) vs 0.05 decrease with NNCCs (95% CI, -0.5 to 0.4; 2% of baseline). Treatment group differences were not materially moderated by sex, race/ethnicity, or history of daily smoking. Cheating with conventional cigarettes, inferred from cotinine assays, was more common in the VLNCC group (OR, 2.95; 95% CI, 1.54-5.66), but sensitivity analyses showed significant VLNCC effects among the compliant participants as well. In longitudinal analysis of CPD over time with random intercept and slope, the VLNCC and NNCC groups differed significantly in both linear (-0.15; 95% CI, -0.22 to -0.08; P < .001) and quadratic (0.0026; 95% CI, 0.0010-0.0042; P = .002) trends: CPD dropped by 43.8% in the VLNCC group over 4 weeks, then leveled off thereafter. Abstinence (intent-to-treat, biochemically verified) in weeks 9 to 10 postrandomization did not differ significantly by treatment group (VLNCC, 10.2% vs NNNC, 5.0%; P = .28).Conclusions and relevanceSwitching to VLNCCs caused substantial smoking reduction among ITS but did not significantly increase abstinence. Response to a VLNCC intervention suggests that nicotine-seeking motivates ITS' smoking.Trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02228824.

Project description:IntroductionGiven the lack of regulation on marketing of electronic cigarettes (e-cigarettes) in the United States and the increasing exchange of e-cigarette-related information online, it is critical to understand how e-cigarette companies market e-cigarettes and how the public engages with e-cigarette information.MethodsResults are from a systematic review of peer-reviewed literature on e-cigarettes via a PubMed search through June 1, 2017. Search terms included: "e-cigarette*" or "electronic cigarette" or "electronic cigarettes" or "electronic nicotine delivery" or "vape" or "vaping." Experimental studies, quasi-experimental studies, observational studies, qualitative studies, and mixed methods studies providing empirical findings on e-cigarette marketing and communication (ie, nonmarketing communication in the public) were included.ResultsOne hundred twenty-four publications on e-cigarette marketing and communication were identified. They covered topics including e-cigarette advertisement claims/promotions and exposure/receptivity, the effect of e-cigarette advertisements on e-cigarette and cigarette use, public engagement with e-cigarette information, and the public's portrayal of e-cigarettes. Studies show increases in e-cigarette marketing expenditures and online engagement through social media over time, that e-cigarettes are often framed as an alternative to combustible cigarettes, and that e-cigarette advertisement exposure may be associated with e-cigarette trial in adolescents and young adults.DiscussionFew studies examine the effects of e-cigarette marketing on perceptions and e-cigarette and cigarette use. Evidence suggests that exposure to e-cigarette advertisements affects perceptions and trial of e-cigarettes, but there is no evidence that exposure affects cigarette use. No studies examined how exposure to e-cigarette communication, particularly misleading or inaccurate information, impacts e-cigarette, and tobacco use behaviors.ImplicationsThe present article provides a comprehensive review of e-cigarette marketing and how the public engages with e-cigarette information. Studies suggest an association between exposure to e-cigarette marketing and lower harm perceptions of e-cigarettes, intention to use e-cigarettes, and e-cigarette trial, highlighting the need to for advertising regulations that support public health goals. Findings from this review also present the methodological limitations of the existing research (primarily due to cross-sectional and correlational analyses) and underscore the need for timely, rigorous research to provide an accurate understanding of e-cigarette marketing and communication and its impact on e-cigarette and tobacco product use.

Project description:BackgroundReducing the nicotine content in cigarettes could improve public health by reducing smoking and toxicant exposure, but may also have unintended consequences on alcohol use. The primary objective of this study was to examine the effect of reducing the nicotine content in cigarettes on alcohol outcomes. The secondary aim was to examine whether the effects of these cigarettes on alcohol outcomes were mediated by changes in nicotine exposure, smoking behavior, or withdrawal.MethodsBetween June 2013 and July 2014, we conducted a 7-arm, double-blind, randomized clinical trial at 10 U.S.-based sites. Daily smokers not currently interested in quitting (n = 839) were assigned to equally sized groups to smoke for 6 weeks cigarettes containing either normal nicotine content (NNC; 15.8 mg/g, 9 mg tar), moderate nicotine content (5.2 mg/g nicotine, 9 mg tar), or very low nicotine content (VLNC; 0.4 to 2.4 mg/g, 9 to 13 mg tar). This investigation focused on a subsample of current drinkers (n = 403). Each reduced nicotine content cigarette condition was compared to the NNC control condition with respect to trajectories over the 6-week period of average daily alcohol use and occurrence of binge drinking. Moderating variables were considered. Mediation analyses tested potential explanatory processes including changes in nicotine exposure, cigarettes per day, and withdrawal.ResultsOver time, reduced nicotine exposure and smoking rate mediated effects of VLNC cigarette use on reduced alcohol use. There was no evidence of compensatory drinking in response to nicotine reduction or nicotine withdrawal, even among subgroups expected to be at greater risk (e.g., relatively heavier drinkers, highly nicotine-dependent individuals).ConclusionsThe findings suggest that compensatory drinking is unlikely to occur in response to switching to VLNC cigarettes. In contrast, reducing the nicotine content of cigarettes may reduce alcohol use (clinicalTrials.gov number, NCT01681875).

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:SignificanceThe US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is considering a very low nicotine content (VLNC) product standard to substantially reduce nicotine in cigarettes. We examined whether learning about a potential VLNC standard increased smokers' interest in illicit purchases of cigarettes with regular nicotine content if such a standard were adopted.MethodsParticipants were a national convenience sample of 1712 US adult smokers. In an online experiment, we randomly assigned smokers to view information about a new VLNC standard (experimental condition) or no information (control condition). The experimental condition explained that a VLNC standard would remove 95% of the nicotine in cigarettes and would require stores to only sell VLNC cigarettes. Then, the survey assessed smokers' interest in purchasing regular cigarettes from three illicit sources.ResultsSmokers who learned about the VLNC standard were more likely to be very or extremely interested in purchasing regular cigarettes illicitly from a Web site compared to smokers in the control group (24% vs. 16%, p < .001). They were also more interested in illicitly buying cigarettes from a street vendor (19% vs. 13%, p < .001) and a store on an Indian reservation (28% vs. 22%, p < .05), compared to the control. The impact of learning about the VLNC standard on interest in illicit purchases did not differ by smoking frequency or current e-cigarette use.ConclusionsA VLNC standard could increase smokers' interest in illicit purchases of regular nicotine cigarettes. To prevent VLNC-induced illicit trade from undermining public health, FDA should consider proven measures such as track and trace for these products.ImplicationsLittle is known about how a VLNC cigarette standard would affect consumer interest in regular content cigarettes purchased from illicit sources (eg, the Internet). We found that smokers informed about a potential VLNC product standard had greater interest in illicit cigarette purchases, compared to controls. This suggests the importance of proactive measures accompanying a VLNC standard, such as track-and-trace cigarette packaging regulations and communication campaigns, in order to maximize the standard's public health impact.

Project description:IntroductionSmoking 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 methodsParticipants (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.ResultsWe 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.ConclusionsOur 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.ImplicationsThese 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.