Very Low Nicotine Content Cigarettes Research Articles

Cigarette smoking and cognitive task performance: Experimental effects of very-low nicotine-content cigarettes.

Reductions in the nicotine content of cigarettes decrease smoking rate and dependence severity, but effects on cognition are less well established. The potential impacts of very-low nicotine-content (VLNC) cigarettes on cognitive task performance must be evaluated, especially in vulnerable populations. The aim of the present study is to experimentally examine the effects of VLNC cigarettes on cognitive performance. Adults who smoked daily (n = 775) from three vulnerable populations (socioeconomically disadvantaged reproductive-age women, individuals with opioid use disorder, affective disorders) were examined. Participants were randomly assigned to normal nicotine content (NNC; 15.8 mg nicotine/g tobacco) or VLNC (2.4 mg/g or 0.4 mg/g) cigarettes for 12 weeks. Response inhibition (stop-signal task), working memory (n-back task; n of 2-n of 0), and cognitive interference (nicotine Stroop task) were assessed at baseline, 2, 6, and 12 weeks. Results were analyzed using mixed-model repeated-measures analyses of variance. Extended exposure to VLNC cigarettes produced no significant changes in any measure of cognitive performance compared to NNC cigarettes. Over weeks, response times on the n-back task decreased across doses. No significant effects were observed on the stop-signal or nicotine Stroop tasks. All three vulnerable populations performed comparably on all three cognitive tasks. Extended exposure to VLNC cigarettes produced no impairments in cognitive performance on any of the assessed tasks compared to NNC cigarettes. These findings are consistent with the larger literature detailing other consequences following exposure to VLNC cigarettes and are encouraging for the adoption of a nicotine-reduction policy. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2024 APA, all rights reserved).

Tobacco endgame and priority populations: a scoping review

AimTo summarise the research literature on the impacts or perceptions of policies to end tobacco use at a population level (ie, tobacco endgame policies) among people from eight priority population...

Subjective experiences, contexts, and risk perceptions of very low nicotine content cigarettes and electronic cigarettes among people with depression and anxiety disorders who smoke

BackgroundA low-nicotine product standard is currently under consideration by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA). This standard may be more effective if alternative, non-combusted sources of nicotine are concurrently available. This qualitative study explored the lived experiences of people with depression and anxiety disorders who used very low nicotine content (VLNC) cigarettes with or without e-cigarettes during a randomized controlled trial. MethodsWe conducted semi-structured qualitative interviews with participants (n = 20) as they completed a 16-week blinded trial of VLNC cigarettes with or without electronic cigarettes. Interviews explored 1) experiences with these products, 2) social and environmental contexts for use and 3) relative risk perceptions. Interviews were transcribed and analyzed using a hybrid inductive and deductive thematic analysis. ResultsConcurrent access to e-cigarettes helped to ease the transition from usual-brand cigarettes to VLNC cigarettes. Some participants held misperceptions that VLNC cigarettes could reduce cancer risk whereas others did not. Participants expressed skepticism about the safety of e-cigarettes and the authenticity of the VLNC cigarettes. Smoking restrictions influenced e-cigarette use in some instances, but product preference was the overriding factor that influenced use. Participants did not note effects on psychiatric symptoms. ConclusionsShould a nicotine reduction policy be implemented with e-cigarettes concurrently available on the market, tailored messaging for people with anxiety and depression disorders may be necessary to educate people about and the availability of alternative sources of nicotine, such as e-cigarettes, as well as the relative risk of VLNC cigarettes and e-cigarettes.

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

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. 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. 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). 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. 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).

Monoamine oxidase inhibition in cigarette smokers: From preclinical studies to tobacco product regulation.

Monoamine oxidase (MAO) activity is reduced in cigarette smokers and this may promote the reinforcing actions of nicotine, thereby enhancing the addictive properties of cigarettes. At present, it is unclear how cigarette smoking leads to MAO inhibition, but preclinical studies in rodents show that MAO inhibition increases nicotine self-administration, especially at low doses of nicotine. This effect of MAO inhibition develops slowly, likely due to plasticity of brain monoamine systems; studies relying on acute MAO inhibition are unlikely to replicate what happens with smoking. Given that MAO inhibition may reduce the threshold level at which nicotine becomes reinforcing, it is important to consider this in the context of very low nicotine content (VLNC) cigarettes and potential tobacco product regulation. It is also important to consider how this interaction between MAO inhibition and the reinforcing actions of nicotine may be modified in populations that are particularly vulnerable to nicotine dependence. In the context of these issues, we show that the MAO-inhibiting action of cigarette smoke extract (CSE) is similar in VLNC cigarettes and cigarettes with a standard nicotine content. In addition, we present evidence that in a rodent model of schizophrenia the effect of MAO inhibition to enhance nicotine self-administration is absent, and speculate how this may relate to brain serotonin systems. These issues are relevant to the MAO-inhibiting effect of cigarette smoking and its implications to tobacco product regulation.

Smoking abstinence and cessation-related outcomes one month after an immediate versus gradual reduction in nicotine content of cigarettes

The United States Food and Drug Administration has the authority to reduce the nicotine content in cigarettes to minimal or non-addictive levels and could do so immediately or gradually over time. A large clinical trial compared the two approaches. This secondary analysis assesses abstinence and cessation-related outcomes one month after the trial concluded, when participants no longer had access to very low nicotine content (VLNC) research cigarettes. Smokers not interested in quitting (N = 1250) were recruited for the parent trial from 2014 to 2016 across 10 sites throughout the US and randomized to a 20-week study period during which they immediately switched to VLNC cigarettes, gradually transitioned to VLNC cigarettes with five monthly dose reductions, or smoked normal nicotine research cigarettes (control). At the one-month follow-up, both immediate and gradual reduction resulted in greater mean cigarette-free days (4.7 and 4.6 respectively) than the control group (3.2, both p < .05). Immediate reduction resulted in fewer mean cigarettes per day (CPD = 10.3) and lower Fagerström Test for Cigarette Dependence (FTCD = 3.7) than the gradual (CPD = 11.7, p = .001; FTCD = 3.8, p = .039) and control (CPD = 13.5, p < .001; FTCD = 4.0, p < .001) groups. Compared to controls, gradual reduction resulted in reduced CPD (p = .012) but not FTCD (p = .13). Differences in CO-verified 7-day point-prevalence abstinence were not significant. Findings demonstrate that switching to VLNC cigarettes resulted in reduced smoking and nicotine dependence severity that was sustained for at least a month after the VLNC trial period in smokers who were not interested in cessation. The greatest harm reduction endpoints were observed in those who immediately transitioned to VLNC cigarettes.

Reducing Misperceptions About Very Low Nicotine Content Cigarettes: Insights From Adults Who Smoke.

Many 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. Adults 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. Thirty 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. Campaign 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. Adults 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.

Predictors of Adherence Among Vulnerable Populations of Adults Assigned to Smoke Very Low Nicotine Content Cigarettes.

Regulators 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. Data 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. Dependence 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). Factors 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. This 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.

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.

Effects of Very Low Nicotine Content Cigarette use on Cigarette Reinforcement among Smokers with Serious Mental Illness

BackgroundAmong people without psychiatric disorders who smoke, very low nicotine content (VLNC) cigarette use reduces cigarette reinforcement. Whether this is true of people with serious mental illness (SMI) who smoke is unknown. Using a hypothetical purchase task, we compared the effects of 6-week use of VLNC versus normal nicotine content (NNC) cigarettes on study cigarette and usual brand (UB) cigarette reinforcement among people with SMI who smoke. MethodsAfter a baseline period of UB cigarette use, participants with SMI (n = 58) were randomized to use NNC cigarettes (15.8 mg nicotine/g tobacco) or VLNC cigarettes (0.4 mg/g) for 6 weeks. At Week 6, they completed the CPT for both their assigned study cigarette and UB. The groups were compared on demand intensity (number of cigarettes purchased at no cost) and elasticity (rate of decline in demand as price increases) using extra sum-of-squares F-tests. The effects of treatment on demand indices while controlling for covariates were assessed using hierarchical regression. ResultsAt Week 6, intensity of demand for study cigarettes was lower and elasticity was higher for the VLNC group relative to the NNC group (p < 0.0001). Furthermore, intensity of demand for UB cigarettes was lower for participants in the VLNC group relative to participants in the NNC group (p < 0.01). When controlling for baseline cigarettes per day, intensity remained significantly different for study cigarettes and usual brand cigarettes at Week 6. ConclusionA nicotine reduction policy may reduce cigarette reinforcement in this vulnerable population.

Early Changes in Puffing Intensity When Exclusively Using Open-Label Very Low Nicotine Content Cigarettes.

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. 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). 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 &lt; .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. Average puffing intensity per cigarette was elevated with exclusive VLNC cigarette use, but the extent of this effect declined across four days. 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.

Perceptions of Nicotine Reduction Policy in the United States: A Qualitative Study.

Several countries are considering a reduced nicotine policy that would make cigarettes minimally or nonaddictive. This qualitative study documents reactions to the policy that should be addressed by future communication efforts. In 2020, we recruited participants in Atlanta, GA and San Francisco, CA (27 people who exclusively smoke, 25 who dual use cigarettes and e-cigarettes, 32 who formerly smoked, and 31 young adults who do not smoke). We held 16 focus groups: 2 focus groups for each smoking status in each city. Participants viewed messages about very low nicotine content cigarettes (VLNCs) and were asked about their reactions to each message and their overall response to the reduced nicotine policy. While responses to the policy were predominantly positive, focus group discussion also revealed concerns, questions, and misunderstandings (referred to here collectively as "perceptions") that may need to be addressed if a reduced nicotine policy is enacted. Participants expressed perceptions related to the policy intent, including that the FDA has ulterior motives, adoption/ implementation, including that nicotine would have to be replaced with other chemicals if removed or that the policy would be unfeasible to implement, and effectiveness, including concern that VLNCs would still be addictive or the policy would backfire. Addressing perceptions about reduced nicotine policy intent, adoption/implementation, and effectiveness could be key in creating public support and political motivation to move forward with such a policy. Countries contemplating adopting such a policy should consider pairing it with communications that address these perceptions. This study is one of very few to use qualitative methods to explore potentially problematic perceptions about nicotine reduction policy among US adults. Results illuminated new policy-specific concerns, questions, and misunderstandings about the reduced nicotine policy intent, adoption/implementation, and effectiveness. Identifying, studying, and addressing relevant perceptions may play a key role in generating support in countries contemplating such a policy.

Educating the Public on the Health Risks of Very Low Nicotine Content Cigarettes: Results From a US-Based Convenience Sample.

US FDA issued an advance notice of proposed rulemaking to reduce nicotine in cigarettes. To maximize the benefits of this potential standard, very low nicotine content (VLNC) cigarettes must be communicated in a way that does not result in misperceptions. Adults (n = 567 who smoke; n = 610 non-smokers) from an online platform were randomized to a control message previously associated with accurate addictiveness perceptions of VLNC cigarettes but health misperceptions or to one of five messages that also included messaging on nicotine morbidity effects or VLNC cigarettes morbidity or mortality effects. p value <.01 was significant. In participants who smoke, perceived lung cancer risk (responses: 1, very little risk to 10, very high risk) if smoked VLNC cigarettes regularly was higher in conditions that communicated mortality effects of VLNC cigarettes compared to the control (7.12-7.18 vs. 5.97, p values < .01). In non-smokers, perceived lung cancer risk was higher in all five message conditions when compared with the control (7.58-8.22 vs. 6.35, p values < .01). Proportion who responded accurately (ie, False) to the statement Cigarettes with 95% less nicotine are safer than cigarettes with normal nicotine levels was higher in conditions describing VLNC morbidity or mortality effects when compared with the control in both participants who smoke (52.04-67.37% vs. 30.85%, p values < .01) and do not smoke (62.50-72.38% vs. 32.00%, p values < .01). Messaging on mortality effects of VLNC cigarettes (ie, cigarettes with 95% less nicotine are as deadly as current cigarettes) was associated with more accurate perceptions of the health risks of VLNC cigarettes than the control; however, misperceptions remained in one-third of participants. One approach to communicating a VLNC cigarette standard to the public is to include messaging on the mortality effects of VLNC cigarettes. However, further study and possible refinement of this message condition are recommended since approximately one-third of participants exposed to this message still perceived VLNC cigarettes to be safer than normal nicotine content cigarettes.

Predicting Non-Adherence With Very Low Nicotine Content Cigarettes Among Adults With Serious Mental Illness Who Smoke.

Reducing the nicotine content of cigarettes is a promising policy intervention to decrease cigarette dependence among people who smoke. Randomized trials support the potential efficacy of a reduced nicotine product standard for cigarettes. However, interpretation of such trials is challenged by incomplete adherence to the randomized treatment assignment, as some participants may continue to use commercial cigarettes not provided by the trial. The current study examined prevalence and predictors of non-adherence among trial participants with serious mental illness (SMI). Adults with SMI who smoke daily and were not trying to quit (N = 58) were randomized to receive very low nicotine content (VLNC) or normal nicotine content cigarettes over 6 weeks. We investigated predictors of biologically assessed non-adherence in participants assigned to VLNC cigarettes (n = 30). Predictors included subjective responses to VLNC cigarettes, baseline nicotine dependence and dependence motives, and psychiatric symptom severity. We fit a series of linear models regressing non-adherence metrics onto covariates (gender; menthol preference) and focal predictors. Nearly all participants (96%) were estimated to be less than completely adherent to VLNC cigarettes. Lower enjoyment ratings of respiratory tract sensations of VLNC cigarettes predicted a greater degree of non-adherence (b = -.40, SE = .14, 95% CI: -0.71, -0.10). Less positive subjective response to smoking VLNC cigarettes was the only significant predictor of incomplete adherence among individuals with SMI, consistent with prior research in a general population sample. This suggests the potential for shared strategies to help different smoking populations adjust to a reduced nicotine product standard. Results offer preliminary insight into potential barriers to adherence in SMI populations. Adherence might be enhanced by supplementing VLNC cigarettes with alternative sources of non-combusted nicotine, paired with educational campaigns to encourage quitting or switching to less harmful products. Future studies should replicate these analyses in a larger sample of individuals with SMI who smoke.

Both reducing cigarettes per day and transitioning to very low-nicotine-content cigarettes decreases demand for usual-brand cigarettes.

Reducing cigarettes per day (CPD) and transitioning to very low-nicotine-content (VLNC) cigarettes appear to decrease nicotine dependence. Other well-accepted measures of the addictiveness of cigarettes involve behavioral economic simulation models, such as the cigarette purchase task (CPT), which characterizes the reinforcing efficacy of cigarettes. Currently it is unclear whether reducing CPD or reducing nicotine through VLNC cigarettes leads to greater reductions in the reinforcing efficacy of cigarettes. The current paper reports a secondary analysis of a 5-week, 2-arm unblinded randomized trial, in which participants were instructed to gradually reduce to 70%, 35%, 15%, and 3% of baseline nicotine over 4 weeks by either (a) reducing CPD (n = 32) or (b) switching to VLNC cigarettes (n = 36). Participants completed the CPT for their usual-brand cigarettes at baseline and again at a 1-month follow-up. Demand was significantly reduced for participants' usual-brand cigarettes in both the CPD, t(18) = 7.65, p < .0001, and the VLNC groups, t(18) = 7.39, p < .0001, from prereduction procedure to the 1-month follow-up. Maximum consumption at zero price (intensity), and maximum expenditure (Omax), were reduced significantly for both the CPD group, t(16) = 3.23, p = .005; t(16) = 3.71, p = .002, respectively, and the VLNC group, t(22) = 3.62, p = .002; t(22) = 3.14, p = .005, respectively, prereduction procedure to the 1-month follow-up. Thus, despite the different mechanisms by which the value of cigarettes was manipulated, both interventions reduced the reinforcing efficacy of cigarettes. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2021 APA, all rights reserved).

Responses to Gradual and Immediate Reduction of Nicotine in Cigarettes in Young Versus Older Adult Smokers

As the FDA works to determine whether a nicotine reduction policy would benefit public health, one key question is whether to mandate an immediate or gradual reduction in nicotine levels in cigarettes. The aim of this study was to determine whether the effects of gradual versus immediate nicotine reduction on cigarettes per day (CPD), total nicotine equivalents, and subjective responses differed in younger adults versus older adults. Using data from a recent randomized trial conducted in the United States (N = 1250) that switched smokers over a 20-week period to very low nicotine content (VLNC) cigarettes either immediately, gradually (via monthly reductions in nicotine content), or not at all (control condition, normal nicotine content research cigarette), we analyzed the moderating effect of age (age 18-24 or 25+). For both age groups, CPD in the immediate condition was significantly lower relative to gradual condition (estimated mean difference of 6.3 CPD in young adults, 5.2 CPD in older adults; p's < .05). Younger and older adults in the immediate and gradual reduction conditions had lower total nicotine equivalents at Week 20 (all p's < .05) than those in the control condition; age group did not moderate this effect. Positive subjective responses to cigarettes were lower among young adults relative to older adults in the immediate condition. These results indicate that an immediate reduction in nicotine would result in beneficial effects in both young and older adults. Young adults show less positive subjective effects of smoking following switching to VLNC cigarettes relative to older adults. As researchers work to understand how a potential reduced-nicotine product standard for cigarettes may affect public health, one question is whether nicotine should be reduced immediately or gradually. This study demonstrates that both young and older adults who were switched immediately to the lowest content of nicotine smoked fewer CPD and had lower nicotine intake than those in the gradual condition. Furthermore, young adults appear to show lower positive subjective effects following switching to VLNC cigarettes relative to older adults. This is consistent with previous work demonstrating that young people appear to show lower abuse liability for VLNC cigarettes.

“I actually finally feel like the cigarettes aren’t controlling me.” – Interviews with participants smoking very low nicotine content cigarettes during a residential study

BackgroundThe U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is considering a low-nicotine product standard for cigarettes. The purpose of this qualitative study was to explore participants’ experiences after 72 hours of exclusively smoking very low nicotine content (VLNC) cigarettes. MethodsWe conducted a residential study during which participants who smoked cigarettes (N = 16) stayed in a smoking-friendly hotel for 5 days/4 nights. Participants only had access to VLNC cigarettes and were told the cigarettes had 97% less nicotine compared to conventional cigarettes. We conducted individual interviews with participants to assess their initial expectations about VLNC cigarettes, subjective experiences when smoking VLNC cigarettes, opinions regarding a low-nicotine product standard, and predicted use behavior if only VLNC cigarettes were available. Interviews were transcribed verbatim and analyzed using thematic analysis methods. ResultsSeveral participants expected, prior to trying VLNC cigarettes, to compensate for the reduced nicotine levels by smoking more cigarettes but were surprised when they did not increase their smoking. A subset of participants reported experiencing minor withdrawal symptoms, such as irritability and fatigue. Several participants reported feeling less dependent after exclusively smoking VLNC cigarettes. Most participants said they would smoke VLNC cigarettes if they were the only cigarettes available to purchase. Some also said that smoking VLNC cigarettes could help people taper down or quit smoking. ConclusionsHealth communication strategies are needed to inform people who smoke about what to expect from a low-nicotine product standard for cigarettes in order to maximize the public health impact of the policy and increase support.

Switching to Progressively Reduced Nicotine Content Cigarettes in Smokers With Low Socioeconomic Status: A Double-Blind Randomized Clinical Trial.

The Food and Drug Administration issued an advanced notice of proposed rulemaking for setting a product standard for nicotine levels in cigarettes, with an emphasis on minimally or non-addicting very low nicotine content (VLNC). A 33 week, two-arm, double-blind randomized trial conducted in Hershey, Pennsylvania, USA and Washington, DC, USA included adult daily cigarette smokers (≥5 cigarettes per day) with less than a college degree, and who had no plans to quit within the next six months. Participants were randomized to either reduced nicotine content (RNC) study cigarettes tapered every three weeks to a final VLNC (0.2 mg/cigarette) for six weeks or to usual nicotine content (UNC) study cigarettes (11.6 mg/cigarette). Outcomes included acceptability of study cigarettes measured by attrition (primary outcome), compliance, reduction in cigarette dependence and tobacco biomarkers, and post-intervention cessation. The RNC (n = 122) versus UNC (n = 123) group had higher attrition (adjusted Hazard Ratio 3.4; 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.99 to 5.81). At the end of the intervention, cotinine levels were 50% lower in the RNC group (mean group difference -137 ng/mL; 95% CI -172, -102). The RNC group smoked fewer CPD (-4.1; 95% CI -6.44, -1.75) and had lower carbon monoxide levels (-4.0 ppm; 95% CI -7.7, -0.4). Forty seven percent (29/62) of the RNC group were biochemically-confirmed compliant with smoking VLNC cigarettes (mean cotinine = 8.9 ng/ml). At three month follow-up, only compliant VLNC smokers quit with an assisted quit attempt (N = 6/22, 27%). This study supports a VLNC standard in cigarettes. Differential dropout and noncompliance indicate some smokers had difficulty transitioning to cigarettes with reduced nicotine. These smokers will benefit from supplemental nicotine in medicinal or noncombustible tobacco products if a nicotine reduction standard is established. Other smokers successfully transitioned to very low nicotine content cigarettes exclusively and substantially reduced their exposure to nicotine.

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

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. 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. 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. 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. 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.

Changes in Cigarette Consumption With Reduced Nicotine Content Cigarettes Among Smokers With Psychiatric Conditions or Socioeconomic Disadvantage

This study is part of a programmatic effort evaluating the effects of reducing nicotine content of cigarettes to minimally addictive levels. To examine whether very low-nicotine-content (VLNC) cigarettes decrease smoking rates and dependence severity among smokers with psychiatric disorders or socioeconomic disadvantage. These 3 randomized clinical trials were performed at the University of Vermont, Brown University, and Johns Hopkins University between October 2016 and September 2019. Participants received 12 weeks of exposure to study cigarettes with nicotine content ranging from levels representative of commercial cigarettes (15.8 mg nicotine/g tobacco) to less than a hypothesized addiction threshold (2.4 mg/g and 0.4 mg/g). Daily smokers from 3 at-risk populations participated: individuals with affective disorders, exemplifying smokers with mental illness; individuals with opioid use disorder, exemplifying smokers with substance use disorders; and women with high school educations or less, exemplifying smokers with socioeconomic disadvantage. Data were analyzed from September 2019 to July 2020. Random assignment to 1 of 3 study cigarettes provided weekly at no cost for 12 weeks. The primary outcome was between-group differences in mean total cigarettes smoked daily (CPD) during week 12; secondary outcomes included CPD for study and nonstudy cigarettes and dependence severity across weeks analyzed using analysis of covariance, random coefficients growth modeling, or repeated measures analysis of variance. A total of 775 participants were included (mean [SD] age, 35.59 [11.05] years; 551 [71.10%] women [owing to 1 population being exclusively women]); participants smoked a mean (SD) of 17.79 (9.18) CPD at study intake. A total of 286 participants were randomized to 0.4 mg/g, 235 participants were randomized to 2.4 mg/g, and 254 participants were randomized to 15.8 mg/g. Participants randomized to VLNC cigarettes had decreased mean [SEM] total CPD during week 12 across populations (Cohen d = 0.61; P < .001). At week 12, mean (SEM) CPD decreased to 17.96 (0.98) CPD in the 0.4 mg/g group and to 19.53 (1.07) CPD in the 2.4 mg/g group, both of which were significantly different from the 15.8 mg/g group (25.08 [1.08] CPD at week 12) but not each other (0.4 mg/g adjusted mean difference: -7.54 [95%CI, -9.51 to -5.57]; 2.4 mg/g adjusted mean difference: -5.34 [95% CI, 7.41 to -3.26]). Several secondary outcomes differed across populations randomized to VLNCs, including mean total CPD across weeks, with linear trends lower in participants receiving 0.4 mg/g (-0.28 [95%CI, -0.39 to -0.18]; P < .001) and 2.4 mg/g (-0.13 [95%CI, -0.25 to -0.01]; P < .001) doses compared with those receiving the 15.8 mg/g dose (0.30 [95% CI, 0.19 to 0.41]). Fagerström Test of Nicotine Dependence mean total scores were significantly lower in participants who received VLNCs (Cohen d = 0.12; P < .001), with those who received the 0.4 mg/g dose (mean [SD] score, 3.99 [0.06]; P < .001 vs 15.8 mg/g) or 2.4 mg/g dose (mean [SD] score, 4.07 [0.06]; P = .01 vs 15.8 mg/g) differing from those who received the 15.8 mg/g dose (mean [SD] score, 4.31 [0.06]) but not from each other. These findings demonstrate that decreasing the nicotine content of cigarettes to very low levels reduced smoking rate and nicotine-dependence severity in these high-risk populations, effects that may facilitate successful cessation. ClinicalTrials.gov Identifiers: NCT02232737, NCT02250664, NCT02250534.