The available research on switching from normal nicotine to very low nicotine content cigarettes shows minimal evidence of compensatory smoking. Mathematical estimations suggest that substantial compensation after switching to very low nicotine cigarettes would be impossible. It is likely that smokers who are unable to tolerate the extent of proposed nicotine reduction would switch to other sources of nicotine, rather than try to compensate by smoking more very low nicotine content cigarettes more intensely.

Background

The 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.

Methods

We 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.

Results

Several 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.

Conclusions

Health 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.

In the United States, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has initiated a public dialogue about reducing the nicotine content of cigarettes. A reduced-nicotine standard could increase withdrawal symptoms among current smokers. We examined the impact of switching smokers to cigarettes that varied in nicotine content on withdrawal symptoms over 6 weeks. A secondary analysis (N = 839) of a 10-site, double-blind clinical trial of nontreatment-seeking smokers was completed. Participants were instructed to smoke study cigarettes, containing 0.4 to 15.8 mg of nicotine/g of tobacco, for 6 weeks and were then abstinent overnight. Using latent growth curves, trajectories of individual withdrawal symptoms were compared between the reduced nicotine content (RNC) conditions and a normal nicotine content (NNC) condition. Path analyses compared symptoms after overnight abstinence. Relative to NNC cigarettes, participants smoking RNC cigarettes had increased anger/irritability/frustration and increased appetite/weight gain during the initial weeks, but the symptoms resolved by Week 6. Individuals who were biochemically verified as adherent with using only the 0.4 mg/g cigarettes had higher sadness levels (Cohen's d = .40) at Week 6 compared with the NNC condition, although symptoms were mild. After a post-Week 6 overnight abstinence challenge, some RNC conditions relative to NNC condition exhibited reduced withdrawal. Individuals who were biochemically confirmed as adherent to the lowest nicotine condition experienced only mild and transient symptom elevations. Thus, a reduced-nicotine standard for cigarettes produced a relatively mild and temporary increase in withdrawal among nontreatment-seeking smokers (ClinicalTrials.gov No. NCT01681875). (PsycINFO Database Record

Combustible cigarettes remain the most harmful and addictive tobacco product, and reducing the prevalence of smoking continues to be a critical public health goal. While nicotine is the constituent primarily responsible for addiction to cigarettes, most of the harm associated with smoking comes from byproducts of tobacco combustion. Recently, two different approaches for reducing the harms of smoking have emerged, both of which focus on breaking the link between the addiction to nicotine and the harms caused by smoking. First, the addictive potential of cigarettes could be minimized by requiring a large reduction in the nicotine content of cigarettes. Evidence for a nicotine reduction policy thus far shows that the use of very low nicotine content cigarettes results in a reduction in the number of cigarettes people smoke per day and a reduction in cigarette dependence. Second, emerging alternative nicotine delivery systems (ANDS) like electronic cigarettes may provide sufficient nicotine to act as substitutes for cigarettes while delivering much lower levels of toxicants. Evidence suggests that the emergence of ANDS has increased the percentage of smokers who are able to quit. The present paper will briefly review the evidence for each of these approaches, and consider what contemporary reinforcement and addiction theories can tell us about their likely success. We argue that the most effective endgame approach is one that pursues both nicotine reduction and alternative nicotine delivery systems as complementary.

Background

The FDA is considering a mandated reduction in the nicotine content of cigarettes. Clinical trials have been limited by non-study cigarette use (noncompliance), which could mask compensation. The goal of this study was to assess whether compensation occurs when smokers provided with very low nicotine cigarettes cannot access normal nicotine cigarettes.

Methods

In a within-subjects, crossover design, current smokers (n = 16) were confined to a hotel for two 4-night hotel stays during which they were only able to access the research cigarettes provided. The hotel stays offered normal nicotine cigarettes or very low nicotine content (VLNC) cigarettes, in an unblinded design, available for "purchase" via a study bank.

Results

In the context of complete compliance with the study cigarettes (n = 16), there was not a significant increase during the VLNC condition for cigarettes smoked per day, expired carbon monoxide, or N-acetyl-S-(cyanoethyl)-l-cysteine (cyanoethyl-MA, metabolite of acrylonitrile). There was a significant nicotine × time interaction on urine N-acetyl-S-(3-hydroxypropyl)-l-cysteine (hydroxypropyl-MA, metabolite of acrolein), driven by an increase in the VLNC condition during the first 24 hours. By the end of the VLNC condition, there was no evidence of compensation across any measure of smoking or smoke exposure.

Conclusions

Among current smokers who exclusively used VLNC cigarettes for 4 days, there was no significant compensatory smoking behavior.

Impact

These data, combined with the larger body of work, suggest that a mandated reduction in nicotine content is unlikely to result in an increase in smoking behavior to obtain more nicotine.

Introduction

Because 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.

Methods

In 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.

Results

At 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.

Conclusions

Although 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.

Implications

Results 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.

The introduction of alternative nicotine and tobacco products (such as e-cigarettes, heat-not-burn devices, nicotine pouches) warrants an updated framework from which to conceptualize tobacco use disorder (TUD). The following review provides considerations for TUD within the context of novel products. Historically, the tobacco industry falsely claimed that cigarettes were not addictive or harmful and that those who smoked simply chose to do so. This generated an inaccurate lay perception that smoking is a free or informed choice. Research on nicotine pharmacology demonstrates the powerful addictive potential of nicotine, which is shaped by dose, speed of delivery, and other constituents generated. In addition, non-pharmacologic reinforcers motivate and maintain tobacco use behaviors for both traditional cigarettes and novel products. The negative consequences of combustible tobacco use are well known; however, these outcomes may differ for alternative products. Strategies used for combustible product cessation may be adapted for novel products, and treatment recommendations for TUD should be made within the context of a harm reduction framework wherein alternative product use may be the desired outcome. Providers must therefore be willing to modify their perceptions of products and treatment recommendations accordingly. Better public health outcomes are accomplished through promotion of abstinence from combustible smoking. For those who cannot wean from nicotine entirely, switching to less risky modes of delivery might be a secondary goal, with an eventual aim of stopping use of the alternative product. Implications: Given the advent of novel, alternative tobacco products, tobacco use disorder (TUD) must be conceptualized within a contemporary framework that includes harm reduction and alternative outcomes. The unique contributions of nicotine pharmacology, non-pharmacologic reinforcers, and consequences of use can be used to inform treatments for TUD with the ultimate goal of improving the health of individuals who use tobacco.

Objectives

Research using very low nicotine content (VLNC) cigarettes has shown that participants underreport use of non-study cigarettes. Biomarkers of nicotine exposure could be used to verify compliance with VLNC cigarettes. This study aimed to characterize biomarkers of exposure when participants exclusively use VLNC cigarettes.

Methods

23 participants stayed in a hotel that permitted smoking for 5 days and 4 nights. They were provided 2 packs of VLNC cigarettes each day (0.4 mg of nicotine/g of tobacco; Spectrum cigarettes) and did not have access to other tobacco products. 24-hour urine samples were collected to assess exposure to nicotine and anatabine.

Results

After 4 days of exclusive use, the geometric means for urinary total cotinine, total nicotine equivalents (TNE), and anatabine were 1.13 nmol/ml (92% reduction), 3.17 nmol/ml (94% reduction) and 0.0031 nmol/ml (93% reduction). The population estimates of the 95^th percentile of cotinine, TNE, and anatabine levels were 2.69, 6.41, and 0.0099 nmol/ml, respectively.

Conclusions

Study participants exclusively smoking 0.4 mg/g Spectrum cigarettes are unlikely to have biomarker values above these levels. The data presented here will be valuable to researchers conducting research on use of VLNC cigarettes.

Background

A mandated reduction in the nicotine content of cigarettes could reduce smoking rate and prevalence. However, one concern is that smokers may compensate by increasing the intensity with which they smoke each cigarette to obtain more nicotine. This study assessed whether smokers engage in compensatory smoking by estimating the mouth-level nicotine intake of low nicotine cigarettes smoked during a clinical trial.

Methods

Smokers were randomly assigned to receive cigarettes with one of five nicotine contents for 6 weeks. An additional group received a cigarette with the lowest nicotine content, but an increased tar yield. The obtained mouth-level nicotine intake from discarded cigarette butts for a subset of participants (51-70/group) was estimated using solanesol as described previously. A compensation index was calculated for each group to estimate the proportion of nicotine per cigarette recovered through changes in smoking intensity.

Results

There was no significant increase in smoking intensity for any of the reduced nicotine cigarettes as measured by the compensation index (an estimated 0.4% of the nicotine lost was recovered in the lowest nicotine group; 95% confidence interval, -0.1 to 1.2). There was a significant decrease in smoking intensity for very low nicotine content cigarettes with increased tar yield.

Conclusions

Reductions in nicotine content did not result in compensatory changes in how intensively participants smoked research cigarettes.

Impact

Combined with data from clinical trials showing a reduction in cigarettes smoked per day, these data suggest that a reduction in nicotine content is unlikely to result in increased smoke exposure.

Background

The Food and Drug Administration can reduce the nicotine content in cigarettes to very low levels. This potential regulatory action is hypothesised to improve public health by reducing smoking, but may have unintended consequences related to weight gain.

Methods

Weight gain was evaluated from a double-blind, parallel, randomised clinical trial of 839 participants assigned to smoke 1 of 6 investigational cigarettes with nicotine content ranging from 0.4 to 15.8 mg/g or their own usual brand for 6 weeks. Additional analyses evaluated weight gain in the lowest nicotine content cigarette groups (0.4 and 0.4 mg/g, high tar) to examine the effect of study product in compliant participants as assessed by urinary biomarkers. Differences in outcomes due to gender were also explored.

Findings

There were no significant differences in weight gain when comparing the reduced nicotine conditions with the 15.8 mg/g control group across all treatment groups and weeks. However, weight gain at week 6 was negatively correlated with nicotine exposure in the 2 lowest nicotine content cigarette conditions. Within the 2 lowest nicotine content cigarette conditions, male and female smokers biochemically verified to be compliant on study product gained significantly more weight than non-compliant smokers and control groups.

Conclusions

The effect of random assignment to investigational cigarettes with reduced nicotine on weight gain was likely obscured by non-compliance with study product. Men and women who were compliant in the lowest nicotine content cigarette conditions gained 1.2 kg over 6 weeks, indicating weight gain is a likely consequence of reduced exposure to nicotine.

Trial registration number

NCT01681875, Post-results.