Ryan Redner1, Thomas J White2, Janice Y Bunn3, Stephen T Higgins4. 1. Vermont Center on Behavior and Health, University of Vermont, Burlington, VT; Behavior Analysis and Therapy Program, Rehabilitation Institute, Southern Illinois University, Carbondale, Carbondale, IL; 2. Vermont Center on Behavior and Health, University of Vermont, Burlington, VT; Department of Psychiatry, University of Vermont, Burlington, VT; 3. Department of Medical Biostatistics, University of Vermont, Burlington, VT; 4. Vermont Center on Behavior and Health, University of Vermont, Burlington, VT; Department of Psychiatry, University of Vermont, Burlington, VT; Department of Psychology, University of Vermont, Burlington, VT stephen.higgins@uvm.edu.
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: The present study examines whether use of machine-estimated high-nicotine/tar-yield (full-flavor) cigarettes predicts greater risk of nicotine dependence after controlling for the influence of potential confounding factors in US nationally representative samples. METHODS: Data were obtained from multiple years of the National Survey on Drug Use and Health (NSDUH). Nicotine dependence was measured by (1) the Nicotine Dependence Syndrome Scale and (2) latency to first cigarette after waking. Associations between use of high-nicotine/tar-yield cigarettes and risk for nicotine dependence were examined using multiple logistic regression. RESULTS: The odds of nicotine dependence were reliably greater among users of high- compared to lower-nicotine/tar-yield cigarettes even after adjusting for sociodemographic and other smoking characteristics (Ps < .0001). This relationship was (1) generally graded across differing nicotine/tar-yield cigarettes, (2) discernible across two definitions of nicotine dependence and multiple NSDUH survey years, and (3) observed among adult and adolescent smokers. CONCLUSION: Use of high-nicotine/tar-yield cigarettes is associated with increased odds of nicotine dependence, a relationship that has important tobacco regulatory implications. Whether the widespread marketing and availability of high-nicotine/tar-yield cigarettes is increasing risk of nicotine dependence among US smokers warrants further research. IMPLICATIONS: This study adds additional empirical evidence to the relation of machine measured high-yield cigarettes and likelihood of nicotine dependence, and draws some implications in regards to regulation.
INTRODUCTION: The present study examines whether use of machine-estimated high-nicotine/tar-yield (full-flavor) cigarettes predicts greater risk of nicotine dependence after controlling for the influence of potential confounding factors in US nationally representative samples. METHODS: Data were obtained from multiple years of the National Survey on Drug Use and Health (NSDUH). Nicotine dependence was measured by (1) the Nicotine Dependence Syndrome Scale and (2) latency to first cigarette after waking. Associations between use of high-nicotine/tar-yield cigarettes and risk for nicotine dependence were examined using multiple logistic regression. RESULTS: The odds of nicotine dependence were reliably greater among users of high- compared to lower-nicotine/tar-yield cigarettes even after adjusting for sociodemographic and other smoking characteristics (Ps < .0001). This relationship was (1) generally graded across differing nicotine/tar-yield cigarettes, (2) discernible across two definitions of nicotine dependence and multiple NSDUH survey years, and (3) observed among adult and adolescent smokers. CONCLUSION: Use of high-nicotine/tar-yield cigarettes is associated with increased odds of nicotine dependence, a relationship that has important tobacco regulatory implications. Whether the widespread marketing and availability of high-nicotine/tar-yield cigarettes is increasing risk of nicotine dependence among US smokers warrants further research. IMPLICATIONS: This study adds additional empirical evidence to the relation of machine measured high-yield cigarettes and likelihood of nicotine dependence, and draws some implications in regards to regulation.
Authors: Assieh A Melikian; Mirjana V Djordjevic; Shuquan Chen; John Richie; Steven D Stellman Journal: Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev Date: 2007-07 Impact factor: 4.254
Authors: Neal L Benowitz; Katherine M Dains; Sharon M Hall; Susan Stewart; Margaret Wilson; Delia Dempsey; Peyton Jacob Journal: Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev Date: 2012-02-21 Impact factor: 4.254
Authors: Timothy B Baker; Megan E Piper; Danielle E McCarthy; Daniel M Bolt; Stevens S Smith; Su-Young Kim; Suzanne Colby; David Conti; Gary A Giovino; Dorothy Hatsukami; Andrew Hyland; Suchitra Krishnan-Sarin; Raymond Niaura; Kenneth A Perkins; Benjamin A Toll Journal: Nicotine Tob Res Date: 2007-11 Impact factor: 4.244
Authors: Cheryl L Perry; MeLisa R Creamer; Benjamin W Chaffee; Jennifer B Unger; Erin L Sutfin; Grace Kong; Ce Shang; Stephanie L Clendennen; Suchitra Krishnan-Sarin; Mary Ann Pentz Journal: Nicotine Tob Res Date: 2020-06-12 Impact factor: 4.244
Authors: Stephen T Higgins; Ryan Redner; Christopher A Arger; Allison N Kurti; Jeff S Priest; Janice Y Bunn Journal: Prev Med Date: 2017-08-05 Impact factor: 4.018
Authors: Min-Ae Song; Neal L Benowitz; Micah Berman; Theodore M Brasky; K Michael Cummings; Dorothy K Hatsukami; Catalin Marian; Richard O'Connor; Vaughan W Rees; Casper Woroszylo; Peter G Shields Journal: J Natl Cancer Inst Date: 2017-12-01 Impact factor: 13.506