Dorothy K Hatsukami1,2, Xianghua Luo1,3, Laura Dick1, Margarita Kangkum1, Sharon S Allen4, Sharon E Murphy1, Stephen S Hecht1, Peter G Shields5, Mustafa al'Absi6. 1. Masonic Cancer Center, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, MN, USA. 2. Department of Psychiatry, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, MN, USA. 3. Division of Biostatistics, School of Public Health, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, MN, USA. 4. Family Medicine and Community Health, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, MN, USA. 5. James Cancer Center, Ohio State University, Columbus, OH, USA. 6. Duluth Medical Research Institute, University of Minnesota Medical School, Duluth, MN, USA.
Abstract
AIMS: To compare the use of alternative nicotine products, smoking behavior and tobacco biomarker exposure in smokers unwilling to quit who were assigned randomly tonormal nicotine content (NNC) cigarettes or very low nicotine content (VLNC) cigarettes. DESIGN: Randomized, parallel-arm 8-week study with assignment to VLNC (VLNC 1, n = 53) or NNC (NNC, n = 27) with access to non-cigarette combusted and non-combusted tobacco/nicotine products or to VLNC with access to only non-combusted products (VLNC2, n = 56). SETTING: Clinics in Minnesota, USA. PARTICIPANTS: Smokers uninterested in quitting smoking with a mean [± standard deviation (SD)] age of 44 (± 14) years and smoking 16 (± seven) cigarettes/day; 51% female, 72% white. MEASUREMENTS: During the experimental period, the measures taken included: rate of alternative products used, amount of and abstinence from combusted tobacco used and tobacco exposure biomarkers. FINDINGS: There were higher rates of non-combusted alternative tobacco/nicotine product use in both VLNC conditions versus the NNC condition [rate ratio (RR) = 2.18, 95% confidence interval (CI) = 1.94, 2.46 and RR = 1.64, 95% CI = 1.46, 1.85, respectively] and in VLNC1 versus VLNC2 condition (RR = 1.33, 95% CI = 1.23, 1.44), accompanied by reduced biomarkers of exposure primarily in VLNC2 condition compared to NNC condition (Ps < 0.05). Fewer combusted products were smoked at almost all visits (Ps ≤ 0.02) and there were higher rates of abstinence for both VLNC conditions compared with the NNC condition (VLNC1 versus NNC: RR = 9.96, 95% CI = 5.01, 19.81; VLNC2 versus NNC: RR = 11.23, 95% CI = 5.74, 21.97). CONCLUSION: The offer of, and instructions to use, reduced nicotine content cigarettes during an 8-week period led to greater use of alternative tobacco/nicotine products compared with continued use of normal nicotine cigarettes and also reductions in smoking rates.
RCT Entities:
AIMS: To compare the use of alternative nicotine products, smoking behavior and tobacco biomarker exposure in smokers unwilling to quit who were assigned randomly to normal nicotine content (NNC) cigarettes or very low nicotine content (VLNC) cigarettes. DESIGN: Randomized, parallel-arm 8-week study with assignment to VLNC (VLNC 1, n = 53) or NNC (NNC, n = 27) with access to non-cigarette combusted and non-combusted tobacco/nicotine products or to VLNC with access to only non-combusted products (VLNC2, n = 56). SETTING: Clinics in Minnesota, USA. PARTICIPANTS: Smokers uninterested in quitting smoking with a mean [± standard deviation (SD)] age of 44 (± 14) years and smoking 16 (± seven) cigarettes/day; 51% female, 72% white. MEASUREMENTS: During the experimental period, the measures taken included: rate of alternative products used, amount of and abstinence from combusted tobacco used and tobacco exposure biomarkers. FINDINGS: There were higher rates of non-combusted alternative tobacco/nicotine product use in both VLNC conditions versus the NNC condition [rate ratio (RR) = 2.18, 95% confidence interval (CI) = 1.94, 2.46 and RR = 1.64, 95% CI = 1.46, 1.85, respectively] and in VLNC1 versus VLNC2 condition (RR = 1.33, 95% CI = 1.23, 1.44), accompanied by reduced biomarkers of exposure primarily in VLNC2 condition compared to NNC condition (Ps < 0.05). Fewer combusted products were smoked at almost all visits (Ps ≤ 0.02) and there were higher rates of abstinence for both VLNC conditions compared with the NNC condition (VLNC1 versus NNC: RR = 9.96, 95% CI = 5.01, 19.81; VLNC2 versus NNC: RR = 11.23, 95% CI = 5.74, 21.97). CONCLUSION: The offer of, and instructions to use, reduced nicotine content cigarettes during an 8-week period led to greater use of alternative tobacco/nicotine products compared with continued use of normal nicotine cigarettes and also reductions in smoking rates.
Authors: Dorothy K Hatsukami; Kenneth A Perkins; Mark G Lesage; David L Ashley; Jack E Henningfield; Neal L Benowitz; Cathy L Backinger; Mitch Zeller Journal: Tob Control Date: 2010-10 Impact factor: 7.552
Authors: Alexa A Lopez; Marzena M Hiler; Eric K Soule; Carolina P Ramôa; Nareg V Karaoghlanian; Thokozeni Lipato; Alison B Breland; Alan L Shihadeh; Thomas Eissenberg Journal: Nicotine Tob Res Date: 2015-09-16 Impact factor: 4.244
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: Carolina P Ramôa; Marzena M Hiler; Tory R Spindle; Alexa A Lopez; Nareg Karaoghlanian; Thokozeni Lipato; Alison B Breland; Alan Shihadeh; Thomas Eissenberg Journal: Tob Control Date: 2015-08-31 Impact factor: 7.552
Authors: Dorothy K Hatsukami; Xianghua Luo; Joni A Jensen; Mustafa al'Absi; Sharon S Allen; Steven G Carmella; Menglan Chen; Paul M Cinciripini; Rachel Denlinger-Apte; David J Drobes; Joseph S Koopmeiners; Tonya Lane; Chap T Le; Scott Leischow; Kai Luo; F Joseph McClernon; Sharon E Murphy; Viviana Paiano; Jason D Robinson; Herbert Severson; Christopher Sipe; Andrew A Strasser; Lori G Strayer; Mei Kuen Tang; Ryan Vandrey; Stephen S Hecht; Neal L Benowitz; Eric C Donny Journal: JAMA Date: 2018-09-04 Impact factor: 56.272
Authors: Maria A Parker; Joanna M Streck; Cecilia L Bergeria; Janice Y Bunn; Diann E Gaalema; Danielle R Davis; Anthony J Barrows; Stacey C Sigmon; Jennifer W Tidey; Sarah H Heil; Stephen T Higgins Journal: Tob Regul Sci Date: 2018-09
Authors: Kurt M Ribisl; Dorothy K Hatsukami; Jidong Huang; Rebecca S Williams; Eric C Donny Journal: Am J Public Health Date: 2019-07 Impact factor: 9.308
Authors: Micah L Berman; Warren K Bickel; Andrew C Harris; Mark G LeSage; Richard J O'Connor; Irina Stepanov; Peter G Shields; Dorothy K Hatsukami Journal: Nicotine Tob Res Date: 2018-09-25 Impact factor: 4.244
Authors: Andrea C Villanti; Shari P Feirman; Raymond S Niaura; Jennifer L Pearson; Allison M Glasser; Lauren K Collins; David B Abrams Journal: Addiction Date: 2017-10-03 Impact factor: 6.526