RATIONALE: The purpose of this study was to begin researching the effects of very low nicotine content cigarettes in smokers especially vulnerable to dependence to assess their potential as a less dependence-producing alternative to current commercial cigarettes. METHODS:Participants were 26 adult, daily cigarette smokers from one of three populations: economically disadvantaged women of reproductive age (n = 9), opioid-dependent individuals (n = 11), and individuals with affective disorders (n = 6). Participants completed fourteen 2-4-h experimental sessions in a within-subjects research design. Sessions were conducted following brief smoking abstinence. Four research cigarettes varying in nicotine content (0.4, 2.4, 5.2, and 15.8 mg/g) were studied under double-blind conditions, assessing smoking topography, subjective effects, and relative reinforcing effects of varying doses in concurrent choice tests. Results were collapsed across vulnerable populations and analyzed using repeated measures ANOVA. RESULTS: No significant differences between doses were discernible in smoking topography. All doses were equi-effective at reducing nicotine withdrawal. Ratings of satisfaction from smoking were lower at the 0.4 compared to 15.8 mg/g dose. Participants preferred the 15.8 mg/g dose over the 0.4 and 2.4 but not the 5.2 mg/g doses in concurrent choice testing; no differences between the two lowest doses were noted. CONCLUSIONS: All cigarettes effectively reduced nicotine withdrawal with no differences in smoking topography, suggesting minimal compensatory smoking. Dependence potential was lowest at the 0.4 mg/g dose. These initial results are promising regarding the feasibility of lowering nicotine content in cigarettes to very low levels in vulnerable populations without untoward effects.
RCT Entities:
RATIONALE: The purpose of this study was to begin researching the effects of very low nicotine content cigarettes in smokers especially vulnerable to dependence to assess their potential as a less dependence-producing alternative to current commercial cigarettes. METHODS:Participants were 26 adult, daily cigarette smokers from one of three populations: economically disadvantaged women of reproductive age (n = 9), opioid-dependent individuals (n = 11), and individuals with affective disorders (n = 6). Participants completed fourteen 2-4-h experimental sessions in a within-subjects research design. Sessions were conducted following brief smoking abstinence. Four research cigarettes varying in nicotine content (0.4, 2.4, 5.2, and 15.8 mg/g) were studied under double-blind conditions, assessing smoking topography, subjective effects, and relative reinforcing effects of varying doses in concurrent choice tests. Results were collapsed across vulnerable populations and analyzed using repeated measures ANOVA. RESULTS: No significant differences between doses were discernible in smoking topography. All doses were equi-effective at reducing nicotine withdrawal. Ratings of satisfaction from smoking were lower at the 0.4 compared to 15.8 mg/g dose. Participants preferred the 15.8 mg/g dose over the 0.4 and 2.4 but not the 5.2 mg/g doses in concurrent choice testing; no differences between the two lowest doses were noted. CONCLUSIONS: All cigarettes effectively reduced nicotine withdrawal with no differences in smoking topography, suggesting minimal compensatory smoking. Dependence potential was lowest at the 0.4 mg/g dose. These initial results are promising regarding the feasibility of lowering nicotine content in cigarettes to very low levels in vulnerable populations without untoward effects.
Authors: James MacKillop; James G Murphy; Lara A Ray; Daniel T A Eisenberg; Stephen A Lisman; J Koji Lum; David S Wilson Journal: Exp Clin Psychopharmacol Date: 2008-02 Impact factor: 3.157
Authors: David A Macqueen; Bryan W Heckman; Melissa D Blank; Kate Janse Van Rensburg; David E Evans; David J Drobes Journal: Psychopharmacology (Berl) Date: 2012-03-20 Impact factor: 4.530
Authors: Arthur L Brody; Mark A Mandelkern; Matthew R Costello; Anna L Abrams; David Scheibal; Judah Farahi; Edythe D London; Richard E Olmstead; Jed E Rose; Alexey G Mukhin Journal: Int J Neuropsychopharmacol Date: 2008-08-18 Impact factor: 5.176
Authors: Neal L Benowitz; Katherine M Dains; Delia Dempsey; Brenda Herrera; Lisa Yu; Peyton Jacob Journal: Nicotine Tob Res Date: 2009-06-12 Impact factor: 4.244
Authors: Stephen T Higgins; Cecilia L Bergeria; Danielle R Davis; Joanna M Streck; Andrea C Villanti; John R Hughes; Stacey C Sigmon; Jennifer W Tidey; Sarah H Heil; Diann E Gaalema; Maxine L Stitzer; Jeff S Priest; Joan M Skelly; Derek D Reed; Janice Y Bunn; Morgan A Tromblee; Christopher A Arger; Mollie E Miller Journal: Prev Med Date: 2018-04-04 Impact factor: 4.018
Authors: Kenneth A Perkins; Nicole Kunkle; Joshua L Karelitz; K A Perkins; N Kunkle; J L Karelitz Journal: Drug Alcohol Depend Date: 2017-03-23 Impact factor: 4.492
Authors: Stephen T Higgins; Derek D Reed; Ryan Redner; Joan M Skelly; Ivori A Zvorsky; Allison N Kurti Journal: J Exp Anal Behav Date: 2016-12-21 Impact factor: 2.468
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: Dorothy K Hatsukami; Xianghua Luo; Alisa K Heskin; Mei Kuen Tang; Steven G Carmella; Joni Jensen; Jason D Robinson; Ryan Vandrey; David J Drobes; Andrew A Strasser; Mustafa al'Absi; Scott Leischow; Paul M Cinciripini; Joseph Koopmeiners; Joshua Ikuemonisan; Neal L Benowitz; Eric C Donny; Stephen S Hecht Journal: Addiction Date: 2019-07-08 Impact factor: 6.526
Authors: Cecilia L Bergeria; Sarah H Heil; Danielle R Davis; Joanna M Streck; Stacey C Sigmon; Janice Y Bunn; Jennifer W Tidey; Chris A Arger; Derek D Reed; Thomas Gallagher; John R Hughes; Diann E Gaalema; Maxine L Stitzer; Stephen T Higgins Journal: Drug Alcohol Depend Date: 2019-02-13 Impact factor: 4.492
Authors: Stephen T Higgins; Allison N Kurti; Marissa Palmer; Jennifer W Tidey; Antonio Cepeda-Benito; Maria R Cooper; Nicolle M Krebs; Lourdes Baezconde-Garbanati; Joy L Hart; Cassandra A Stanton Journal: Prev Med Date: 2019-05-02 Impact factor: 4.018