Kenneth A Perkins1, Nicole Kunkle2, Joshua L Karelitz2. 1. Western Psychiatric Institute and Clinic, University of Pittsburgh School of Medicine, 3811 O'Hara Street, Pittsburgh, PA, 15213, USA. perkinska@upmc.edu. 2. Western Psychiatric Institute and Clinic, University of Pittsburgh School of Medicine, 3811 O'Hara Street, Pittsburgh, PA, 15213, USA.
Abstract
RATIONALE: The lowest threshold content (or "dose") of nicotine discriminated in cigarettes may differ due to menthol preference. OBJECTIVES: Menthol and non-menthol Spectrum research cigarettes differing in nicotine content were used to determine discrimination thresholds. METHODS: Dependent smokers preferring menthol (n = 40) or non-menthol (n = 21) brands were tested on ability to discriminate cigarettes (matched for their menthol preference) with nicotine contents of 16-17, 11-12, 5, 2, and 1 mg/g, one per session, from an "ultra-low" cigarette with 0.4 mg/g. Controlled exposure to each cigarette was four puffs/trial, and the number of sessions was determined by the lowest nicotine content they could discriminate on >80% of trials (i.e., ≥5 of 6). We also assessed subjective perceptions and behavioral choice between cigarettes to relate them to discrimination responses. RESULTS: Controlling for Fagerstrom Test of Nicotine Dependence score, discrimination thresholds were more likely to be at higher nicotine content cigarettes for menthol vs. non-menthol smokers (p < .005), with medians of 16 vs. 11 mg/g, respectively. Compared to the ultra-low, threshold and subthreshold (next lowest) cigarettes differed on most perceptions and puff choice, but menthol preference did not alter these associations. Notably, threshold cigarettes did, but subthreshold did not, increase choice over the ultra-low. CONCLUSIONS: Threshold for discriminating nicotine via smoking may be generally higher for menthol vs. non-menthol smokers. More research is needed to identify why menthol smoking is related to higher nicotine thresholds and to verify that cigarettes unable to be discriminated do not support reinforcement.
RATIONALE: The lowest threshold content (or "dose") of nicotine discriminated in cigarettes may differ due to menthol preference. OBJECTIVES:Menthol and non-menthol Spectrum research cigarettes differing in nicotine content were used to determine discrimination thresholds. METHODS: Dependent smokers preferring menthol (n = 40) or non-menthol (n = 21) brands were tested on ability to discriminate cigarettes (matched for their menthol preference) with nicotine contents of 16-17, 11-12, 5, 2, and 1 mg/g, one per session, from an "ultra-low" cigarette with 0.4 mg/g. Controlled exposure to each cigarette was four puffs/trial, and the number of sessions was determined by the lowest nicotine content they could discriminate on >80% of trials (i.e., ≥5 of 6). We also assessed subjective perceptions and behavioral choice between cigarettes to relate them to discrimination responses. RESULTS: Controlling for Fagerstrom Test of Nicotine Dependence score, discrimination thresholds were more likely to be at higher nicotine content cigarettes for menthol vs. non-menthol smokers (p < .005), with medians of 16 vs. 11 mg/g, respectively. Compared to the ultra-low, threshold and subthreshold (next lowest) cigarettes differed on most perceptions and puff choice, but menthol preference did not alter these associations. Notably, threshold cigarettes did, but subthreshold did not, increase choice over the ultra-low. CONCLUSIONS: Threshold for discriminating nicotine via smoking may be generally higher for menthol vs. non-menthol smokers. More research is needed to identify why menthol smoking is related to higher nicotine thresholds and to verify that cigarettes unable to be discriminated do not support reinforcement.
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: Patricia E Grebenstein; Danielle Burroughs; Samuel A Roiko; Paul R Pentel; Mark G LeSage Journal: Drug Alcohol Depend Date: 2015-04-07 Impact factor: 4.492
Authors: Jiu Ai; Kenneth M Taylor; Joseph G Lisko; Hang Tran; Clifford H Watson; Matthew R Holman Journal: Nicotine Tob Res Date: 2015-08-09 Impact factor: 4.244
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: Suchitra Krishnan-Sarin; Barry G Green; Grace Kong; Dana A Cavallo; Peter Jatlow; Ralitza Gueorguieva; Eugenia Buta; Stephanie S O'Malley Journal: Drug Alcohol Depend Date: 2017-08-31 Impact factor: 4.492
Authors: Y Wendy Huynh; Anthony Raimondi; Andrew Finkner; Jordan D Kuck; Carly Selleck; Rick A Bevins Journal: Psychopharmacology (Berl) Date: 2020-05-24 Impact factor: 4.530
Authors: Gerald W Valentine; Elise E DeVito; Peter I Jatlow; Ralitza Gueorguieva; Mehmet Sofuoglu Journal: J Psychopharmacol Date: 2018-05-23 Impact factor: 4.153
Authors: Tracy T Smith; Laura E Rupprecht; Rachel L Denlinger-Apte; Jillian J Weeks; Rachel S Panas; Eric C Donny; Alan F Sved Journal: Nicotine Tob Res Date: 2017-09-01 Impact factor: 4.244