Kenneth A Perkins1, 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 smallest difference in nicotine that can change a smoker's cigarette preference is not clearly known. OBJECTIVE: A procedure to efficiently identify the difference in nicotine needed to change cigarette preference could help inform research to gauge effects of a nicotine reduction policy. METHODS: Using a within-subject design, we assessed preference for research cigarettes varying in nicotine contents (NIC; 18.7, 10.8, 5.3, 2.3, and 1.3 mg/g of tobacco), relative to a very low nicotine cigarette (VLNC; 0.4 mg/g), in 17 adult-dependent non-menthol smokers abstinent overnight. Only one NIC was compared vs. the VLNC per session, with order of the five NIC contents randomized across sessions on five separate days. Preference for each NIC vs. VLNC was determined by validated forced choice procedure, with those NIC chosen more than VLNC indicating greater reinforcement due to greater nicotine per se. Secondarily, less preference for lower NIC (vs. VLNC), relative to choice for the highest NIC, 18.7 mg/g (vs. VLNC), indexed reduced reinforcement. RESULTS:Overall, NIC choices increased as their nicotine increased, as anticipated. Relative to the 0.4 mg/g VLNC, choice was greater for NIC ≥ 5.3 mg/g but not ≤ 2.3 mg/g. Correspondingly, relative to choice for 18.7 mg/g, choice was less for NIC ≤ 2.3 mg/g but not ≥ 5.3 mg/g. CONCLUSIONS: Although replication with larger samples and longer access is needed, results indicate that nicotine reduction to ≤ 2.3 mg/g in cigarettes would attenuate reinforcement. This choice procedure may efficiently inform future clinical trials to assess relative reinforcing effects of smoking reduced nicotine cigarettes.
RCT Entities:
RATIONALE: The smallest difference in nicotine that can change a smoker's cigarette preference is not clearly known. OBJECTIVE: A procedure to efficiently identify the difference in nicotine needed to change cigarette preference could help inform research to gauge effects of a nicotine reduction policy. METHODS: Using a within-subject design, we assessed preference for research cigarettes varying in nicotine contents (NIC; 18.7, 10.8, 5.3, 2.3, and 1.3 mg/g of tobacco), relative to a very low nicotine cigarette (VLNC; 0.4 mg/g), in 17 adult-dependent non-menthol smokers abstinent overnight. Only one NIC was compared vs. the VLNC per session, with order of the five NIC contents randomized across sessions on five separate days. Preference for each NIC vs. VLNC was determined by validated forced choice procedure, with those NIC chosen more than VLNC indicating greater reinforcement due to greater nicotine per se. Secondarily, less preference for lower NIC (vs. VLNC), relative to choice for the highest NIC, 18.7 mg/g (vs. VLNC), indexed reduced reinforcement. RESULTS: Overall, NIC choices increased as their nicotine increased, as anticipated. Relative to the 0.4 mg/g VLNC, choice was greater for NIC ≥ 5.3 mg/g but not ≤ 2.3 mg/g. Correspondingly, relative to choice for 18.7 mg/g, choice was less for NIC ≤ 2.3 mg/g but not ≥ 5.3 mg/g. CONCLUSIONS: Although replication with larger samples and longer access is needed, results indicate that nicotine reduction to ≤ 2.3 mg/g in cigarettes would attenuate reinforcement. This choice procedure may efficiently inform future clinical trials to assess relative reinforcing effects of smoking reduced nicotine cigarettes.
Authors: Eric C Donny; Rachel L Denlinger; Jennifer W Tidey; Joseph S Koopmeiners; Neal L Benowitz; Ryan G Vandrey; Mustafa al'Absi; Steven G Carmella; Paul M Cinciripini; Sarah S Dermody; David J Drobes; Stephen S Hecht; Joni Jensen; Tonya Lane; Chap T Le; F Joseph McClernon; Ivan D Montoya; Sharon E Murphy; Jason D Robinson; Maxine L Stitzer; Andrew A Strasser; Hilary Tindle; Dorothy K Hatsukami Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2015-10 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Xiaosi Gu; Terry Lohrenz; Ramiro Salas; Philip R Baldwin; Alireza Soltani; Ulrich Kirk; Paul M Cinciripini; P Read Montague Journal: Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A Date: 2015-01-20 Impact factor: 11.205
Authors: Dorothy K Hatsukami; Stephen J Heishman; Rachel Isaksson Vogel; Rachel L Denlinger; Astia N Roper-Batker; Kristen M Mackowick; Joni Jensen; Sharon E Murphy; Brian F Thomas; Eric Donny Journal: Nicotine Tob Res Date: 2012-11-22 Impact factor: 4.244
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: 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