Association between purchasing behaviors and cigar use: A longitudinal analysis of Waves 1-3 of the Population Assessment of Tobacco and Health (PATH) Study.

INTRODUCTION: Over 120 US jurisdictions have implemented policies mandating minimum cigar pack quantities, yet little empirical research exists on the relationship between pack quantity and use. We examined whether cigar use was associated with purchasing cigars by the box/pack or as singles, purchase quantity, and price paid per cigar.
METHODS: Data are from Waves 1-3 (2013-2016) of the Population Assessment of Tobacco and Health (PATH) Study, analyzed in 2019. The sample included adults who reported current use of any type of cigars (cigarillos [N = 3,051], traditional cigars [N = 2,586], and filtered cigars [N = 1,295], including with marijuana) at Wave 1. For each cigar type, a generalized estimating equation model was used to examine the population-averaged effects of purchasing behavior on cigar use.
RESULTS: Cigar users of each type who purchased by the box or pack smoked more per day than users who purchased singles (cigarillos: β = 1.02, p<0.0001; traditional cigars: β = 1.40, p<0.0001; filtered cigars: β = 2.55, p<0.01). Cigar users who purchased larger quantities smoked more per day (cigarillos: β = 0.16, p<0.0001; traditional cigars: β = 0.04, p<0.0001; filtered cigars: β = 0.24, p<0.0001). Higher price per cigar was significantly associated with smoking fewer traditional cigars (β = -0.12, p<0.01) and filtered cigars (β = -0.86, p = 0.02), but not cigarillos (β = 0.08, p = 0.62).
CONCLUSIONS: Smaller pack quantities and higher price per cigar were associated with smoking fewer cigars per day. Given the authority of the Food and Drug Administration and local jurisdictions over cigar pack quantity, this study provides data pertinent to potential minimum and maximum package quantity regulations and policies.

Introduction

While cigarette use declined between 2000 and 2015, cigar use overall remained stable, and increased among some populations. [1] In 2018, 3.8% (9.3 million) of U.S. adults reported current cigar use. [2] Cigar products are appealing because they come in flavors, often cost less than cigarettes, and can be used for marijuana consumption. [3] The term ‘cigar’ represents a specific class of products in which the tobacco is wrapped in tobacco leaf or another tobacco-containing substance. [4] There are three broad classes of cigars: cigarillos, traditional cigars, and filtered cigars. Cigar classes vary based on product characteristics, user characteristics, price, and purchase quantity. Cigarillo users are more likely to be young adults, Black, and have a household income less than 100% of the federal poverty level, and one in five reports daily use. [5,6] Cigarillos are mid-sized, often used for marijuana consumption, and half of users purchase singles, which in 2013, cost approximately $1.15 each. [3,7] Traditional cigar users are typically older, White, and have higher incomes, and few report daily use. [5,6] Traditional cigars cost approximately $1.30 per cigar, and almost half of users purchase singles. [7] Filtered cigar users are more likely to be older and have a household income less than 100% of the federal poverty level, and about one-third report daily use. [5-7] Filtered cigars are similar to cigarettes in size, shape, and use, with over half of users purchasing 20-packs which cost approximately $3.40 per pack, or $0.17 per cigar. [5-7]

Within the US, cigarettes are required to be sold in packages of 20 or more. [8] Cigars do not have a similar requirement. Cigar packages come in at least 12 different pack quantities ranging from singles to 60-packs. [9] In 2008, 5-packs accounted for over 42% of the market share, but by 2015, 2–3 packs were more common, accounting for 40% of all cigar sales. [10] In 2016, Congress passed the “Deeming Rule” which gave the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) regulatory authority of the manufacturing, distribution, and marketing of cigars. [11] As part of this regulatory authority, the FDA can set minimum and maximum pack quantity regulations for cigars. Additionally, over 120 local jurisdictions have enacted policies mandating minimum cigar pack quantities of either 4 or 5. [12-14] However, it remains unclear how pack quantity influences cigar user behavior.

It is widely acknowledged in the cigarette literature that smaller pack quantities reduce barriers to use as they are easier to conceal and carry and less expensive. [15-19] Thus, mandating a minimum pack quantity may reduce use. However, cigarette pack quantity is positively associated with consumption, such that reported daily consumption reflects the available pack quantities. [20-23] In other words, smokers tend to report smoking in quantities of 20 cigarettes per day (a pack), or 10 cigarettes per day (half a pack). Additionally, an online experiment found consumers opted for premium-priced packs of 10 cigarettes (instead of 20-packs with large discounts) to constrain their product use. [24] Therefore, it is possible mandating a minimum pack quantity could result in unintended consequences (e.g., an increase in cigar use). Importantly, cigar-specific data are needed prior to the FDA enact a minimum pack size policy.

One previous study examining cigar pack quantity using Waves 1 and 2 of the Population Assessment of Tobacco and Health (PATH) study estimated the average price paid for each cigar type. [7] They also examined cross-sectionally whether package quantity is associated with cigar use. Notably, Persoskie and colleagues [7] excluded cigar users who used marijuana, which represent nearly half of cigar users. While use patterns may differ, it is important to consider these individuals as any cigar regulations might impact their behavior. Additionally, mostly absent from previous studies is whether average unit price and purchasing cigars by the box/pack or single influence the number of cigars used per day. We extend cigar quantity literature by examining Waves 1–3 of the PATH study, the relationship between purchase price and the number of cigars used per day, purchasing by the box or pack versus singles, and including marijuana users. Specifically, we examined whether cigar use was associated with three purchasing behaviors: (1) purchasing cigars by the box/pack or single, (2) purchase quantity, and (3) price paid per cigar.

Methods

Data source

We used data from the Population Assessment of Tobacco and Health (PATH) Study, a nationally representative, longitudinal cohort study. [25] The PATH Study is the first large joint research effort administered by the National Institutes of Health (NIH) and the FDA’s Center for Tobacco Products to assess tobacco use and how it impacts the health of civilians nationally. The target population is the civilian household population 12 and older in all 50 US states and the District of Columbia. The PATH study used a four-stage stratified area probability sample design in Wave 1, which included a stratified sample of geographical primary sampling units, smaller geographical segments, residential addresses, and households. The first wave of the PATH study was conducted between September 12, 2013, and December 14, 2014. Institutional Review Board approval and informed consent were obtained by Westat. A total of 32,320 adults, 13,651 youth, and 13,588 parents of youth were interviewed. All Wave 1 respondents were eligible and interviewed in approximately the same month in in the later, annual waves, as long as they were still living in the U.S. and were not incarcerated. As part of the complex survey design, survey weights were designed to compensate for variable probabilities of selection, differential nonresponse rates, and possible deficiencies in the sampling frame. Survey weights also account for sampling design factors such as the stratification and sampling of primary sampling units and area segments, and the use of oversampling and nonresponse adjustment factors. Wave 3 weights were used in the present analyses, using the public-use files. [26]

Study sample

Adults 18 and older who reported current use of any type of cigars (cigarillos, traditional cigars, and filtered cigars, including with marijuana) were included in the study sample. Current use was defined as reporting cigar use some days or every day. Users of each type of cigar were not mutually exclusive as one of the current users of one type (e.g., of cigarillos) may also be current users of the other cigar products (e.g., of traditional cigars or filtered cigars). Therefore, 3,051 cigarillo users, 2,586 traditional cigar users, and 1,295 filtered cigar users were included in the analyses.

Measures

Dependent variable

The primary dependent variable was the average number of cigars used per day, analyzed as a continuous measure. The average number of cigars used was derived from the survey questions “On average, about how many [cigar product] do you now smoke each day?” and “On average, on days you smoked, how many [cigar product] did you usually smoke each day?” Similar questions were used to assess use of cigarillos, traditional cigars, and filtered cigars.

Independent variables

The primary independent variables were three measurements of purchasing behavior: (1) purchasing cigars by the box/pack or single cigars, (2) purchase quantity, and (3) price paid per cigar. For each cigar type, participants were asked to report whether they usually purchase by the box or pack, or a single cigar, and the price usually paid for the unit. Participants who usually purchase cigars by the box or pack reported the number of cigars that came in the box or pack they usually buy. The average price for a cigar was then calculated by dividing the total price by package quantity.

Additional sociodemographic characteristics including age (18 to 24, 25 to 34, 35 to 44, 45 to 54, and 55 years old or older), sex (male or female), race/ethnicity (non-Hispanic White, non-Hispanic Black, Hispanic, or non-Hispanic other), income level (< 100% of poverty guideline, 100–199% of poverty guideline, and ≥ 200% of poverty guideline; calculated based on $11,770 per individual), education level (less than high school, high school graduate or equivalent, some college (no degree) or associate degree, bachelor’s degree, or advanced degree), and residential region (Northeast, Midwest, South, West) were collected in the Wave 1 survey. Specific wordings and calculations for each of the items are available in the Wave 1 Adult Codebook, available at https://www.icpsr.umich.edu/icpsrweb/NAHDAP/studies/36498/datadocumentation#.

Analyses

Sociodemographic characteristics were reported for each type of current cigar users (cigarillos, traditional cigars, and filtered cigars). The unweighted count and frequency were reported for all categorical variables, whereas weighted mean and standard deviation were reported for continuous variables. Spearman correlations were estimated to assess the association between the average cigar price and the number of cigars in a box. For each cigar type, a generalized estimating equation (GEE) model was used to examine the population-averaged (marginal) effects of purchasing behavior on cigars used per day. We used the GEE framework because the population-averaged response for the specific purchasing behavior “is directly estimable from observations without assumptions about the heterogeneity across individuals in the parameters.” [27] Separate analyses were performed using the three measures of purchasing behavior. All models adjusted for sociodemographic characteristics, including age, sex, race, income level, education level, and residential region. All tests were two-sided, a p-value < 0.05 was considered significant, and all analyses were conducted in 2019 using SAS 9.4 and R 3.5.

In sensitivity analyses, we excluded participants who reported only using cigars as blunts (i.e., filled with marijuana) at Wave 1, and those who used only blunts at Wave 2 or Wave 3 were considered non-current cigar users. Additionally, analysis was restricted to those who completed all three waves with the longitudinal wave sampling weights of Wave 3 used. The significant findings and directions of the base model (analysis with all participants) did not differ from either of the sensitivity analyses; therefore, only the former data are presented.

Results

Sample characteristics

Table 1 presents the demographic characteristics of Wave 1 current cigarillo, traditional cigar, and filtered cigar users. Of 3,051 Wave 1 current cigarillo users, approximately 46.3% were 18 to 24, 69% were male, 84.0% were at least high school graduates or equivalent, and nearly half (48.8%) had a family income below 100% of the federal poverty guideline. Most current cigarillo users (89%) were everyday users, 51.9% usually purchased singles, and on average, users smoked 2.2 cigarillos on days they smoked during the past 30 days before the survey. Among 2,586 traditional cigar users, 87% were male and approximately half (51.6%) had a family income of at least 200% of federal poverty guidelines. Around 93% of current traditional cigar users smoked traditional cigars some days, 41% purchased traditional cigars by the box or pack, and on average, users smoked 2.3 traditional cigars on days they smoked during the past 30 days before the survey. Among 1,295 filtered cigar users, 34% were 18–24, 69% were male, and nearly half (49.2%) had a family income below 100% of the federal poverty guidelines. Around 83% of current filtered cigar users smoked filtered cigars every day, 83% purchased filtered cigars by the box or pack, and on average, users smoked 4.5 filtered cigars on days they smoked during the past 30 days before the survey.

Table 1

Demographic characteristics of Wave 1 current cigarillo, traditional cigar, and filtered cigar users.

	Cigarillos N = 3,051	Traditional Cigars N = 2,586	Filtered Cigars N = 1,295
Age
18–24	1,413 (46.3)	681 (26.3)	440 (34.0)
25–34	677 (22.2)	599 (23.2)	241 (18.6)
35–44	433 (14.2)	460 (17.8)	203 (15.7)
45–54	306 (10.0)	400 (15.5)	190 (14.7)
55–64	169 (5.5)	304 (11.8)	159 (12.3)
65+	53 (1.7)	142 (5.5)	62 (4.8)
Sex
Male	2,116 (69.4)	2,256 (87.3)	896 (69.2)
Female	935 (30.6)	329 (12.7)	399 (30.8)
Race/Ethnicity
Non-Hispanic White	1,485 (48.8)	1,742 (67.6)	782 (60.5)
Non-Hispanic Black	779 (25.6)	282 (10.9)	194 (15.0)
Hispanic	514 (16.9)	337 (13.1)	199 (15.4)
Non-Hispanic other	268 (8.8)	217 (8.4)	118 (9.1)
Region
Northeast	407 (13.3)	456 (17.6)	182 (14.0)
Midwest	762 (25.0)	630 (24.4)	342 (26.4)
South	1,308 (42.9)	951 (36.8)	484 (37.4)
West	574 (18.8)	549 (21.2)	287 (22.2)
Education level
Less than high school	485 (16.0)	256 (10.0)	222 (17.3)
High school graduate or equivalent	1,125 (37.1)	692 (26.9)	460 (35.8)
Some college or associates degree	1,127 (37.1)	946 (36.8)	469 (36.5)
Bachelor’s degree and above	299 (9.8)	675 (26.3)	134 (10.4)
Income level
< 100% of poverty guideline	1,377 (48.8)	699 (29.1)	586 (49.2)
100–199% of poverty guideline	652 (23.1)	464 (19.3)	307 (25.8)
≥ 200% of poverty guideline	791 (28.0)	1,240 (51.6)	297 (25.0)
Cigar use status
Every day	2,723 (89.2)	167 (6.5)	1,073 (82.9)
Some days	328 (10.8)	2,419 (93.5)	222 (17.1)
Purchase preference
Box or pack	581 (48.1)	315 (40.7)	437 (83.1)
Single	627 (51.9)	459 (59.3)	89 (16.9)
Purchase quantity	3.4 (0.1)	4.4 (0.2)	14.5 (0.3)
Total purchase price	$2.20 (0.09)	$4.98 (0.30)	$3.48 (0.20)
Price per cigar	$1.17 (0.07)	$2.73 (0.22)	$0.72 (0.19)
Average number of cigars used	2.2 (0.05)	2.2 (0.1)	4.5 (0.3)

Count and weighted frequency are reported for all categorical variables; mean and standard deviation are reported for continuous variables.

Pack quantity and use

The association between purchasing cigars by the box or single, and the number of cigars smoked per day is presented in Table 2. On average, cigarillo users who purchased cigarillos by the box or pack smoked 1.0 more cigarillos per day than users who purchased single cigarillos, (β = 1.02, p<0.0001). Similar results were found among traditional cigar users. Cigar users who purchased traditional cigars by the box or pack smoked 1.4 more per day than those purchasing single traditional cigars (β = 1.40, p<0.0001). Similarly, filtered cigar users who purchased filtered cigars by the box or pack smoked 2.6 more filtered cigars per day than those purchasing single filtered cigars (β = 2.55, p<0.01).

Table 2

The association between cigar purchase patterns (by the box vs single and quantity) and the average number of cigars smoked per day.

	Purchasing by the box/pack vs single			Purchasing quantity
	Cigarillos	Traditional cigars	Filtered cigars	Cigarillos	Traditional cigars	Filtered cigars
Β	1.02	1.40	2.55	0.16	0.14	0.24
SE(β)	0.12	0.23	0.87	0.02	0.01	0.04
95% CI	(0.77, 1.26)	(0.95, 1.85)	(0.84, 4.25)	(0.11, 0.21)	(0.03, 0.06)	(0.16, 0.32)
p-value	<.0001	<.0001	<.01	<.0001	<.0001	<.0001

p<0.05 is presented in bold. Generalized estimating equation (GEE) models were used to examine the association between (1) purchasing by the box/pack versus singles (referent group) and the average number of cigars smoked per day and (2) purchase quantity and average number of cigars smoked per day. The models adjusted for sociodemographic characteristics, including age, sex, race, income level, education level, and residential region.

Table 2 also presents the association between the quantity of cigars in a box and the number of cigars smoked per day. A significant positive association was found between the quantity of cigars in a box and the number of cigars used among users of all three cigar types (cigarillos β = 0.16, p<0.0001; traditional cigars β = 0.04, p<0.0001; filtered cigars β = 0.24, p<0.0001).

Pack quantity and price

We found a negative correlation between the number of cigars in a box and the average price of cigars for all three cigar types (Fig 1: cigarillos r = -0.54, p<0.001; traditional cigars r = -0.40, p<0.001; filtered cigars r = -0.77, p<0.001). After adjusting for covariates, we found that higher average price per cigar was associated with a lower number of cigars used (Table 3: traditional cigars β = -0.12, p<0.01; filtered cigars β = -0.86, p = 0.02), but an insignificant positive association was found among cigarillo users (Table 3: β = 0.08, p = 0.62).

Fig 1

Spearman’s correlation between average price per cigar and purchase quantity.

Table 3

The association between price per cigar and the average number of cigars smoked per day.

Price per cigar	Cigarillos	Traditional Cigars	Filtered Cigars
Β	0.08	-0.12	-0.86
SE(β)	0.16	0.04	0.36
95% CI	(-0.23, 0.39)	(-0.19, -0.05)	(-1.56, 0.17)
p-value	0.62	<0.01	0.02

p<0.05 is presented in bold. A generalized estimating equation (GEE) model was used to examine the association between price and average number of cigars smoked per day. The model adjusted for sociodemographic characteristics, including age, sex, race, income level, education level, and residential region.

Discussion

This study provides further evidence on the associations between cigar pack quantity, price, and use, using data from the nationally-representative PATH study. Our longitudinal examination of Wave 1 cigar users and their cigar use across Waves 2 and 3, found that cigar pack quantity and price paid were associated with use for each cigar type, including marijuana users.

We extend Persoskie and colleagues’ [7] analyses of Waves 1–2 of PATH data that identified a relationship between cigar price and pack quantity, such that as pack quantity increased, price per cigar decreased. We identified this relationship for all three cigar types, while including marijuana users and an additional wave of data. This is consistent with tobacco industry documents and general marketing strategies that indicate quantity discounts optimize purchasing. [19,28,29] This strategy has been shown to appeal to large-quantity cigarette smokers. It also likely reflects a segment of users who will pay higher for lower quantities as a strategy to self-ration their consumption.

Cigar pack purchase quantity was consistently associated with use, such that purchasing smaller quantities was associated with smoking fewer cigars per day. For each cigar type, cigar users who purchased singles smoked fewer cigars per day than those who purchased cigars by the box or pack. Additionally, in comparing purchase quantity, those who purchased smaller quantities smoked nearly half as many cigars per day. These findings suggest caution to those who advocate for minimum pack quantities, even small pack sizes of 4–5, as most communities have done. [12-14] Approximately half of cigarillo and traditional cigar smokers purchase singles, which is associated with smoking less per day. While the goal of a minimum pack size would be to reduce use, requiring users to purchase greater quantities could lead to increased use.

As price per cigar increased, cigar use decreased for traditional cigars and filtered cigars, but not cigarillos. This provides support for the primary position of many advocating for minimum pack laws and extends cigarette literature showing increases in price are associated with decreases in use. [30-32] We are unsure why we did not identify this trend among cigarillo users. Compared to traditional and filtered cigars, cigarillo total package price, price per cigar, and purchase quantity were lower. This may be associated with price promotions common among cigarillo products, or the overall low price point seen for this product. [33] Thus, it may be important to also consider minimum price laws alongside minimum pack size laws, as some jurisdictions have done. [12]

There are distinct sociodemographic and use behavior differences across cigar type groups. For example, most filtered cigar users purchased by the box, and the average purchase quantity was three times as high as for traditional cigars or cigarillos. Traditional cigar users were more likely male, higher income, and smoked less often compared to filtered cigar or cigarillo users. However, our results for pack quantity and use were generally consistent across cigar types, even with these and other differences in patterns of use and sociodemographic characteristics of users. Despite this, we caution against assuming a policy broadly addressing cigar minimum pack quantity would impact users of each cigar type similarly. For example, a minimum pack size of ten would still be less than the current quantity purchased by most filtered cigar users, but it would more than double the typical purchase quantities for cigarillo and traditional cigar users. Additional research is needed to understand potential differential policy impact by cigar type.

Findings should be considered with regard to several limitations. The data were self-reported which may result in social desirability biased responses for use, misclassification of cigar type, or recall biases regarding purchase price or quantity. However, the PATH survey included pictures for each of the cigars and when possible obtained the actual product from participants, each of which reduces the likelihood for self-reported error. Additionally, we did not examine other product characteristics that may contribute to price, pack quantity, and use, including cigar length, weight, or flavors. Finally, because only current users were asked about pack quantity, we were unable to assess these relationships among less frequent users. Future research should examine the impact of purchase behavior among those who smoke cigars less frequently.

Conclusion

The current study found that cigarillo, traditional cigar, and filtered cigar pack purchase quantity and price were associated with daily cigar use. Smaller pack quantities and higher price per cigar were associated with smoking fewer cigars per day. Given the authority of the FDA and local jurisdictions over cigar pack quantity, this study provides data pertinent to potential minimum and maximum package quantity policy and regulations.

3 Apr 2020

PONE-D-20-04899

Association between purchasing behaviors and cigar use: A longitudinal analysis of Waves 1-3 of the Population Assessment of Tobacco and Health (PATH) Study

PLOS ONE

Dear Dr King,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process.

The reviewers and I see merit in your work.  However, there are minor details that must be address before moving forward with your paper.  The reviewers have identified a number of passages and terms that require further elaboration.

I also request that you reshape Tables 2 & 3 so that it becomes clear(er) that the independent variables in regressions are for 1) Purchased by the box (single purchase is the referent) and 2) the number of cigar units per package (continuous) across the three types of cigars (to be placed in columns) for Table 2.  This traditional display will help readers to quickly glean the independent and dependent variables in each analysis.  Similarly, labeling the independent variable "Price per package/unit" would also make it clear(er) for the reader.

Along these lines, please reconsider the titles of your tables for greater clarity.  Table 2 could be re-titled, "The Association between Cigar Purchase Type and Cigars per Package on the Average Number of Cigars Smoked/Consumed per Day," or some other variant of such a title.  Please also change the title of Table 3 accordingly.

We would appreciate receiving your revised manuscript by May 18 2020 11:59PM. When you are ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter.

To enhance the reproducibility of your results, we recommend that if applicable you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io, where a protocol can be assigned its own identifier (DOI) such that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols

Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:

A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). This letter should be uploaded as separate file and labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.

A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. This file should be uploaded as separate file and labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.

An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. This file should be uploaded as separate file and labeled 'Manuscript'.

Please note while forming your response, if your article is accepted, you may have the opportunity to make the peer review history publicly available. The record will include editor decision letters (with reviews) and your responses to reviewer comments. If eligible, we will contact you to opt in or out.

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Bryan L. Sykes, Ph.D.

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Journal Requirements:

When submitting your revision, we need you to address these additional requirements:

Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. The PLOS ONE style templates can be found at http://www.plosone.org/attachments/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf and http://www.plosone.org/attachments/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

3. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

4. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

5. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: This is a well-written and rigorous paper that makes an important contribution to tobacco regulatory science. I have a few modest suggestions and comments for the authors.

-In line 29 of the abstract, I believe that the p-values should be reported as p<.001, not p<.0001.

-Line 41, I'd specify that they "cost less THAN CIGARETTES," since it's not clear what the comparison is.

-The data source section in the methods should include citations (i.e. Hyland et al).

-Line 108- can you specify how "current use" is defined in PATH?

-In line 222 of the discussion, you state that as price per cigar decreased for cigarillos and traditional cigars, use decreased, but not for filtered cigars. I may be misunderstanding, but should this say FILTERED CIGARS and traditional cigars? Based on Table 3, it looks like the relationship between price per cigarillo and average number of cigarillos per day is not significant, but is for filtered cigars.

-Line 242- this ties back to my prior comment about the definition of current use. I think it is worth noting in the limitations that because only current users are asked about pack size, you are unable to assess the relationship between pack size/quantity among non-regular/less frequent/experimenting users of cigar products. I think that this is important given that cigars are used differently than cigarettes by consumers.

Reviewer #2: This manuscript uses data from Waves 1-3 of the PATH Study to examine associations between cigar use behavior, purchase quantity, and purchase price. This is an interesting manuscript and it addresses an important topic – how to regulate price to maximally protect public health. This is an important issue from FDA-regulatory perspective. A few comments for consideration:

Line 41: Please define what is meant by “current.” Does this mean past 30 days? Ever use during this period? Daily? Regular?

Line 49: The cost per cigarillo is estimated at $1.15. At what point in time?

Line 53-54: It be helpful to include the average price per filtered cigar, in addition to cost per pack.

Line 66-73: Relying on the cigarette literature is understandable. At the same time, can the FDA rely on the cigarette literature to inform cigar policy? Are there cigar-specific literature that can be relied upon in addition? This cigar-specific connection seems critical for FDA’s purpose.

Line 73: It seems that the implied unintended consequence is an increase in use. You might make this explicit here.

Line 108: Please define what is meant by “current.”

Linde 132: If possible, please define what is meant by “poverty guideline.”

Line 201: Is this study truly longitudinal? The PATH Study clearly has a longitudinal design, but did the current analysis measure within-person change? Or, did it compare across time (like a repeated cross-sectional study?

Line 218-219: The paper claims that most communities have advocated for small pack sizes f 4-5. Can you provide a citation to support this claim?

**********

6. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: No

[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files to be viewed.]

While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email us at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.

4 May 2020

Thank you for the helpful feedback and the opportunity to improve our work. We have addressed each of the comments and detailed the actions taken below.

Response to Reviewers

1. Reshape Tables 2 & 3 so that it becomes clear(er) that the independent variables in regressions are for 1) Purchased by the box (single purchase is the referent) and 2) the number of cigar units per package (continuous) across the three types of cigars (to be placed in columns) for Table 2. This traditional display will help readers to quickly glean the independent and dependent variables in each analysis.

We edited tables 2 and 3 as suggested, with the products by columns.

2. Similarly, labeling the independent variable "Price per package/unit" would also make it clear(er) for the reader.

We added this for Table 3, but with Table 2 there are two independent variables: 1. purchasing by the box/pack vs single, and 2. purchasing quantity. With the tables restructured as suggested, we think it makes this clearer.

3. Please reconsider the titles of your tables for greater clarity. Table 2 could be re-titled, "The Association between Cigar Purchase Type and Cigars per Package on the Average Number of Cigars Smoked/Consumed per Day," or some other variant of such a title. Please also change the title of Table 3 accordingly.

We edited the table titles as suggested. Table 2 is now The Association between Cigar Purchase Patterns (by the Box vs Single and Quantity) and the Average Number of Cigars Smoked per Day and Table 3 is now The Association between Price per Cigar and the Average Number of Cigars Smoked per Day.

Reviewer #1: This is a well-written and rigorous paper that makes an important contribution to tobacco regulatory science. I have a few modest suggestions and comments for the authors.

1. In line 29 of the abstract, I believe that the p-values should be reported as p<.001, not p<.0001.

As written, the p-values match Tables 2 and 3. We are happy to edit if this is a stylist concern for the journal, but it’s unclear whether this comment refers to that or consistency with the tables.

For reference, the guidelines state: P-values less than 0.001 may be expressed as p < 0.001, or as exponentials in studies of genetic associations, which does not clarify whether they must be presented this way.

2. Line 41, I'd specify that they "cost less THAN CIGARETTES," since it's not clear what the comparison is.

We edited this as suggested. Line 41 now reads: Cigar products are appealing because they come in flavors, cost less than cigarettes, and can be used for marijuana consumption.

3. The data source section in the methods should include citations (i.e. Hyland et al).

We added references to Hyland and the PATH User Guide, at lines 97 and 106.

4. Line 108- can you specify how "current use" is defined in PATH?

We used survey item R01_AG1003 – “Do you now smoke []” every day, some days, or not at all

The text at Line 114 now states: Current use was defined as reporting cigar use some days or every day.

5. In line 222 of the discussion, you state that as price per cigar decreased for cigarillos and traditional cigars, use decreased, but not for filtered cigars. I may be misunderstanding, but should this say FILTERED CIGARS and traditional cigars? Based on Table 3, it looks like the relationship between price per cigarillo and average number of cigarillos per day is not significant, but is for filtered cigars.

Yes, thank you for highlighting this error. We have edited this to say filtered cigars, not cigarillos and edited the discussion that followed. The text now states:

As price per cigar increased, cigar use decreased for traditional cigars and filtered cigars, but not cigarillos. This provides support for the primary position of many advocating for minimum pack laws and extends cigarette literature showing increases in price are associated with decreases in use.(30–32) We are unsure why we did not identify this trend among cigarillo users. Compared to traditional and filtered cigars, cigarillo total package price, price per cigar, and purchase quantity were lower. This may be associated with price promotions common among cigarillo products, or the overall low price point seen for this product.(33) Thus, it may be important to also consider minimum price laws alongside minimum pack size laws, as some jurisdictions have done.(12)

6. Line 242- this ties back to my prior comment about the definition of current use. I think it is worth noting in the limitations that because only current users are asked about pack size, you are unable to assess the relationship between pack size/quantity among non-regular/less frequent/experimenting users of cigar products. I think that this is important given that cigars are used differently than cigarettes by consumers.

We added this as a limitation as suggested. The text at Lines 262-264 now states: Finally, because only current users were asked about pack quantity, we were unable to assess these relationships among less frequent users. Future research should examine the impact of purchase behavior among those who smoke cigars less frequently.

Reviewer #2: This manuscript uses data from Waves 1-3 of the PATH Study to examine associations between cigar use behavior, purchase quantity, and purchase price. This is an interesting manuscript and it addresses an important topic – how to regulate price to maximally protect public health. This is an important issue from FDA-regulatory perspective. A few comments for consideration:

1. Line 41: Please define what is meant by “current.” Does this mean past 30 days? Ever use during this period? Daily? Regular?

This citation is from an MMWR report that used the 2017 NHIS data. The questionnaire is here: file:///C:/Users/u6026807/Downloads/qadult.pdf. Based on the description in the methods, it appears the authors used this item: Do you now smoke regular cigars, cigarillos, or little filtered cigars every day, some days, or not at all? Every day, some days, not at all. We agree this is not very specific and is open to interpretation. This is, however, an item typically used, and, unfortunately, we are unable to provide additional details, as this is the language used within the report.

2. Line 49: The cost per cigarillo is estimated at $1.15. At what point in time?

We added this detail, as suggested. The text now states: Cigarillos are mid-sized, often used for marijuana consumption, and half of users purchase singles, which in 2013, generally cost approximately $1.15 each.

3. Line 53-54: It be helpful to include the average price per filtered cigar, in addition to cost per pack.

We added this as suggested. The text now states: Filtered cigars are similar to cigarettes in size, shape, and use, with over half of users purchasing 20-packs which cost approximately $3.40 per pack, or $0.17 per cigar.

4. Line 66-73: Relying on the cigarette literature is understandable. At the same time, can the FDA rely on the cigarette literature to inform cigar policy? Are there cigar-specific literature that can be relied upon in addition? This cigar-specific connection seems critical for FDA’s purpose.

There is very little cigar-specific data. The present study and the noted Persoskie study are the two specific ones of which we are aware. We added a sentence noting the importance of cigar-specific data to enact a policy. The text at Line 74 states: Importantly, cigar-specific data are needed for the FDA to enact a cigar policy.

5. Line 73: It seems that the implied unintended consequence is an increase in use. You might make this explicit here.

We made this explicit, as suggested. The text now states: Therefore, it is possible mandating a minimum pack quantity could result in unintended consequences (e.g., an increase in cigar use).

6. Line 108: Please define what is meant by “current.”

We added details on the specific items used. The text at Line 114 now states: Current use was defined as reporting cigar use some days or every day.

7. Linde 132: If possible, please define what is meant by “poverty guideline.”

The PATH Study derives this measure using a 4 step process:

STEP 1: Estimate household-level income from the mid-point of each household income range reported in R01_AM0030. For income ranges higher than $100,000, categories are collapsed and an effective household income of $120,000 is assigned.

STEP 2: Calculate the poverty income guideline based on the 2015 POVERTY GUIDELINES FOR THE 48 CONTIGUOUS STATES AND THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA for the household as (11770 + ((Aggregate count of people in household from screener - 1)* 4160)).

STEP 3: Calculate family income as a percentage of the HHS poverty guideline. Poverty variable calculation formula: [Effective family income] / [poverty guideline] * 100 = [family income as a percentage of the HHS poverty guideline]. To be at 100% of the poverty guideline is equivalent to having a family income that is the same as the HHS-specified poverty guideline. A level less than 100% indicates having a family income less than the poverty guideline and a level greater than 100% indicate having a family income greater than the poverty guideline.

STEP 4: IF family income as a percentage of the HHS poverty guideline < 100, THEN R01R_POVCAT3 = 1; IF family income as a percentage of the HHS poverty guideline >= 100 and < 200, THEN R01R_POVCAT3 = 2; IF family income as a percentage of the HHS poverty guideline >= 200, THEN R01R_POVCAT3 = 3; ELSE IF R01_AM0030 = -9 THEN R01R_POVCAT3 = -99999; ELSE IF R01_AM0030 = -8 THEN R01R_POVCAT3 = -99988; ELSE IF R01_AM0030 = -7 THEN R01R_POVCAT3 = -99977; ELSE IF R01_AM0030 = -1 THEN R01R_POVCAT3 = -99911.

We added details at Line 136: income level (< 100% of poverty guideline, 100-199% of poverty guideline, and ≥ 200% of poverty guideline; calculated based on $11,770 per individual)

We also added a note that the full description for each of the variables is available in the codebooks and included a link. The text at Line 137 now states: Specific wordings and calculations for each of the items are available in the Wave 1 Adult Codebook, available at https://www.icpsr.umich.edu/icpsrweb/NAHDAP/studies/36498/datadocumentation#.

8. Line 201: Is this study truly longitudinal? The PATH Study clearly has a longitudinal design, but did the current analysis measure within-person change? Or, did it compare across time (like a repeated cross-sectional study?

The study design accounted for the longitudinal design. The use of GEE relaxed the independent assumption, and to account for the within-group correlation structure, we used an exchangeable working correlation structure.

9. Line 218-219: The paper claims that most communities have advocated for small pack sizes f 4-5. Can you provide a citation to support this claim?

We added the following citations, as suggested:

Counter Tobacco. Restricting Product Packaging – Counter Tobacco [Internet]. 2019 [cited 2019 Sep 30]. Available from: https://countertobacco.org/policy/restricting-product-packaging/

Li W, Gouveia T, Sbarra C, Harding N, Kane K, Hayes R, et al. Has Boston’s 2011 cigar packaging and pricing regulation reduced availability of single-flavoured cigars popular with youth? Tob Control. 2017 Mar 1;26(2):135–40.

Sbarra C, Reid M, Harding N, Li W. Promising Strategies to Remove Inexpensive Sweet Tobacco Products From Retail Stores. Public Health Rep. 2016 Dec 12;132(1):106–9.

17 Jun 2020

Association between purchasing behaviors and cigar use: A longitudinal analysis of Waves 1-3 of the Population Assessment of Tobacco and Health (PATH) Study

PONE-D-20-04899R1

Dear Dr. King,

We’re pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been judged scientifically suitable for publication and will be formally accepted for publication once it meets all outstanding technical requirements.

Within one week, you’ll receive an e-mail detailing the required amendments. When these have been addressed, you’ll receive a formal acceptance letter and your manuscript will be scheduled for publication.

An invoice for payment will follow shortly after the formal acceptance. To ensure an efficient process, please log into Editorial Manager at http://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/, click the 'Update My Information' link at the top of the page, and double check that your user information is up-to-date. If you have any billing related questions, please contact our Author Billing department directly at authorbilling@plos.org.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please notify them about your upcoming paper to help maximize its impact. If they’ll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team as soon as possible -- no later than 48 hours after receiving the formal acceptance. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information, please contact onepress@plos.org.

Kind regards,

Bryan L. Sykes, Ph.D.

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. If the authors have adequately addressed your comments raised in a previous round of review and you feel that this manuscript is now acceptable for publication, you may indicate that here to bypass the “Comments to the Author” section, enter your conflict of interest statement in the “Confidential to Editor” section, and submit your "Accept" recommendation.

Reviewer #1: All comments have been addressed

Reviewer #2: All comments have been addressed

**********

2. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

4. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

5. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

6. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: The authors have sufficiently responded to my comments and questions. This is an well-written paper and an important contribution to tobacco regulatory science.

Reviewer #2: (No Response)

**********

7. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: No

19 Jun 2020

PONE-D-20-04899R1

Association between purchasing behaviors and cigar use: A longitudinal analysis of Waves 1-3 of the Population Assessment of Tobacco and Health (PATH) Study

Dear Dr. King:

I'm pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been deemed suitable for publication in PLOS ONE. Congratulations! Your manuscript is now with our production department.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please let them know about your upcoming paper now to help maximize its impact. If they'll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team within the next 48 hours. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information please contact onepress@plos.org.

If we can help with anything else, please email us at plosone@plos.org.

Thank you for submitting your work to PLOS ONE and supporting open access.

Kind regards,

PLOS ONE Editorial Office Staff

on behalf of

Dr. Bryan L. Sykes

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE