Maggie M Sweitzer1, Lauren R Pacek2, Rachel V Kozink2, Erin Locey2, Scott H Kollins2, Eric C Donny3, F Joseph McClernon2. 1. Department of Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences, Duke University School of Medicine, 2608 Erwin Rd., Suite 300, Durham, NC, 27705, USA. maggie.sweitzer@duke.edu. 2. Department of Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences, Duke University School of Medicine, 2608 Erwin Rd., Suite 300, Durham, NC, 27705, USA. 3. Department of Physiology and Pharmacology, Wake Forest School of Medicine, Winston-Salem, NC, USA.
Abstract
RATIONALE: Reducing nicotine content in cigarettes to ≤ 2.4 mg per g of tobacco [mg/g] reduces smoking behavior and toxicant exposure among adult daily smokers. However, cigarettes with similar nicotine content could support continued experimentation and smoking progression among young adults who smoke infrequently. OBJECTIVES: This study evaluated the threshold for nicotine in cigarettes that produces reactions associated with smoking progression in a sample of young adults who smoke infrequently. METHODS: Young adults (n = 87, 18-25 years, 49% female) using tobacco products ≤ 15 days per month completed three counterbalanced, double-blinded sessions, each measuring positive and negative subjective reactions to fixed doses of smoke from investigational cigarettes containing one of three different nicotine contents: normal (NNC; 15.8 mg/g); very low (VLNC; 0.4 mg/g); and intermediate (INC; 2.4 mg/g). In a final session, participants chose one of the cigarettes to self-administer. RESULTS: Post-cigarette breath carbon monoxide was greater for VLNC than for NNC (p < 0.001). Positive reactions were greater for NNC than INC (p < 0.001) and for INC than VLNC (p = 0.001). Negative reactions were greater for NNC than INC and VLNC (both p < 0.001); INC and VLNC did not differ. Cigarette choices did not differ from an even distribution (43% NNC, 25% INC, 32% VLNC), but choice for NNC or INC was associated with higher ratio of positive to negative reactions during the NNC and INC fixed dose sessions, respectively (p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Reducing nicotine content will likely lower the abuse liability of cigarettes for most young, low-frequency smokers. Additional work is needed to determine if compensatory smoking may lead to increased toxicant exposure, and if a subset of individuals choosing lower nicotine cigarettes may continue to smoke regardless of nicotine content.
RATIONALE: Reducing nicotine content in cigarettes to ≤ 2.4 mg per g of tobacco [mg/g] reduces smoking behavior and toxicant exposure among adult daily smokers. However, cigarettes with similar nicotine content could support continued experimentation and smoking progression among young adults who smoke infrequently. OBJECTIVES: This study evaluated the threshold for nicotine in cigarettes that produces reactions associated with smoking progression in a sample of young adults who smoke infrequently. METHODS: Young adults (n = 87, 18-25 years, 49% female) using tobacco products ≤ 15 days per month completed three counterbalanced, double-blinded sessions, each measuring positive and negative subjective reactions to fixed doses of smoke from investigational cigarettes containing one of three different nicotine contents: normal (NNC; 15.8 mg/g); very low (VLNC; 0.4 mg/g); and intermediate (INC; 2.4 mg/g). In a final session, participants chose one of the cigarettes to self-administer. RESULTS: Post-cigarette breath carbon monoxide was greater for VLNC than for NNC (p < 0.001). Positive reactions were greater for NNC than INC (p < 0.001) and for INC than VLNC (p = 0.001). Negative reactions were greater for NNC than INC and VLNC (both p < 0.001); INC and VLNC did not differ. Cigarette choices did not differ from an even distribution (43% NNC, 25% INC, 32% VLNC), but choice for NNC or INC was associated with higher ratio of positive to negative reactions during the NNC and INC fixed dose sessions, respectively (p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Reducing nicotine content will likely lower the abuse liability of cigarettes for most young, low-frequency smokers. Additional work is needed to determine if compensatory smoking may lead to increased toxicant exposure, and if a subset of individuals choosing lower nicotine cigarettes may continue to smoke regardless of nicotine content.
Authors: L Cinnamon Bidwell; Melanie E Garrett; F Joseph McClernon; Bernard F Fuemmeler; Redford B Williams; Allison E Ashley-Koch; Scott H Kollins Journal: Nicotine Tob Res Date: 2011-07-20 Impact factor: 4.244
Authors: Neal L Benowitz; Sharon M Hall; Susan Stewart; Margaret Wilson; Delia Dempsey; Peyton Jacob Journal: Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev Date: 2007-11 Impact factor: 4.254
Authors: Rachel N Cassidy; Suzanne M Colby; Jennifer W Tidey; Kristina M Jackson; Patricia A Cioe; Suchitra Krishnan-Sarin; Dorothy Hatsukami Journal: Drug Alcohol Depend Date: 2018-05-16 Impact factor: 4.492
Authors: Rachel N Cassidy; Jennifer W Tidey; Qing Cao; Suzanne M Colby; Francis J McClernon; Joseph S Koopmeiners; Dorothy Hatsukami; Eric C Donny Journal: Nicotine Tob Res Date: 2019-06-21 Impact factor: 4.244
Authors: Rachel L Denlinger-Apte; Eric C Donny; Bruce R Lindgren; Nathan Rubin; Christine Goodwin; Teresa DeAtley; Suzanne M Colby; Patricia A Cioe; Dorothy K Hatsukami; Jennifer W Tidey Journal: Nicotine Tob Res Date: 2019-10-19 Impact factor: 4.244
Authors: Suzanne M Colby; Rachel N Cassidy; Rachel Denlinger-Apte; Tracy T Smith; Lauren R Pacek; F Joseph McClernon; Jennifer W Tidey Journal: Nicotine Tob Res Date: 2019-12-23 Impact factor: 4.244
Authors: Rachel L Denlinger-Apte; Michael Kotlyar; Joseph S Koopmeiners; Jennifer W Tidey; Xianghua Luo; Neal L Benowitz; Joni A Jensen; Joshua O Ikuemonisan; Lauren R Pacek; Tracy T Smith; Ryan Vandrey; Eric C Donny; Dorothy K Hatsukami Journal: Nicotine Tob Res Date: 2019-12-23 Impact factor: 4.244
Authors: Danielle R Davis; Maria A Parker; Andrea C Villanti; Joanna M Streck; Jeff S Priest; Jennifer W Tidey; Diann E Gaalema; Stacey C Sigmon; Sarah H Heil; Stephen T Higgins Journal: Nicotine Tob Res Date: 2019-12-23 Impact factor: 4.244