Teresa E DeAtley1, Rachel Cassidy2, Morgan L Snell2, Suzanne M Colby2, Jennifer W Tidey2. 1. Department of Behavioral and Social Sciences, Brown University School of Public Health, Providence, RI 02912, USA. Electronic address: Teresa_DeAtley@alumni.brown.edu. 2. Department of Behavioral and Social Sciences, Brown University School of Public Health, Providence, RI 02912, USA.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Among people without psychiatric disorders who smoke, very low nicotine content (VLNC) cigarette use reduces cigarette reinforcement. Whether this is true of people with serious mental illness (SMI) who smoke is unknown. Using a hypothetical purchase task, we compared the effects of 6-week use of VLNC versus normal nicotine content (NNC) cigarettes on study cigarette and usual brand (UB) cigarette reinforcement among people with SMI who smoke. METHODS: After a baseline period of UB cigarette use, participants with SMI (n = 58) were randomized to use NNC cigarettes (15.8 mg nicotine/g tobacco) or VLNC cigarettes (0.4 mg/g) for 6 weeks. At Week 6, they completed the CPT for both their assigned study cigarette and UB. The groups were compared on demand intensity (number of cigarettes purchased at no cost) and elasticity (rate of decline in demand as price increases) using extra sum-of-squares F-tests. The effects of treatment on demand indices while controlling for covariates were assessed using hierarchical regression. RESULTS: At Week 6, intensity of demand for study cigarettes was lower and elasticity was higher for the VLNC group relative to the NNC group (p < 0.0001). Furthermore, intensity of demand for UB cigarettes was lower for participants in the VLNC group relative to participants in the NNC group (p < 0.01). When controlling for baseline cigarettes per day, intensity remained significantly different for study cigarettes and usual brand cigarettes at Week 6. CONCLUSION: A nicotine reduction policy may reduce cigarette reinforcement in this vulnerable population.
BACKGROUND: Among people without psychiatric disorders who smoke, very low nicotine content (VLNC) cigarette use reduces cigarette reinforcement. Whether this is true of people with serious mental illness (SMI) who smoke is unknown. Using a hypothetical purchase task, we compared the effects of 6-week use of VLNC versus normal nicotine content (NNC) cigarettes on study cigarette and usual brand (UB) cigarette reinforcement among people with SMI who smoke. METHODS: After a baseline period of UB cigarette use, participants with SMI (n = 58) were randomized to use NNC cigarettes (15.8 mg nicotine/g tobacco) or VLNC cigarettes (0.4 mg/g) for 6 weeks. At Week 6, they completed the CPT for both their assigned study cigarette and UB. The groups were compared on demand intensity (number of cigarettes purchased at no cost) and elasticity (rate of decline in demand as price increases) using extra sum-of-squares F-tests. The effects of treatment on demand indices while controlling for covariates were assessed using hierarchical regression. RESULTS: At Week 6, intensity of demand for study cigarettes was lower and elasticity was higher for the VLNC group relative to the NNC group (p < 0.0001). Furthermore, intensity of demand for UB cigarettes was lower for participants in the VLNC group relative to participants in the NNC group (p < 0.01). When controlling for baseline cigarettes per day, intensity remained significantly different for study cigarettes and usual brand cigarettes at Week 6. CONCLUSION: A nicotine reduction policy may reduce cigarette reinforcement in this vulnerable population.
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: Tracy T Smith; Rachel N Cassidy; Jennifer W Tidey; Xianghua Luo; Chap T Le; Dorothy K Hatsukami; Eric C Donny Journal: Addiction Date: 2016-11-28 Impact factor: 6.526
Authors: Ivori Zvorsky; Tyler D Nighbor; Allison N Kurti; Michael DeSarno; Gideon Naudé; Derek D Reed; Stephen T Higgins Journal: Prev Med Date: 2019-08-07 Impact factor: 4.018
Authors: Neal L Benowitz; Katherine M Dains; Sharon M Hall; Susan Stewart; Margaret Wilson; Delia Dempsey; Peyton Jacob Journal: Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev Date: 2012-02-21 Impact factor: 4.254
Authors: Mikhail N Koffarnus; Christopher T Franck; Jeffrey S Stein; Warren K Bickel Journal: Exp Clin Psychopharmacol Date: 2015-08-17 Impact factor: 3.157
Authors: Jennifer W Tidey; Lauren R Pacek; Joseph S Koopmeiners; Ryan Vandrey; Natalie Nardone; David J Drobes; Neal L Benowitz; Sarah S Dermody; Andrine Lemieux; Rachel L Denlinger; Rachel Cassidy; Mustafa al'Absi; Dorothy K Hatsukami; Eric C Donny Journal: Nicotine Tob Res Date: 2016-08-03 Impact factor: 4.244
Authors: Jennifer W Tidey; Suzanne M Colby; Rachel L Denlinger-Apte; Christine Goodwin; Patricia A Cioe; Rachel N Cassidy; Robert M Swift; Bruce R Lindgren; Nathan Rubin; Sharon E Murphy; Stephen S Hecht; Dorothy K Hatsukami; Eric C Donny Journal: Nicotine Tob Res Date: 2019-12-23 Impact factor: 4.244