Prolonged exposure to denicotinized cigarettes with or without transdermal nicotine

Electronic cigarettes for smoking cessation

BACKGROUND

Electronic cigarettes (ECs) are handheld electronic vaping devices that produce an aerosol by heating an e-liquid. People who smoke, healthcare providers, and regulators want to know if ECs can help people quit smoking, and if they are safe to use for this purpose. This is a review update conducted as part of a living systematic review.

OBJECTIVES

To examine the safety, tolerability, and effectiveness of using EC to help people who smoke tobacco achieve long-term smoking abstinence, in comparison to non-nicotine EC, other smoking cessation treatments, and no treatment.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, Embase, and PsycINFO to 1 February 2024 and the Cochrane Tobacco Addiction Group's Specialized Register to 1 February 2023, reference-checked, and contacted study authors.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included trials randomizing people who smoke to an EC or control condition. We included uncontrolled intervention studies in which all participants received an EC intervention. Studies had to report an eligible outcome.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We followed standard Cochrane methods for screening and data extraction. We used the risk of bias tool (RoB 1) and GRADE to assess the certainty of evidence. Critical outcomes were abstinence from smoking after at least six months, adverse events (AEs), and serious adverse events (SAEs). Important outcomes were biomarkers, toxicants/carcinogens, and longer-term EC use. We used a fixed-effect Mantel-Haenszel model to calculate risk ratios (RRs) with a 95% confidence interval (CI) for dichotomous outcomes. For continuous outcomes, we calculated mean differences. Where appropriate, we pooled data in pairwise and network meta-analyses (NMA).

MAIN RESULTS

We included 90 completed studies (two new to this update), representing 29,044 participants, of which 49 were randomized controlled trials (RCTs). Of the included studies, we rated 10 (all but one contributing to our main comparisons) at low risk of bias overall, 61 at high risk overall (including all non-randomized studies), and the remainder at unclear risk. Nicotine EC results in increased quit rates compared to nicotine replacement therapy (NRT) (high-certainty evidence) (RR 1.59, 95% CI 1.30 to 1.93; I2 = 0%; 7 studies, 2544 participants). In absolute terms, this might translate to an additional four quitters per 100 (95% CI 2 to 6 more). The rate of occurrence of AEs is probably similar between groups (moderate-certainty evidence (limited by imprecision)) (RR 1.03, 95% CI 0.91 to 1.17; I2 = 0%; 5 studies, 2052 participants). SAEs were rare, and there is insufficient evidence to determine whether rates differ between groups due to very serious imprecision (RR 1.20, 95% CI 0.90 to 1.60; I2 = 32%; 6 studies, 2761 participants; low-certainty evidence). Nicotine EC probably results in increased quit rates compared to non-nicotine EC (moderate-certainty evidence, limited by imprecision) (RR 1.46, 95% CI 1.09 to 1.96; I2 = 4%; 6 studies, 1613 participants). In absolute terms, this might lead to an additional three quitters per 100 (95% CI 1 to 7 more). There is probably little to no difference in the rate of AEs between these groups (moderate-certainty evidence) (RR 1.01, 95% CI 0.91 to 1.11; I2 = 0%; 5 studies, 840 participants). There is insufficient evidence to determine whether rates of SAEs differ between groups, due to very serious imprecision (RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.56 to 1.79; I2 = 0%; 9 studies, 1412 participants; low-certainty evidence). Compared to behavioural support only/no support, quit rates may be higher for participants randomized to nicotine EC (low-certainty evidence due to issues with risk of bias) (RR 1.96, 95% CI 1.66 to 2.32; I2 = 0%; 11 studies, 6819 participants). In absolute terms, this represents an additional four quitters per 100 (95% CI 3 to 5 more). There was some evidence that (non-serious) AEs may be more common in people randomized to nicotine EC (RR 1.18, 95% CI 1.10 to 1.27; I2 = 6%; low-certainty evidence; 6 studies, 2351 participants) and, again, insufficient evidence to determine whether rates of SAEs differed between groups (RR 0.93, 95% CI 0.68 to 1.28; I2 = 0%; 12 studies, 4561 participants; very low-certainty evidence). Results from the NMA were consistent with those from pairwise meta-analyses for all critical outcomes. There was inconsistency in the AE network, which was explained by a single outlying study contributing the only direct evidence for one of the nodes. Data from non-randomized studies were consistent with RCT data. The most commonly reported AEs were throat/mouth irritation, headache, cough, and nausea, which tended to dissipate with continued EC use. Very few studies reported data on other outcomes or comparisons; hence, evidence for these is limited, with CIs often encompassing both clinically significant harm and benefit.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

There is high-certainty evidence that ECs with nicotine increase quit rates compared to NRT and moderate-certainty evidence that they increase quit rates compared to ECs without nicotine. Evidence comparing nicotine EC with usual care or no treatment also suggests benefit, but is less certain due to risk of bias inherent in the study design. Confidence intervals were, for the most part, wide for data on AEs, SAEs, and other safety markers, with no evidence for a difference in AEs between nicotine and non-nicotine ECs nor between nicotine ECs and NRT, but low-certainty evidence for increased AEs compared with behavioural support/no support. Overall incidence of SAEs was low across all study arms. We did not detect evidence of serious harm from nicotine EC, but longer, larger studies are needed to fully evaluate EC safety. Our included studies tested regulated nicotine-containing EC; illicit products and/or products containing other active substances (e.g. tetrahydrocannabinol (THC)) may have different harm profiles. The main limitation of the evidence base remains imprecision due to the small number of RCTs, often with low event rates. Further RCTs are underway. To ensure the review continues to provide up-to-date information to decision-makers, this is a living systematic review. We run searches monthly, with the review updated when relevant new evidence becomes available. Please refer to the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews for the review's current status.

The Impact of Three Alternate Nicotine-Delivery Products on Combusted Cigarette Use: A Randomized Controlled Trial

INTRODUCTION

Smoking cessation is a critical public health goal. This study examined the ability of e-cigarettes and very low nicotine cigarettes (VLNCs) to serve as cigarette substitutes and whether a substitution was supported by steady-state nicotine from a nicotine patch.

AIMS AND METHODS

This mixed design experiment with study product (between-subjects) and patch (within-subjects) factors recruited adults smoking cigarettes daily and not motivated to quit (N = 160). Participants were randomized to 4 weeks of: (1) VLNCs; (2) e-cigarettes; or (3) no product. During two switch weeks, one with an active nicotine patch and one with a placebo patch (in a double-blind and counterbalanced fashion), participants were told to not smoke their usual cigarettes.

RESULTS

During the switch weeks, participants in the VLNC (M = 2.88, SD = .65) and e-cigarette (M = 3.20, SD = .63) groups smoked fewer of their own cigarettes per day than did no product group participants who continued to smoke their own cigarettes (M = 5.48, SD = .63); the VLNC and e-cigarette groups did not differ. There was no main effect of patch on mean usual brand cigarettes smoked per day (P = .09), nor was there a product × patch interaction (P = .51). There was a product × age interaction (P = .03); smokers aged 60-74 smoked more of their own cigarettes if they were randomized to no product group.

CONCLUSIONS

VLNCs and e-cigarettes appear to reduce usual brand cigarettes smoked per day to a similar degree, regardless of patch condition. Behavioral factors, in addition to nicotine dependence, play an important role in sustaining smoking behavior and need to be addressed in smoking cessation treatment.

IMPLICATIONS

This study found that behavioral substitutes for cigarettes, whether or not they delivered nicotine, reduced the number of usual brand cigarettes smoked. Specifically, both e-cigarettes delivering nicotine and VLNCs equally reduce usual brand cigarettes smoked among adults who smoke daily and do not want to quit.

Individual variations in motives for nicotine self-administration in male rats: evidence in support for a precision psychopharmacology

The significant heterogeneity in smoking behavior among smokers, coupled with the inconsistent efficacy of approved smoking cessation therapies, supports the presence of individual variations in the mechanisms underlying smoking. This emphasizes the need to shift from standardized to personalized smoking cessation therapies. However, informed precision medicine demands precision fundamental research. Tobacco smoking is influenced and sustained by diverse psychopharmacological interactions between nicotine and environmental stimuli. In the classical experimental rodent model for studying tobacco dependence, namely intravenous self-administration of nicotine, seeking behavior is reinforced by the combined delivery of nicotine and a discrete cue (nicotine+cue). Whether self-administration behavior is driven by the same psychopharmacological mechanisms across individual rats remains unknown and unexplored. To address this, we employed behavioral pharmacology and unbiased cluster analysis to investigate individual differences in the mechanisms supporting classical intravenous nicotine self-administration (0.04 mg/kg/infusion) in male outbred Sprague-Dawley rats. Our analysis identified two clusters: one subset of rats sought nicotine primarily for its reinforcing effects, while the second subset sought nicotine to enhance the reinforcing effects of the discrete cue. Varenicline (1 mg/kg i.p.) reduced seeking behavior in the former group, whereas it tended to increase in the latter group. Crucially, despite this fundamental qualitative difference revealed by behavioral manipulation, the two clusters exhibited quantitatively identical nicotine+cue self-administration behavior. The traditional application of rodent models to study the reinforcing and addictive effects of nicotine may mask individual variability in the underlying motivational mechanisms. Accounting for this variability could significantly enhance the predictive validity of translational research.

Electronic cigarettes for smoking cessation

BACKGROUND

Electronic cigarettes (ECs) are handheld electronic vaping devices which produce an aerosol by heating an e-liquid. People who smoke, healthcare providers and regulators want to know if ECs can help people quit smoking, and if they are safe to use for this purpose. This is a review update conducted as part of a living systematic review.

OBJECTIVES

To examine the safety, tolerability and effectiveness of using electronic cigarettes (ECs) to help people who smoke tobacco achieve long-term smoking abstinence, in comparison to non-nicotine EC, other smoking cessation treatments and no treatment.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Tobacco Addiction Group's Specialized Register to 1 February 2023, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, Embase, and PsycINFO to 1 July 2023, and reference-checked and contacted study authors.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included trials in which people who smoke were randomized to an EC or control condition. We also included uncontrolled intervention studies in which all participants received an EC intervention as these studies have the potential to provide further information on harms and longer-term use. Studies had to report an eligible outcome.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We followed standard Cochrane methods for screening and data extraction. Critical outcomes were abstinence from smoking after at least six months, adverse events (AEs), and serious adverse events (SAEs). We used a fixed-effect Mantel-Haenszel model to calculate risk ratios (RRs) with a 95% confidence interval (CI) for dichotomous outcomes. For continuous outcomes, we calculated mean differences. Where appropriate, we pooled data in pairwise and network meta-analyses (NMA).

MAIN RESULTS

We included 88 completed studies (10 new to this update), representing 27,235 participants, of which 47 were randomized controlled trials (RCTs). Of the included studies, we rated ten (all but one contributing to our main comparisons) at low risk of bias overall, 58 at high risk overall (including all non-randomized studies), and the remainder at unclear risk. There is high certainty that nicotine EC increases quit rates compared to nicotine replacement therapy (NRT) (RR 1.59, 95% CI 1.29 to 1.93; I2 = 0%; 7 studies, 2544 participants). In absolute terms, this might translate to an additional four quitters per 100 (95% CI 2 to 6 more). There is moderate-certainty evidence (limited by imprecision) that the rate of occurrence of AEs is similar between groups (RR 1.03, 95% CI 0.91 to 1.17; I2 = 0%; 5 studies, 2052 participants). SAEs were rare, and there is insufficient evidence to determine whether rates differ between groups due to very serious imprecision (RR 1.20, 95% CI 0.90 to 1.60; I2 = 32%; 6 studies, 2761 participants; low-certainty evidence). There is moderate-certainty evidence, limited by imprecision, that nicotine EC increases quit rates compared to non-nicotine EC (RR 1.46, 95% CI 1.09 to 1.96; I2 = 4%; 6 studies, 1613 participants). In absolute terms, this might lead to an additional three quitters per 100 (95% CI 1 to 7 more). There is moderate-certainty evidence of no difference in the rate of AEs between these groups (RR 1.01, 95% CI 0.91 to 1.11; I2 = 0%; 5 studies, 1840 participants). There is insufficient evidence to determine whether rates of SAEs differ between groups, due to very serious imprecision (RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.56 to 1.79; I2 = 0%; 9 studies, 1412 participants; low-certainty evidence). Due to issues with risk of bias, there is low-certainty evidence that, compared to behavioural support only/no support, quit rates may be higher for participants randomized to nicotine EC (RR 1.88, 95% CI 1.56 to 2.25; I2 = 0%; 9 studies, 5024 participants). In absolute terms, this represents an additional four quitters per 100 (95% CI 2 to 5 more). There was some evidence that (non-serious) AEs may be more common in people randomized to nicotine EC (RR 1.22, 95% CI 1.12 to 1.32; I2 = 41%, low-certainty evidence; 4 studies, 765 participants) and, again, insufficient evidence to determine whether rates of SAEs differed between groups (RR 0.89, 95% CI 0.59 to 1.34; I2 = 23%; 10 studies, 3263 participants; very low-certainty evidence). Results from the NMA were consistent with those from pairwise meta-analyses for all critical outcomes, and there was no indication of inconsistency within the networks. Data from non-randomized studies were consistent with RCT data. The most commonly reported AEs were throat/mouth irritation, headache, cough, and nausea, which tended to dissipate with continued EC use. Very few studies reported data on other outcomes or comparisons, hence, evidence for these is limited, with CIs often encompassing both clinically significant harm and benefit.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

There is high-certainty evidence that ECs with nicotine increase quit rates compared to NRT and moderate-certainty evidence that they increase quit rates compared to ECs without nicotine. Evidence comparing nicotine EC with usual care/no treatment also suggests benefit, but is less certain due to risk of bias inherent in the study design. Confidence intervals were for the most part wide for data on AEs, SAEs and other safety markers, with no difference in AEs between nicotine and non-nicotine ECs nor between nicotine ECs and NRT. Overall incidence of SAEs was low across all study arms. We did not detect evidence of serious harm from nicotine EC, but the longest follow-up was two years and the number of studies was small. The main limitation of the evidence base remains imprecision due to the small number of RCTs, often with low event rates. Further RCTs are underway. To ensure the review continues to provide up-to-date information to decision-makers, this review is a living systematic review. We run searches monthly, with the review updated when relevant new evidence becomes available. Please refer to the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews for the review's current status.

Effect of very low nicotine content cigarettes on alcohol drinking and smoking among adult smokers who are at-risk alcohol drinkers

Alcohol and tobacco use are interrelated. This study examined response to very low nicotine content (VLNC) and moderate nicotine content (MNC) cigarettes by problematic drinking. We utilized a double-blind, randomized, within-subjects crossover design of VLNC and MNC cigarettes in two groups of adult cigarette smokers: with at-risk drinking (ARD; n = 23) and without ARD (n = 24). Participants smoked only their assigned experimental cigarette in their home environment for 7 days, and completed laboratory visits, including ad libitum smoking of the assigned experimental cigarette, at the beginning and end of each experimental week. Participants smoked their usual cigarettes for 7 days between conditions. Participants provided daily reports of alcohol and cigarette consumption. Current Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders-5th edition (DSM-5) alcohol use disorder (AUD) was assessed at baseline and the end of each experimental week. Compliance with smoking of experimental cigarettes was good. Adjusting for baseline drinking, there was no significant effect of experimental cigarette or ARD group on drinks per day or alcohol urges. There was no effect of experimental cigarette or ARD group on cigarettes per day, or on any puff topography outcome or postsmoking exhaled carbon monoxide during laboratory smoking. No participant had a change in AUD status or AUD severity. After 7 days of exposure to VLNC cigarettes, adult cigarette smokers with ARD did not show compensatory drinking or compensatory smoking behavior. A future policy change in the United States to reduce nicotine content in cigarettes may not produce unintended compensatory drinking or smoking among this vulnerable and prevalent population of smokers. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2023 APA, all rights reserved).

Non-nicotine constituents in cigarette smoke extract enhance nicotine addiction through monoamine oxidase A inhibition

Tobacco addiction has been largely attributed to nicotine, a component in tobacco leaves and smoke. However, extensive evidence suggests that some non-nicotine components of smoke should not be overlooked when considering tobacco dependence. Yet, their individual effect and synergistic effect on nicotine reinforcement remain poorly understood. The study herein focused on the role of non-nicotine constituents in promoting the effects of nicotine and their independent reinforcing effects. Denicotinized cigarettes were prepared by chemical extracting of cut tobacco, and the cigarette smoke extracts (CSE, used as a proxy for non-nicotine ingredients) were obtained by machine-smoking the cigarettes and DMSO extraction. The compositions of harmful components, nicotine, and other minor alkaloids in both cut tobacco and the CSE of experimental denicotinized cigarettes were examined by GC-MS, and compared with 3R4F reference cigarettes. individually and in synergy with nicotine were determined by conditioned place preference (CPP), dopamine (DA) level detection, the open field test (OFT), and the elevated plus maze (EPM). Finally, the potential enhancement mechanism of non-nicotinic constituents was investigated by nicotine metabolism and monoamine oxidase A (MAOA) activity inhibition in the striatum of mice and human recombinant MAOA. Thenicotine content in smoke from the experimental denicotinized cigarettes (under ISO machine-smoking conditions) was reduced by 95.1% and retained most minor alkaloids, relative to the 3R4F reference cigarettes. It was found that non-nicotine constituents increased acute locomotor activities. This was especially pronounced for DA levels in NAc and CPP scores, decreased the time in center zone. There were no differences in these metrics with DNC group when compared to the NS group. Non-nicotine constituents alone did not show reinforcing effects in CPP or striatum DA levels in mice. However, in the presence of nicotine, non-nicotine constituents further increased the reinforcing effects. Furthermore, non-nicotine constituents may enhance nicotine's reinforcing effects by inhibiting striatum MAOA activity rather than affecting nicotine metabolism or total striatum DA content in mice. These findings expand our knowledge of the effect on smoking reinforcement of non-nicotine constituents found in tobacco products.

Electronic cigarettes for smoking cessation

BACKGROUND

Electronic cigarettes (ECs) are handheld electronic vaping devices which produce an aerosol by heating an e-liquid. Some people who smoke use ECs to stop or reduce smoking, although some organizations, advocacy groups and policymakers have discouraged this, citing lack of evidence of efficacy and safety. People who smoke, healthcare providers and regulators want to know if ECs can help people quit smoking, and if they are safe to use for this purpose. This is a review update conducted as part of a living systematic review.

OBJECTIVES

To examine the effectiveness, tolerability, and safety of using electronic cigarettes (ECs) to help people who smoke tobacco achieve long-term smoking abstinence.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Tobacco Addiction Group's Specialized Register, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, Embase, and PsycINFO to 1 July 2022, and reference-checked and contacted study authors.  SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and randomized cross-over trials, in which people who smoke were randomized to an EC or control condition. We also included uncontrolled intervention studies in which all participants received an EC intervention. Studies had to report abstinence from cigarettes at six months or longer or data on safety markers at one week or longer, or both.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We followed standard Cochrane methods for screening and data extraction. Our primary outcome measures were abstinence from smoking after at least six months follow-up, adverse events (AEs), and serious adverse events (SAEs). Secondary outcomes included the proportion of people still using study product (EC or pharmacotherapy) at six or more months after randomization or starting EC use, changes in carbon monoxide (CO), blood pressure (BP), heart rate, arterial oxygen saturation, lung function, and levels of carcinogens or toxicants, or both. We used a fixed-effect Mantel-Haenszel model to calculate risk ratios (RRs) with a 95% confidence interval (CI) for dichotomous outcomes. For continuous outcomes, we calculated mean differences. Where appropriate, we pooled data in meta-analyses.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 78 completed studies, representing 22,052 participants, of which 40 were RCTs. Seventeen of the 78 included studies were new to this review update. Of the included studies, we rated ten (all but one contributing to our main comparisons) at low risk of bias overall, 50 at high risk overall (including all non-randomized studies), and the remainder at unclear risk. There was high certainty that quit rates were higher in people randomized to nicotine EC than in those randomized to nicotine replacement therapy (NRT) (RR 1.63, 95% CI 1.30 to 2.04; I2 = 10%; 6 studies, 2378 participants). In absolute terms, this might translate to an additional four quitters per 100 (95% CI 2 to 6). There was moderate-certainty evidence (limited by imprecision) that the rate of occurrence of AEs was similar between groups (RR 1.02, 95% CI 0.88 to 1.19; I2 = 0%; 4 studies, 1702 participants). SAEs were rare, but there was insufficient evidence to determine whether rates differed between groups due to very serious imprecision (RR 1.12, 95% CI 0.82 to 1.52; I2 = 34%; 5 studies, 2411 participants). There was moderate-certainty evidence, limited by imprecision, that quit rates were higher in people randomized to nicotine EC than to non-nicotine EC (RR 1.94, 95% CI 1.21 to 3.13; I2 = 0%; 5 studies, 1447 participants). In absolute terms, this might lead to an additional seven quitters per 100 (95% CI 2 to 16). There was moderate-certainty evidence of no difference in the rate of AEs between these groups (RR 1.01, 95% CI 0.91 to 1.11; I2 = 0%; 5 studies, 1840 participants). There was insufficient evidence to determine whether rates of SAEs differed between groups, due to very serious imprecision (RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.56 to 1.79; I2 = 0%; 8 studies, 1272 participants). Compared to behavioural support only/no support, quit rates were higher for participants randomized to nicotine EC (RR 2.66, 95% CI 1.52 to 4.65; I2 = 0%; 7 studies, 3126 participants). In absolute terms, this represents an additional two quitters per 100 (95% CI 1 to 3). However, this finding was of very low certainty, due to issues with imprecision and risk of bias. There was some evidence that (non-serious) AEs were more common in people randomized to nicotine EC (RR 1.22, 95% CI 1.12 to 1.32; I2 = 41%, low certainty; 4 studies, 765 participants) and, again, insufficient evidence to determine whether rates of SAEs differed between groups (RR 1.03, 95% CI 0.54 to 1.97; I2 = 38%; 9 studies, 1993 participants).  Data from non-randomized studies were consistent with RCT data. The most commonly reported AEs were throat/mouth irritation, headache, cough, and nausea, which tended to dissipate with continued EC use. Very few studies reported data on other outcomes or comparisons, hence evidence for these is limited, with CIs often encompassing clinically significant harm and benefit.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

There is high-certainty evidence that ECs with nicotine increase quit rates compared to NRT and moderate-certainty evidence that they increase quit rates compared to ECs without nicotine. Evidence comparing nicotine EC with usual care/no treatment also suggests benefit, but is less certain. More studies are needed to confirm the effect size. Confidence intervals were for the most part wide for data on AEs, SAEs and other safety markers, with no difference in AEs between nicotine and non-nicotine ECs nor between nicotine ECs and NRT. Overall incidence of SAEs was low across all study arms. We did not detect evidence of serious harm from nicotine EC, but longest follow-up was two years and the number of studies was small. The main limitation of the evidence base remains imprecision due to the small number of RCTs, often with low event rates, but further RCTs are underway. To ensure the review continues to provide up-to-date information to decision-makers, this review is a living systematic review. We run searches monthly, with the review updated when relevant new evidence becomes available. Please refer to the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews for the review's current status.

A review of the evidence on cigarettes with reduced addictiveness potential

BACKGROUND

In May 2018, the Secretariat for the World Health Organization Framework Convention on Tobacco Control convened a meeting to discuss the potential for reducing the addictiveness of tobacco products. A central focus was to review research findings on the behavioral effects of reducing the addictiveness of cigarettes.

METHODS

This manuscript reports the results of a review of the behavioral science literature, updated through April 2021, with special attention to both the potential benefits and unintended consequences of reducing nicotine in cigarettes.

RESULTS

Available evidence suggests that reducing nicotine content in cigarettes to very low levels could benefit public health in three primary ways, by 1) decreasing uptake of regular smoking, 2) decreasing the amount people smoke, and 3) increasing the likelihood of smoking cessation. Current evidence also suggests that reducing nicotine in cigarettes may produce similar benefits across many important subpopulations of people who smoke, including those with psychiatric comorbidities, those who use other substances, those with low socioeconomic status, young people, people who smoke infrequently and people who prefer menthol cigarettes. Cigarette nicotine reduction could also lead to some undesirable outcomes, such as experiencing withdrawal, product manipulation, an illicit market, and harm misperceptions; strategies that may mitigate each are discussed.

CONCLUSION

Overall, behavioral research suggests product standards that limit the nicotine content of combusted tobacco products could render cigarettes and similar products less addictive. The availability of legal, non-combusted products that effectively substitute for cigarettes and the dissemination of public health campaigns that clarify misperceptions about the relationship between nicotine, tobacco and disease may facilitate the extent to which a nicotine reduction policy reduces smoking.

Electronic cigarettes for smoking cessation

BACKGROUND

Electronic cigarettes (ECs) are handheld electronic vaping devices which produce an aerosol formed by heating an e-liquid. Some people who smoke use ECs to stop or reduce smoking, but some organizations, advocacy groups and policymakers have discouraged this, citing lack of evidence of efficacy and safety. People who smoke, healthcare providers and regulators want to know if ECs can help people quit and if they are safe to use for this purpose. This is an update conducted as part of a living systematic review.

OBJECTIVES

To examine the effectiveness, tolerability, and safety of using electronic cigarettes (ECs) to help people who smoke tobacco achieve long-term smoking abstinence.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Tobacco Addiction Group's Specialized Register, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, Embase, and PsycINFO to 1 May 2021, and reference-checked and contacted study authors. We screened abstracts from the Society for Research on Nicotine and Tobacco (SRNT) 2021 Annual Meeting.   SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and randomized cross-over trials, in which people who smoke were randomized to an EC or control condition. We also included uncontrolled intervention studies in which all participants received an EC intervention. Studies had to report abstinence from cigarettes at six months or longer or data on safety markers at one week or longer, or both.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We followed standard Cochrane methods for screening and data extraction. Our primary outcome measures were abstinence from smoking after at least six months follow-up, adverse events (AEs), and serious adverse events (SAEs). Secondary outcomes included the proportion of people still using study product (EC or pharmacotherapy) at six or more months after randomization or starting EC use, changes in carbon monoxide (CO), blood pressure (BP), heart rate, arterial oxygen saturation, lung function, and levels of carcinogens or toxicants or both. We used a fixed-effect Mantel-Haenszel model to calculate risk ratios (RRs) with a 95% confidence interval (CI) for dichotomous outcomes. For continuous outcomes, we calculated mean differences. Where appropriate, we pooled data in meta-analyses.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 61 completed studies, representing 16,759 participants, of which 34 were RCTs. Five of the 61 included studies were new to this review update. Of the included studies, we rated seven (all contributing to our main comparisons) at low risk of bias overall, 42 at high risk overall (including all non-randomized studies), and the remainder at unclear risk. There was moderate-certainty evidence, limited by imprecision, that quit rates were higher in people randomized to nicotine EC than in those randomized to nicotine replacement therapy (NRT) (risk ratio (RR) 1.53, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.21 to 1.93; I2 = 0%; 4 studies, 1924 participants). In absolute terms, this might translate to an additional three quitters per 100 (95% CI 1 to 6). There was low-certainty evidence (limited by very serious imprecision) that the rate of occurrence of AEs was similar (RR 0.98, 95% CI 0.80 to 1.19; I2 = 0%; 2 studies, 485 participants). SAEs were rare, but there was insufficient evidence to determine whether rates differed between groups due to very serious imprecision (RR 1.30, 95% CI 0.89 to 1.90: I2 = 0; 4 studies, 1424 participants). There was moderate-certainty evidence, again limited by imprecision, that quit rates were higher in people randomized to nicotine EC than to non-nicotine EC (RR 1.94, 95% CI 1.21 to 3.13; I2 = 0%; 5 studies, 1447 participants). In absolute terms, this might lead to an additional seven quitters per 100 (95% CI 2 to 16). There was moderate-certainty evidence of no difference in the rate of AEs between these groups (RR 1.01, 95% CI 0.91 to 1.11; I2 = 0%; 3 studies, 601 participants). There was insufficient evidence to determine whether rates of SAEs differed between groups, due to very serious imprecision (RR 1.06, 95% CI 0.47 to 2.38; I2 = 0; 5 studies, 792 participants). Compared to behavioural support only/no support, quit rates were higher for participants randomized to nicotine EC (RR 2.61, 95% CI 1.44 to 4.74; I2 = 0%; 6 studies, 2886 participants). In absolute terms this represents an additional six quitters per 100 (95% CI 2 to 15). However, this finding was of very low certainty, due to issues with imprecision and risk of bias. There was some evidence that non-serious AEs were more common in people randomized to nicotine EC (RR 1.22, 95% CI 1.12 to 1.32; I2 = 41%, low certainty; 4 studies, 765 participants), and again, insufficient evidence to determine whether rates of SAEs differed between groups (RR 1.51, 95% CI 0.70 to 3.24; I2 = 0%; 7 studies, 1303 participants).  Data from non-randomized studies were consistent with RCT data. The most commonly reported AEs were throat/mouth irritation, headache, cough, and nausea, which tended to dissipate with continued use. Very few studies reported data on other outcomes or comparisons, hence evidence for these is limited, with CIs often encompassing clinically significant harm and benefit.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

There is moderate-certainty evidence that ECs with nicotine increase quit rates compared to NRT and compared to ECs without nicotine. Evidence comparing nicotine EC with usual care/no treatment also suggests benefit, but is less certain. More studies are needed to confirm the effect size. Confidence intervals were for the most part wide for data on AEs, SAEs and other safety markers, with no difference in AEs between nicotine and non-nicotine ECs. Overall incidence of SAEs was low across all study arms. We did not detect  evidence of harm from nicotine EC, but longest follow-up was two years and the  number of studies was small. The main limitation of the evidence base remains imprecision due to the small number of RCTs, often with low event rates, but further RCTs are underway. To ensure the review continues to provide up-to-date information to decision-makers, this review is now a living systematic review. We run searches monthly, with the review updated when relevant new evidence becomes available. Please refer to the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews for the review's current status.

Responses to Gradual and Immediate Reduction of Nicotine in Cigarettes in Young Versus Older Adult Smokers

INTRODUCTION

As the FDA works to determine whether a nicotine reduction policy would benefit public health, one key question is whether to mandate an immediate or gradual reduction in nicotine levels in cigarettes. The aim of this study was to determine whether the effects of gradual versus immediate nicotine reduction on cigarettes per day (CPD), total nicotine equivalents, and subjective responses differed in younger adults versus older adults.

METHODS

Using data from a recent randomized trial conducted in the United States (N = 1250) that switched smokers over a 20-week period to very low nicotine content (VLNC) cigarettes either immediately, gradually (via monthly reductions in nicotine content), or not at all (control condition, normal nicotine content research cigarette), we analyzed the moderating effect of age (age 18-24 or 25+).

RESULTS

For both age groups, CPD in the immediate condition was significantly lower relative to gradual condition (estimated mean difference of 6.3 CPD in young adults, 5.2 CPD in older adults; p's < .05). Younger and older adults in the immediate and gradual reduction conditions had lower total nicotine equivalents at Week 20 (all p's < .05) than those in the control condition; age group did not moderate this effect. Positive subjective responses to cigarettes were lower among young adults relative to older adults in the immediate condition.

CONCLUSIONS

These results indicate that an immediate reduction in nicotine would result in beneficial effects in both young and older adults. Young adults show less positive subjective effects of smoking following switching to VLNC cigarettes relative to older adults.

IMPLICATIONS

As researchers work to understand how a potential reduced-nicotine product standard for cigarettes may affect public health, one question is whether nicotine should be reduced immediately or gradually. This study demonstrates that both young and older adults who were switched immediately to the lowest content of nicotine smoked fewer CPD and had lower nicotine intake than those in the gradual condition. Furthermore, young adults appear to show lower positive subjective effects following switching to VLNC cigarettes relative to older adults. This is consistent with previous work demonstrating that young people appear to show lower abuse liability for VLNC cigarettes.

Regulatory approaches and implementation of minimally addictive combusted products

INTRODUCTION

A joint meeting was held by the World Health Organization (WHO) and the Convention Secretariat of the WHO Framework Convention on Tobacco Control to examine the potential effects of a regulatory policy to reduce nicotine in cigarettes to minimally addictive levels. This paper reviews the feasibility of and approaches to implementing a nicotine product standard.

METHODS

Prior WHO reports on this topic were consulted and a systematic review of the scientific literature was conducted. The paper was reviewed by the participants at the aforementioned meeting and their feedback was incorporated.

RESULTS

The nicotine dose most likely to consistently reduce smoking behavior and dependence is < 0.4 mg nicotine/g tobacco. An immediate rather than a gradual nicotine reduction approach appears to be more beneficial. Smokers are likely to seek nicotine from alternate sources (e.g., nicotine replacement therapies, e-cigarettes) or potentially, the illegal market. As such, the availability of alternative products, as well as strong policies against illegal markets, can potentially mitigate unintended consequences. An effective reduced nicotine regulation must be imbedded in a comprehensive and strong tobacco control program that includes public education and surveillance. Barriers and challenges to implementing a nicotine product standard exist, particularly in low-capacity countries.

CONCLUSION

Not all countries will have the capacity to implement a regulation to reduce nicotine in cigarettes (and preferably other combusted tobacco products) to minimally addictive levels. However, for the countries that choose to implement it, such a policy could potentially dramatically reduce the burden of tobacco use.

Electronic cigarettes for smoking cessation

BACKGROUND

Electronic cigarettes (ECs) are handheld electronic vaping devices which produce an aerosol formed by heating an e-liquid. Some people who smoke use ECs to stop or reduce smoking, but some organizations, advocacy groups and policymakers have discouraged this, citing lack of evidence of efficacy and safety. People who smoke, healthcare providers and regulators want to know if ECs can help people quit and if they are safe to use for this purpose. This is an update of a review first published in 2014.

OBJECTIVES

To examine the effectiveness, tolerability, and safety of using electronic cigarettes (ECs) to help people who smoke achieve long-term smoking abstinence.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Tobacco Addiction Group's Specialized Register, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, Embase, and PsycINFO to 1 February 2021, together with reference-checking and contact with study authors.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and randomized cross-over trials in which people who smoke were randomized to an EC or control condition. We also included uncontrolled intervention studies in which all participants received an EC intervention. To be included, studies had to report abstinence from cigarettes at six months or longer and/or data on adverse events (AEs) or other markers of safety at one week or longer.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We followed standard Cochrane methods for screening and data extraction. Our primary outcome measures were abstinence from smoking after at least six months follow-up, adverse events (AEs), and serious adverse events (SAEs). Secondary outcomes included changes in carbon monoxide, blood pressure, heart rate, blood oxygen saturation, lung function, and levels of known carcinogens/toxicants. We used a fixed-effect Mantel-Haenszel model to calculate the risk ratio (RR) with a 95% confidence interval (CI) for dichotomous outcomes. For continuous outcomes, we calculated mean differences. Where appropriate, we pooled data from these studies in meta-analyses.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 56 completed studies, representing 12,804 participants, of which 29 were RCTs. Six of the 56 included studies were new to this review update. Of the included studies, we rated five (all contributing to our main comparisons) at low risk of bias overall, 41 at high risk overall (including the 25 non-randomized studies), and the remainder at unclear risk. There was moderate-certainty evidence, limited by imprecision, that quit rates were higher in people randomized to nicotine EC than in those randomized to nicotine replacement therapy (NRT) (risk ratio (RR) 1.69, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.25 to 2.27; I2 = 0%; 3 studies, 1498 participants). In absolute terms, this might translate to an additional four successful quitters per 100 (95% CI 2 to 8). There was low-certainty evidence (limited by very serious imprecision) that the rate of occurrence of AEs was similar) (RR 0.98, 95% CI 0.80 to 1.19; I2 = 0%; 2 studies, 485 participants). SAEs occurred rarely, with no evidence that their frequency differed between nicotine EC and NRT, but very serious imprecision led to low certainty in this finding (RR 1.37, 95% CI 0.77 to 2.41: I2 = n/a; 2 studies, 727 participants). There was moderate-certainty evidence, again limited by imprecision, that quit rates were higher in people randomized to nicotine EC than to non-nicotine EC (RR 1.70, 95% CI 1.03 to 2.81; I2 = 0%; 4 studies, 1057 participants). In absolute terms, this might again lead to an additional four successful quitters per 100 (95% CI 0 to 11). These trials mainly used older EC with relatively low nicotine delivery. There was moderate-certainty evidence of no difference in the rate of AEs between these groups (RR 1.01, 95% CI 0.91 to 1.11; I2 = 0%; 3 studies, 601 participants). There was insufficient evidence to determine whether rates of SAEs differed between groups, due to very serious imprecision (RR 0.60, 95% CI 0.15 to 2.44; I2 = n/a; 4 studies, 494 participants). Compared to behavioral support only/no support, quit rates were higher for participants randomized to nicotine EC (RR 2.70, 95% CI 1.39 to 5.26; I2 = 0%; 5 studies, 2561 participants). In absolute terms this represents an increase of seven per 100 (95% CI 2 to 17). However, this finding was of very low certainty, due to issues with imprecision and risk of bias. There was no evidence that the rate of SAEs differed, but some evidence that non-serious AEs were more common in people randomized to nicotine EC (AEs: RR 1.22, 95% CI 1.12 to 1.32; I2 = 41%, low certainty; 4 studies, 765 participants; SAEs: RR 1.17, 95% CI 0.33 to 4.09; I2 = 5%; 6 studies, 1011 participants, very low certainty). Data from non-randomized studies were consistent with RCT data. The most commonly reported AEs were throat/mouth irritation, headache, cough, and nausea, which tended to dissipate with continued use. Very few studies reported data on other outcomes or comparisons and hence evidence for these is limited, with confidence intervals often encompassing clinically significant harm and benefit.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

There is moderate-certainty evidence that ECs with nicotine increase quit rates compared to ECs without nicotine and compared to NRT. Evidence comparing nicotine EC with usual care/no treatment also suggests benefit, but is less certain. More studies are needed to confirm the size of effect, particularly when using modern EC products. Confidence intervals were for the most part wide for data on AEs, SAEs and other safety markers, though evidence indicated no difference in AEs between nicotine and non-nicotine ECs. Overall incidence of SAEs was low across all study arms. We did not detect any clear evidence of harm from nicotine EC, but longest follow-up was two years and the overall number of studies was small. The evidence is limited mainly by imprecision due to the small number of RCTs, often with low event rates. Further RCTs are underway. To ensure the review continues to provide up-to-date information, this review is now a living systematic review. We run searches monthly, with the review updated when relevant new evidence becomes available. Please refer to the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews for the review's current status.

Evaluation of Sex Differences in the Elasticity of Demand for Nicotine and Food in Rats

INTRODUCTION

Animal studies can inform policy regarding nicotine levels in tobacco products and e-cigarette solutions. Increasing the price of nicotine-containing products decreases their use, but it is unknown how the relationship between price and consumption is affected by both sex and nicotine dose.

METHODS

A behavioral economics procedure was used to determine the demand elasticity for nicotine in male and female rats. Demand elasticity describes the relationship between price and consumption. A high level of elasticity indicates that consumption is relatively sensitive to increases in price. The rats self-administered a low dose (0.01 mg/kg/inf) or a standard dose (0.03 mg/kg/inf) of nicotine for 9 days under a fixed-ratio (FR) 1 schedule. Then the price (FR schedule) of nicotine was increased, and a demand analysis was conducted. A similar study was conducted with palatable food pellets.

RESULTS

There were no sex differences in nicotine or food intake under the FR1 schedule. However, demand for 0.03 mg/kg/inf of nicotine was more elastic in females than males. Demand for 0.01 mg/kg/inf of nicotine and food was more elastic in males than females.

CONCLUSIONS

These findings indicate that there are no differences in nicotine and food intake between males and females when the price is low. When the price of nicotine or food is increased, males maintain their old level of intake longer than females when they have access to a standard dose of nicotine, and females maintain their intake longer when they have access to a low dose of nicotine or food.

IMPLICATIONS

This behavioral economics analysis indicates that there is no sex difference in nicotine intake when the price of nicotine is low. Increasing the price of nicotine decreases nicotine intake in a dose- and sex-specific manner. Males maintain their old level of intake longer when they have access to a standard dose of nicotine and females when they have access to a low dose. This has implications for tobacco regulatory policy. In a regulatory environment where only low nicotine-containing products are allowed, increasing the price of nicotine products may lead to a greater decrease in nicotine use in males than females.

Electronic cigarettes for smoking cessation

BACKGROUND

Electronic cigarettes (ECs) are handheld electronic vaping devices which produce an aerosol formed by heating an e-liquid. People who smoke report using ECs to stop or reduce smoking, but some organisations, advocacy groups and policymakers have discouraged this, citing lack of evidence of efficacy and safety. People who smoke, healthcare providers and regulators want to know if ECs can help people quit and if they are safe to use for this purpose. This review is an update of a review first published in 2014.

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the effect and safety of using electronic cigarettes (ECs) to help people who smoke achieve long-term smoking abstinence.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Tobacco Addiction Group's Specialized Register, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, Embase, and PsycINFO for relevant records to January 2020, together with reference-checking and contact with study authors.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and randomized cross-over trials in which people who smoke were randomized to an EC or control condition. We also included uncontrolled intervention studies in which all participants received an EC intervention. To be included, studies had to report abstinence from cigarettes at six months or longer and/or data on adverse events (AEs) or other markers of safety at one week or longer.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We followed standard Cochrane methods for screening and data extraction. Our primary outcome measures were abstinence from smoking after at least six months follow-up, AEs, and serious adverse events (SAEs). Secondary outcomes included changes in carbon monoxide, blood pressure, heart rate, blood oxygen saturation, lung function, and levels of known carcinogens/toxicants. We used a fixed-effect Mantel-Haenszel model to calculate the risk ratio (RR) with a 95% confidence interval (CI) for dichotomous outcomes. For continuous outcomes, we calculated mean differences. Where appropriate, we pooled data from these studies in meta-analyses.

MAIN RESULTS

We include 50 completed studies, representing 12,430 participants, of which 26 are RCTs. Thirty-five of the 50 included studies are new to this review update. Of the included studies, we rated four (all which contribute to our main comparisons) at low risk of bias overall, 37 at high risk overall (including the 24 non-randomized studies), and the remainder at unclear risk. There was moderate-certainty evidence, limited by imprecision, that quit rates were higher in people randomized to nicotine EC than in those randomized to nicotine replacement therapy (NRT) (risk ratio (RR) 1.69, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.25 to 2.27; I2 = 0%; 3 studies, 1498 participants). In absolute terms, this might translate to an additional four successful quitters per 100 (95% CI 2 to 8). There was low-certainty evidence (limited by very serious imprecision) of no difference in the rate of adverse events (AEs) (RR 0.98, 95% CI 0.80 to 1.19; I2 = 0%; 2 studies, 485 participants). SAEs occurred rarely, with no evidence that their frequency differed between nicotine EC and NRT, but very serious imprecision led to low certainty in this finding (RR 1.37, 95% CI 0.77 to 2.41: I2 = n/a; 2 studies, 727 participants). There was moderate-certainty evidence, again limited by imprecision, that quit rates were higher in people randomized to nicotine EC than to non-nicotine EC (RR 1.71, 95% CI 1.00 to 2.92; I2 = 0%; 3 studies, 802 participants). In absolute terms, this might again lead to an additional four successful quitters per 100 (95% CI 0 to 12). These trials used EC with relatively low nicotine delivery. There was low-certainty evidence, limited by very serious imprecision, that there was no difference in the rate of AEs between these groups (RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.73 to 1.36; I2 = 0%; 2 studies, 346 participants). There was insufficient evidence to determine whether rates of SAEs differed between groups, due to very serious imprecision (RR 0.25, 95% CI 0.03 to 2.19; I2 = n/a; 4 studies, 494 participants). Compared to behavioural support only/no support, quit rates were higher for participants randomized to nicotine EC (RR 2.50, 95% CI 1.24 to 5.04; I2 = 0%; 4 studies, 2312 participants). In absolute terms this represents an increase of six per 100 (95% CI 1 to 14). However, this finding was very low-certainty, due to issues with imprecision and risk of bias. There was no evidence that the rate of SAEs varied, but some evidence that non-serious AEs were more common in people randomized to nicotine EC (AEs: RR 1.17, 95% CI 1.04 to 1.31; I2 = 28%; 3 studies, 516 participants; SAEs: RR 1.33, 95% CI 0.25 to 6.96; I2 = 17%; 5 studies, 842 participants). Data from non-randomized studies were consistent with RCT data. The most commonly reported AEs were throat/mouth irritation, headache, cough, and nausea, which tended to dissipate over time with continued use. Very few studies reported data on other outcomes or comparisons and hence evidence for these is limited, with confidence intervals often encompassing clinically significant harm and benefit.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

There is moderate-certainty evidence that ECs with nicotine increase quit rates compared to ECs without nicotine and compared to NRT. Evidence comparing nicotine EC with usual care/no treatment also suggests benefit, but is less certain. More studies are needed to confirm the degree of effect, particularly when using modern EC products. Confidence intervals were wide for data on AEs, SAEs and other safety markers. Overall incidence of SAEs was low across all study arms. We did not detect any clear evidence of harm from nicotine EC, but longest follow-up was two years and the overall number of studies was small. The main limitation of the evidence base remains imprecision due to the small number of RCTs, often with low event rates. Further RCTs are underway. To ensure the review continues to provide up-to-date information for decision-makers, this review is now a living systematic review. We will run searches monthly from December 2020, with the review updated as relevant new evidence becomes available. Please refer to the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews for the review's current status.

Effects of electronic cigarette heating coil resistance and liquid nicotine concentration on user nicotine delivery, heart rate, subjective effects, puff topography, and liquid consumption

Electronic cigarette (ECIG) nicotine delivery and other effects can be influenced by device and/or liquid characteristics and user puffing behavior. One class of ECIGs includes "sub-ohm" devices that incorporate heating coils with resistance less than 1 ohm (Ω), lower than that observed in conventional devices (e.g., ≥1.5 Ω). Relative to conventional ECIGs that operate at ≤10 W, low-resistance coils can be used to increase device power (e.g., 40-300 W). However, little is known about the individual and combined effects of ECIG power, manipulated by coil resistance, and liquid nicotine concentration on ECIG acute effects. Experienced ECIG users (N = 32) completed 4 sessions that differed by ECIG power and coil resistance (40.5 W, 0.5 Ω or 13.5 W, 1.5 Ω) and liquid nicotine concentration (3 or 8 mg/ml). In each session, participants used a 4.5-V Kanger SUBOX ECIG in a 10-puff directed and 60-min ad libitum bout. Nicotine delivery, heart rate, subjective effects, puff topography, and liquid consumption were measured. Nicotine delivery was greatest in the 8mg/ml+0.5Ω condition and lowest in the 3mg/ml+1.5Ω condition. The greatest reduction in abstinence symptoms were observed in the 8mg/ml+0.5Ω condition, although the highest ratings for satisfaction and liking were reported in the 3mg/ml+0.5Ω condition. Use of ECIGs containing 3 mg/ml nicotine liquid resulted in longer and larger puffs and increased puff frequency, though high-power/low-resistance ECIGs resulted in greater consumption of ECIG liquid. ECIG device and liquid characteristics and user puff topography should be considered simultaneously when making regulatory decisions aimed at protecting public health. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2020 APA, all rights reserved).

Nicotine Self-Administration With Tobacco Flavor Additives in Male Rats

INTRODUCTION

Nicotine can robustly increase responding for conditioned reinforcers (CRs), stimuli that acquire reinforcing properties based on association with primary reinforcers. Menthol and licorice are tobacco flavoring agents also found in sweet foods (eg, candy and ice cream), making them putative CRs before they are consumed in tobacco. We sought to determine if intravenous self-administration (IVSA) of nicotine was enhanced by the inclusion of oral tobacco flavor CRs.

METHODS

Menthol (160 or 320 µM) or licorice root extract (0.1% or 1%) were established as CRs (paired with 20% sucrose) or "neutral" stimuli (paired with water) in separate groups. During subsequent IVSA tests, nicotine was delivered in conjunction with oral presentations of the CR.

RESULTS

In experiment 1, a menthol CR significantly shifted the peak nicotine dose from 15 µg/kg/infusion (Neutral group) to 3.25 µg/kg/infusion (CR group). In experiment 2, a menthol CR significantly increased operant licks for nicotine (3 µg/kg/infusion) relative to control groups. In experiment 3, both licorice and menthol CRs significantly increased operant licks for nicotine (7.5 µg/kg/infusion) relative to an "inactive" sipper. The licorice CR increased nicotine IVSA in proportion to the strength of the flavor, but both menthol concentrations increased nicotine IVSA to a similar extent.

CONCLUSION

Tobacco flavor additives with conditioned reinforcing properties promote acquisition of nicotine self-administration at low unit doses and may have robust impact on tobacco consumption when nicotine yield is low.

IMPLICATIONS

Tobacco flavor additives are found in rewarding foods (eg, ice cream) and gain palatability based on associations with primary rewards (eg, sugar) making them "conditioned reinforcers." Nicotine increases the motivation for flavor conditioned reinforcers and the present studies show that tobacco flavor additives can interact with nicotine to promote more nicotine self-administration. The interaction between flavors additives and nicotine may promote nicotine exposure and subsequently dependence.

Smoking Topography Characteristics During a 6-Week Trial of Very Low Nicotine Content Cigarettes in Smokers With Serious Mental Illness

INTRODUCTION

A nicotine-reduction policy could have major benefits for smokers with serious mental illness (SMI). However, potential unintended consequences, such as compensatory smoking, should be considered to ensure that such a policy does not negatively affect this population. The purpose of this secondary analysis was to examine the impact of smoking very low nicotine content (VLNC) cigarettes for 6 weeks on smoking topography characteristics, indicators of compensatory smoking, among smokers with SMI.

AIMS AND METHODS

After a baseline usual brand smoking phase, smokers with SMI (N = 58) were randomly assigned under double-blind conditions to receive either VLNC (0.4 mg nicotine per g tobacco) or normal nicotine content (NNC; 15.8 mg nicotine per g tobacco) research cigarettes for 6 weeks. During two study visits scheduled 6 weeks apart, participants smoked either their usual brand (baseline) or assigned study cigarettes (postrandomization) through a handheld smoking topography device. Univariate analysis of variance compared smoking topography indices with cigarette condition (VLNC vs. NNC) as the between-subjects factor with corresponding baseline topography results included as covariates.

RESULTS

At week 6, participants in the VLNC condition smoked fewer puffs per cigarette and had shorter interpuff intervals compared to participants in the NNC condition (ps < .05). There were no differences between research cigarette conditions at week 6 for cigarette volume, puff volume, puff duration, peak flow rate, or carbon monoxide boost.

CONCLUSIONS

Findings are consistent with acute VLNC cigarette topography studies and indicate that a nicotine-reduction policy is unlikely to lead to compensation among smokers with SMI.

IMPLICATIONS

Given the high smoking rates among people with SMI, understanding how a nicotine-reduction policy may affect this population is critically important. When considering the smoking topography results as a whole, smokers with SMI did not engage in compensatory smoking behavior when using VLNC cigarettes during a 6-week trial. Study findings suggest that compensatory smoking is not likely to occur among smokers with SMI if nicotine content is lowered to minimally addictive levels.

Increasing Quit Attempts by Transitioning to Very Low Nicotine Content Cigarettes Versus Reducing Number of Cigarettes Per Day: A Secondary Analysis of an Exploratory Randomized Trial

Introduction

The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has proposed reducing nicotine with very low nicotine content (VLNC) cigarettes. In contrast, reducing nicotine by reducing number of cigarettes per day (CPD) is common. Our prior findings demonstrate that VLNC cigarettes decreased dependence more and were more acceptable than reducing CPD. This secondary analysis explored which reduction strategy increased quit attempts (QA), self-efficacy, or intention to quit more.

Methods

This is a secondary analysis of 68 adult daily smokers not ready to quit randomized to smoke VLNC cigarettes versus reduce CPD over 5 weeks. All participants smoked study cigarettes with nicotine yield similar to most commercial cigarettes ad lib for 1 week (baseline). Participants were then randomized to gradually reduce to 70%, 35%, 15%, and 3% of baseline nicotine over 4 weeks by either (1) transitioning to lower nicotine VLNC cigarettes or (2) reducing the number of full nicotine CPD. All participants received nicotine patches to aid reduction. We assessed (1) QAs using nightly and weekly self-reports, (2) Velicer’s Self-Efficacy to Quit measure weekly, and (3) the Intention-to-Quit Ladder nightly.

Results

More CPD (41%) than VLNC (17%) participants made any QA (odds ratio = 3.4, 95% confidence interval = 1.1, 10.5). There was no difference in QAs ≥24 h. Self-efficacy increased for VLNC but not CPD participants (interaction: F = 3.7, p < .01). The condition by time interaction for intention-to-quit was not significant.

Conclusions

Reducing number of CPD increased QAs more than reducing nicotine via switching to VLNC cigarettes. The lack of difference in longer QAs suggests replication tests are needed.

Implications

Reducing the frequency of smoking behavior (ie, CPD) could be a more effective strategy to increase QAs than reducing the magnitude of nicotine in each cigarette (ie, VLNC) per se.

Randomized Trial of Low-Nicotine Cigarettes and Transdermal Nicotine

INTRODUCTION

A mandated reduction in the nicotine content of cigarettes may decrease smoking, but also increase demand for other nicotine products. The present study tested the impact of smoking cigarettes with very low nicotine content and concurrent use of a transdermal nicotine patch.

STUDY DESIGN

A balanced 2 × 2 factorial randomized clinical trial investigating the impact of cigarette nicotine content (double-blind, very low nicotine content versus normal nicotine content) and use of a transdermal nicotine patch (open label, patch versus no patch).

SETTING/PARTICIPANTS

Adult daily smokers (n=240) in the Pittsburgh, PA area.

INTERVENTION

Participants were provided with research cigarettes and transdermal nicotine patches (if assigned to patch condition) for 7 weeks. Cigarettes were Spectrum brand (National Institute on Drug Abuse) and either 15.8 mg nicotine/g tobacco (normal nicotine content) or 0.4 mg nicotine/g tobacco (very low nicotine content). In the 7th week, participants were monetarily incentivized to abstain from smoking.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Participants reported daily cigarette use throughout the trial and the primary outcome was average number of cigarettes smoked per day (study + nonstudy) during Week 6. Participants were recruited from 2015 to 2017 and data were analyzed between 2017 and 2018.

RESULTS

Assignment to very low nicotine content cigarettes and assignment to wear a nicotine patch both reduced the number of cigarettes smoked per day during Week 6 (p=0.001 and 0.04, respectively). However, assignment to the patch along with very low nicotine content cigarettes did not significantly reduce cigarette smoking compared with assignment to very low nicotine content cigarettes alone.

CONCLUSIONS

A mandated reduction in the nicotine content of cigarettes is likely to reduce the number of cigarettes smoked per day, but the added benefit of concurrent transdermal nicotine is unclear. Future studies should investigate whether alternative sources of noncombusted tobacco, such as e-cigarettes, enhance the effects of very low nicotine content cigarettes on smoking.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

This study is registered at www.clinicaltrials.gov NCT02301325.

Not all smokers appear to seek nicotine for the same reasons: implications for preclinical research in nicotine dependence

Tobacco use leads to 6 million deaths every year due to severe long-lasting diseases. The main component of tobacco, nicotine, is recognized as one of the most addictive drugs, making smoking cessation difficult, even when 70 percent of smokers wish to do so. Clinical and preclinical studies have demonstrated consistently that nicotine seeking is a complex behavior involving various psychopharmacological mechanisms. Evidence supports that the population of smokers is heterogeneous, particularly as regards the breadth of motives that determine the urge to smoke. Here, we review converging psychological, genetic and neurobiological data from clinical and preclinical studies supporting that the mechanisms controlling nicotine seeking may vary from individual to individual. It appears timely that basic neuroscience integrates this heterogeneity to refine our understanding of the neurobiology of nicotine seeking, as tremendous progress has been made in modeling the various psychopharmacological mechanisms driving nicotine seeking in rodents. For a better understanding of the mechanisms that drive nicotine seeking, we emphasize the need for individual-based research strategies in which nicotine seeking, and eventually treatment efficacy, are determined while taking into account individual variations in the mechanisms of nicotine seeking.

Nicotine effects on associative learning in human non-smokers

Tobacco smoking is the most common preventable cause of death in the US. Nicotine is considered the primary constituent responsible for tobacco addiction. Its paradoxically high abuse potential may reflect behavioral control by drug-associated stimuli, which appears to play a larger role for tobacco dependence than for other abused drugs. We tested a potential explanation, hypothesizing that nicotine enhances associative learning, the mechanism underlying the conditioning of drug-associated stimuli. Thirty-two non-smokers were exposed to transdermal nicotine (7 mg/24 h) and placebo in a double-blind cross-over study and tested with behavioral paradigms designed to isolate incidental stimulus-stimulus or stimulus-response learning. The stop signal task required speeded gender judgments of face stimuli. A tone signaled when to withhold the response. Unbeknownst to participants, some faces were always paired with stop trials. Nicotine enhanced the facilitation of stop-responses to these stimuli, and the slowing of go-responses when previously stop-associated stimuli were paired with go trials, indicating stronger associations between paired stimuli and the stop signal/stop response. Another task required feedback-based learning of associations between pairs of shape stimuli. Five pairs were made from either ten different stimuli, or from different combinations of two identical sets of five stimuli with correct associations depending on contextual information. Nicotine increased incorrect choices of stimuli that were associated in a different context, indicating stronger stimulus-stimulus associations at the expense of flexible context-adaptive behavior. The results indicate that nicotine can enhance incidental associative learning, a mechanism that may promote the formation of smoking-associated stimuli and cue-controlled drug-taking.

Effects of reduced nicotine content cigarettes on individual withdrawal symptoms over time and during abstinence

In the United States, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has initiated a public dialogue about reducing the nicotine content of cigarettes. A reduced-nicotine standard could increase withdrawal symptoms among current smokers. We examined the impact of switching smokers to cigarettes that varied in nicotine content on withdrawal symptoms over 6 weeks. A secondary analysis (N = 839) of a 10-site, double-blind clinical trial of nontreatment-seeking smokers was completed. Participants were instructed to smoke study cigarettes, containing 0.4 to 15.8 mg of nicotine/g of tobacco, for 6 weeks and were then abstinent overnight. Using latent growth curves, trajectories of individual withdrawal symptoms were compared between the reduced nicotine content (RNC) conditions and a normal nicotine content (NNC) condition. Path analyses compared symptoms after overnight abstinence. Relative to NNC cigarettes, participants smoking RNC cigarettes had increased anger/irritability/frustration and increased appetite/weight gain during the initial weeks, but the symptoms resolved by Week 6. Individuals who were biochemically verified as adherent with using only the 0.4 mg/g cigarettes had higher sadness levels (Cohen's d = .40) at Week 6 compared with the NNC condition, although symptoms were mild. After a post-Week 6 overnight abstinence challenge, some RNC conditions relative to NNC condition exhibited reduced withdrawal. Individuals who were biochemically confirmed as adherent to the lowest nicotine condition experienced only mild and transient symptom elevations. Thus, a reduced-nicotine standard for cigarettes produced a relatively mild and temporary increase in withdrawal among nontreatment-seeking smokers (ClinicalTrials.gov No. NCT01681875). (PsycINFO Database Record

Nicotine replacement therapy versus control for smoking cessation

BACKGROUND

Nicotine replacement therapy (NRT) aims to temporarily replace much of the nicotine from cigarettes to reduce motivation to smoke and nicotine withdrawal symptoms, thus easing the transition from cigarette smoking to complete abstinence.

OBJECTIVES

To determine the effectiveness and safety of nicotine replacement therapy (NRT), including gum, transdermal patch, intranasal spray and inhaled and oral preparations, for achieving long-term smoking cessation, compared to placebo or 'no NRT' interventions.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Tobacco Addiction Group trials register for papers mentioning 'NRT' or any type of nicotine replacement therapy in the title, abstract or keywords. Date of most recent search is July 2017.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomized trials in people motivated to quit which compared NRT to placebo or to no treatment. We excluded trials that did not report cessation rates, and those with follow-up of less than six months, except for those in pregnancy (where less than six months, these were excluded from the main analysis). We recorded adverse events from included and excluded studies that compared NRT with placebo. Studies comparing different types, durations, and doses of NRT, and studies comparing NRT to other pharmacotherapies, are covered in separate reviews.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Screening, data extraction and 'Risk of bias' assessment followed standard Cochrane methods. The main outcome measure was abstinence from smoking after at least six months of follow-up. We used the most rigorous definition of abstinence for each trial, and biochemically validated rates if available. We calculated the risk ratio (RR) for each study. Where appropriate, we performed meta-analysis using a Mantel-Haenszel fixed-effect model.

MAIN RESULTS

We identified 136 studies; 133 with 64,640 participants contributed to the primary comparison between any type of NRT and a placebo or non-NRT control group. The majority of studies were conducted in adults and had similar numbers of men and women. People enrolled in the studies typically smoked at least 15 cigarettes a day at the start of the studies. We judged the evidence to be of high quality; we judged most studies to be at high or unclear risk of bias but restricting the analysis to only those studies at low risk of bias did not significantly alter the result. The RR of abstinence for any form of NRT relative to control was 1.55 (95% confidence interval (CI) 1.49 to 1.61). The pooled RRs for each type were 1.49 (95% CI 1.40 to 1.60, 56 trials, 22,581 participants) for nicotine gum; 1.64 (95% CI 1.53 to 1.75, 51 trials, 25,754 participants) for nicotine patch; 1.52 (95% CI 1.32 to 1.74, 8 trials, 4439 participants) for oral tablets/lozenges; 1.90 (95% CI 1.36 to 2.67, 4 trials, 976 participants) for nicotine inhalator; and 2.02 (95% CI 1.49 to 2.73, 4 trials, 887 participants) for nicotine nasal spray. The effects were largely independent of the definition of abstinence, the intensity of additional support provided or the setting in which the NRT was offered. A subset of six trials conducted in pregnant women found a statistically significant benefit of NRT on abstinence close to the time of delivery (RR 1.32, 95% CI 1.04 to 1.69; 2129 participants); in the four trials that followed up participants post-partum the result was no longer statistically significant (RR 1.29, 95% CI 0.90 to 1.86; 1675 participants). Adverse events from using NRT were related to the type of product, and include skin irritation from patches and irritation to the inside of the mouth from gum and tablets. Attempts to quantitatively synthesize the incidence of various adverse effects were hindered by extensive variation in reporting the nature, timing and duration of symptoms. The odds ratio (OR) of chest pains or palpitations for any form of NRT relative to control was 1.88 (95% CI 1.37 to 2.57, 15 included and excluded trials, 11,074 participants). However, chest pains and palpitations were rare in both groups and serious adverse events were extremely rare.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

There is high-quality evidence that all of the licensed forms of NRT (gum, transdermal patch, nasal spray, inhalator and sublingual tablets/lozenges) can help people who make a quit attempt to increase their chances of successfully stopping smoking. NRTs increase the rate of quitting by 50% to 60%, regardless of setting, and further research is very unlikely to change our confidence in the estimate of the effect. The relative effectiveness of NRT appears to be largely independent of the intensity of additional support provided to the individual. Provision of more intense levels of support, although beneficial in facilitating the likelihood of quitting, is not essential to the success of NRT. NRT often causes minor irritation of the site through which it is administered, and in rare cases can cause non-ischaemic chest pain and palpitations.

Animal Research on Nicotine Reduction: Current Evidence and Research Gaps

A mandated reduction in the nicotine content of cigarettes may improve public health by reducing the prevalence of smoking. Animal self-administration research is an important complement to clinical research on nicotine reduction. It can fill research gaps that may be difficult to address with clinical research, guide clinical researchers about variables that are likely to be important in their own research, and provide policy makers with converging evidence between clinical and preclinical studies about the potential impact of a nicotine reduction policy. Convergence between clinical and preclinical research is important, given the ease with which clinical trial participants can access nonstudy tobacco products in the current marketplace. Herein, we review contributions of preclinical animal research, with a focus on rodent self-administration, to the science of nicotine reduction. Throughout this review, we highlight areas where clinical and preclinical research converge and areas where the two differ. Preclinical research has provided data on many important topics such as the threshold for nicotine reinforcement, the likelihood of compensation, moderators of the impact of nicotine reduction, the impact of environmental stimuli on nicotine reduction, the impact of nonnicotine cigarette smoke constituents on nicotine reduction, and the impact of nicotine reduction on vulnerable populations. Special attention is paid to current research gaps including the dramatic rise in alternative tobacco products, including electronic nicotine delivery systems (ie, e-cigarettes). The evidence reviewed here will be critical for policy makers as well as clinical researchers interested in nicotine reduction.

IMPLICATIONS

This review will provide policy makers and clinical researchers interested in nicotine reduction with an overview of the preclinical animal research conducted on nicotine reduction and the regulatory implications of that research. The review also highlights the utility of preclinical research for research questions related to nicotine reduction.

The Relationships of Expectancies With E-cigarette Use Among Hospitalized Smokers: A Prospective Longitudinal Study

Background

Expectancies demonstrate cross-sectional associations with e-cigarette use, but the prospective relationships between expectancies and e-cigarette use are unknown. This study examined the longitudinal associations of expectancies with e-cigarette use among hospitalized tobacco cigarette smokers.

Methods

E-cigarette expectancies (e-cigarette-specific Brief Smoking Consequences Questionnaire-Adult [BSCQ-A]), tobacco cigarette expectancies (tobacco-specific BSCQ-A), and number of days used e-cigarettes in the past 30 days were assessed at baseline hospitalization, 6-months post-hospitalization, and 12-months post-hospitalization among 978 hospitalized tobacco cigarette smokers. Expectancy difference scores (e-cigarette-specific expectancies minus tobacco-specific expectancies) were computed for each of the 10 BSCQ-A scales. Cross-lagged panel models tested the relationships between expectancy difference scores and number of days used e-cigarettes in the past 30 days for each of the 10 BSCQ-A scales.

Results

Though some models revealed partial associations between expectancies and e-cigarette use, only one yielded results consistent with hypotheses. Greater e-cigarette use at baseline predicted greater expectancies that e-cigarettes taste pleasant as compared to tobacco cigarettes at 6 months, which then predicted greater e-cigarette use at 12 months. To a lesser degree greater expectancies that e-cigarettes taste pleasant as compared to tobacco cigarettes at baseline predicted greater e-cigarette use at 6 months, which then predicted greater expectancies that e-cigarettes taste pleasant as compared to tobacco cigarettes at 12 months.

Conclusions

Expectancies that e-cigarettes provide similar or more pleasant taste sensations as compared to tobacco cigarettes may be both a cause and consequence of e-cigarette use. Focusing on the taste experience may prove most effective in modifying e-cigarette use behavior.

Implications

The current study offers the first longitudinal examination of expectancies and e-cigarette use. Results suggest expectancies that e-cigarettes provide similar or more pleasant taste sensations relative to tobacco cigarettes are both a cause and consequence of e-cigarette use. Efforts that focus on the e-cigarette taste experience may prove most effective in modifying e-cigarette use behavior.

Preliminary validity of the modified Cigarette Evaluation Questionnaire in predicting the reinforcing effects of cigarettes that vary in nicotine content

Validity studies evaluating self-report measures in relation to behavioral preference of cigarettes varying in nicotine content are needed. The current study examined the relationship between ratings on the modified Cigarette Evaluation Questionnaire (mCEQ) and the relative reinforcing effects of Spectrum research cigarettes (15.8, 5.2, 2.4, 0.4 mg per gram of tobacco). Data for this secondary analysis were obtained from a double-blind study (Higgins et al., 2017) evaluating the subjective and reinforcing effects of Spectrum cigarettes under acute smoking abstinence. Current smokers (N = 26) were recruited from three vulnerable smoking populations (economically disadvantaged women of reproductive age, opioid-maintained individuals, individuals with affective disorders). In Phase 1 (five sessions), the mCEQ (Satisfaction, Psychological Reward, Enjoyment of Respiratory Tract Sensations, Craving Reduction, Aversion subscales) was administered following ad lib smoking of Spectrum cigarettes and subscale differences scores were calculated by subtracting ratings of the 15.8 mg/g cigarette from ratings of the reduced nicotine content cigarettes. In Phase 2 (six sessions), participants completed six 2-dose concurrent choice tests. The relationship between mCEQ subscale difference scores from Phase 1 and nicotine dose choice from Phase 2 was examined using mixed-model repeated-measures analyses of variance. Higher Satisfaction and lower Aversion subscale difference scores were associated with choosing the 15.8 mg/g cigarette more than the 5.2, 2.4, and 0.4 mg/g cigarettes. Scores on the other mCEQ subscales were not associated with nicotine choice. These results provide support for validity of the mCEQ Satisfaction and Aversion subscales predicting the relative reinforcing effects and abuse liability of varying nicotine content cigarettes. (PsycINFO Database Record

Electronic cigarettes for smoking cessation

BACKGROUND

Electronic cigarettes (ECs) are electronic devices that heat a liquid into an aerosol for inhalation. The liquid usually comprises propylene glycol and glycerol, with or without nicotine and flavours, and stored in disposable or refillable cartridges or a reservoir. Since ECs appeared on the market in 2006 there has been a steady growth in sales. Smokers report using ECs to reduce risks of smoking, but some healthcare organizations, tobacco control advocacy groups and policy makers have been reluctant to encourage smokers to switch to ECs, citing lack of evidence of efficacy and safety. Smokers, healthcare providers and regulators are interested to know if these devices can help smokers quit and if they are safe to use for this purpose. This review is an update of a review first published in 2014.

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the safety and effect of using ECs to help people who smoke achieve long-term smoking abstinence.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Tobacco Addiction Group's Specialized Register, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, Embase, and PsycINFO for relevant records from 2004 to January 2016, together with reference checking and contact with study authors.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) in which current smokers (motivated or unmotivated to quit) were randomized to EC or a control condition, and which measured abstinence rates at six months or longer. As the field of EC research is new, we also included cohort follow-up studies with at least six months follow-up. We included randomized cross-over trials, RCTs and cohort follow-up studies that included at least one week of EC use for assessment of adverse events (AEs).

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We followed standard Cochrane methods for screening and data extraction. Our main outcome measure was abstinence from smoking after at least six months follow-up, and we used the most rigorous definition available (continuous, biochemically validated, longest follow-up). We used a fixed-effect Mantel-Haenszel model to calculate the risk ratio (RR) with a 95% confidence interval (CI) for each study, and where appropriate we pooled data from these studies in meta-analyses.

MAIN RESULTS

Our searches identified over 1700 records, from which we include 24 completed studies (three RCTs, two of which were eligible for our cessation meta-analysis, and 21 cohort studies). Eleven of these studies are new for this version of the review. We identified 27 ongoing studies. Two RCTs compared EC with placebo (non-nicotine) EC, with a combined sample size of 662 participants. One trial included minimal telephone support and one recruited smokers not intending to quit, and both used early EC models with low nicotine content and poor battery life. We judged the RCTs to be at low risk of bias, but under the GRADE system we rated the overall quality of the evidence for our outcomes as 'low' or 'very low', because of imprecision due to the small number of trials. A 'low' grade means that further research is very likely to have an important impact on our confidence in the estimate of effect and is likely to change the estimate. A 'very low' grade means we are very uncertain about the estimate. Participants using an EC were more likely to have abstained from smoking for at least six months compared with participants using placebo EC (RR 2.29, 95% CI 1.05 to 4.96; placebo 4% versus EC 9%; 2 studies; 662 participants. GRADE: low). The one study that compared EC to nicotine patch found no significant difference in six-month abstinence rates, but the confidence intervals do not rule out a clinically important difference (RR 1.26, 95% CI 0.68 to 2.34; 584 participants. GRADE: very low).Of the included studies, none reported serious adverse events considered related to EC use. The most frequently reported AEs were mouth and throat irritation, most commonly dissipating over time. One RCT provided data on the proportion of participants experiencing any adverse events. The proportion of participants in the study arms experiencing adverse events was similar (ECs vs placebo EC: RR 0.97, 95% CI 0.71 to 1.34 (298 participants); ECs vs patch: RR 0.99, 95% CI 0.81 to 1.22 (456 participants)). The second RCT reported no statistically significant difference in the frequency of AEs at three- or 12-month follow-up between the EC and placebo EC groups, and showed that in all groups the frequency of AEs (with the exception of throat irritation) decreased significantly over time.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

There is evidence from two trials that ECs help smokers to stop smoking in the long term compared with placebo ECs. However, the small number of trials, low event rates and wide confidence intervals around the estimates mean that our confidence in the result is rated 'low' by GRADE standards. The lack of difference between the effect of ECs compared with nicotine patches found in one trial is uncertain for similar reasons. None of the included studies (short- to mid-term, up to two years) detected serious adverse events considered possibly related to EC use. The most commonly reported adverse effects were irritation of the mouth and throat. The long-term safety of ECs is unknown. In this update, we found a further 15 ongoing RCTs which appear eligible for this review.

Smoking Topography Characteristics of Very Low Nicotine Content Cigarettes, With and Without Nicotine Replacement, in Smokers With Schizophrenia and Controls

INTRODUCTION

Reducing the nicotine content of cigarettes to a minimally addictive level has been proposed as a regulatory strategy for reducing tobacco dependence. However, smokers with schizophrenia (SS) may be prone to changing their smoking topography in efforts to compensate for the reduction in nicotine content. The aims of this study were to compare smoking topography characteristics of usual-brand and very low nicotine content (VLNC) cigarettes in SS and control smokers without psychiatric illness (CS), and to determine whether nicotine replacement reversed any changes in topography produced by VLNC cigarettes.

METHODS

Using a within-subjects, counter-balanced design, SS (n = 27) and CS (n = 23) smoked usual brand cigarettes, VLNC cigarettes while wearing placebo patches (VLNC + PLA), or VLNC cigarettes while wearing transdermal nicotine patches totaling 42mg (VLNC + NIC) during 5-hour ad libitum smoking sessions. Cigarettes were smoked through topography measurement devices.

RESULTS

Across conditions, SS smoked more puffs per session and per cigarette, had higher cigarette volumes, and had shorter inter-puff intervals than CS (Ps < .01). During VLNC cigarette sessions, puff duration increased and time between puffs decreased, but participants smoked fewer puffs, resulting in a net decrease in cigarette and total session volume (Ps < .001). There were no significant interactions between group and condition.

CONCLUSIONS

These findings indicate that acute use of VLNC cigarettes does not increase intensity of smoking in SS, and support the feasibility of a nicotine reduction policy.

IMPLICATIONS

Reducing the nicotine in cigarettes to a minimally addictive level has been proposed as a means of reducing tobacco dependence. However, smokers, particularly those with schizophrenia (SS) may alter their puffing in an attempt to extract more nicotine from VLNC cigarettes. This study compared smoking topography of usual brand versus VLNC cigarettes, combined with placebo or transdermal nicotine patches, in SS and controls. Although some changes in topography were indicative of compensatory smoking, total puffs and total cigarette volume were reduced with VLNC cigarettes, indicating that acute VLNC cigarette use does not increase smoking in SS.

Pharmacological, sensorimotor, and expectancy effects on tobacco withdrawal: a preliminary study

OBJECTIVE

Research designs for parsing the mechanisms underlying tobacco withdrawal are scant. This study introduced a novel research design that simultaneously manipulated three tobacco withdrawal mechanisms: pharmacological (nicotine dissipation), sensorimotor (elimination of the smoking ritual), and expectancy (activation of beliefs regarding the effects of nicotine deprivation), permitting examination of the effects of each mechanism while holding the other two mechanisms constant.

METHODS

Following overnight abstinence, 32 regular cigarette smokers were randomized in a 2 (expectancy: told patch contains nicotine versus told placebo patch) × 2 (drug: receive 21-mg transdermal nicotine patch versus receive placebo patch) × 2 (sensorimotor: smoke very low nicotine content cigarettes versus no smoking) full factorial between-subjects design. Participants repeatedly completed measures of craving, affect, and anticipated pleasure from and desire for rewarding experiences, followed by a smoking lapse analog task.

RESULTS

Receiving nicotine (versus placebo) increased positive affect and anticipated pleasure from and desire for reward. Expecting nicotine (versus placebo) reduced negative affect and increased smoking delay. Sensorimotor stimulation from smoking (versus no smoking) reduced smoking urge and behavior.

CONCLUSION

Results provided initial validation of this novel three-mechanism design. This design can be used in the future to advance understanding and treatment of tobacco withdrawal.

Predicted Impact of Nicotine Reduction on Smokers with Affective Disorders

OBJECTIVES

In 2009 the FDA acquired the authority to reduce the nicotine content in cigarettes if appropriate for public health, prompting research to evaluate the implications of this policy scientifically. Studies in non-psychiatric populations show that reducing the nicotine content of cigarettes to non-addictive levels reduces smoking rates and nicotine dependence. However, few studies have examined this hypothesis in vulnerable populations.

METHODS

In this narrative review we examined the extant literature on the effects of nicotine reduction or cessation on symptoms of withdrawal, as well as psychiatric symptoms, among those with affective disorders.

RESULTS

Following initial withdrawal from nicotine, smokers with affective disorders experience more severe mood disruption than smokers without these disorders. Use of very low nicotine content (VLNC) cigarettes during abstinence may help mitigate the mood-disrupting effects of initial abstinence. Once the initial effects of nicotine withdrawal on mood have passed, longer-term abstinence is associated with psychiatric improvement rather than worsening.

CONCLUSIONS

These findings suggest that if a national nicotine reduction policy were to be implemented, smokers with affective disorders would need additional support to overcome initial withdrawal but that long-term outcomes would likely be positive.

Complementing the Standard Multicomponent Treatment for Smokers With Denicotinized Cigarettes: A Randomized Trial

INTRODUCTION

Standard treatments (STs) for smoking cessation typically combine pharmacotherapy and behavioral support but do not address the sensory and behavioral aspects of smoking which may play a role in maintaining smoking behavior. Replacing such sensations temporarily after cessation may enhance treatment efficacy. We hypothesized that denicotinized cigarettes (DNCs), which have a very low nicotine content but provide these sensory and behavioral stimuli, could help alleviate urges to smoke and tobacco withdrawal symptoms and in turn enhance the efficacy of ST.

METHODS

Two hundred smokers seeking treatment received nine weekly behavioral support sessions and pharmacotherapy (100 used varenicline, 100 used nicotine replacement therapy). They were randomized on the target quit day to receive 280 DNCs (used ad libitum over 2 weeks in addition to ST) or ST alone.

RESULTS

Urge-to-smoke frequency (2.61 vs. 2.96, P = .03) but not strength (2.85 vs. 3.10, P = .20) in the first week of abstinence was significantly lower in DNC users versus ST alone. There were no differences in composite withdrawal scores between groups. Abstinence was significantly higher among DNC users versus ST alone at 1 (OR = 2.07; 95% CI: 1.63% to 3.70%) and 4 weeks (OR = 1.83; 95% CI: 1.05% to 3.21%), but not at 12 weeks (OR = 1.42; 95% CI: 0.79% to 2.55%). DNC use was a significant predictor of abstinence at 1 and 4 weeks (OR = 2.63; 95% CI: 1.40% to 4.93% and OR = 2.38; 95% CI: 1.26% to 4.46%), but not at 12 weeks.

CONCLUSIONS

Adding DNCs to ST has the potential to assist smokers early in their quit attempt, but research is needed to determine how best to utilize DNCs in treatment.

Behavioral mechanisms underlying nicotine reinforcement

Cigarette smoking is the leading cause of preventable deaths worldwide, and nicotine, the primary psychoactive constituent in tobacco, drives sustained use. The behavioral actions of nicotine are complex and extend well beyond the actions of the drug as a primary reinforcer. Stimuli that are consistently paired with nicotine can, through associative learning, take on reinforcing properties as conditioned stimuli. These conditioned stimuli can then impact the rate and probability of behavior and even function as conditioning reinforcers that maintain behavior in the absence of nicotine. Nicotine can also act as a conditioned stimulus (CS), predicting the delivery of other reinforcers, which may allow nicotine to acquire value as a conditioned reinforcer. These associative effects, establishing non-nicotine stimuli as conditioned stimuli with discriminative stimulus and conditioned reinforcing properties as well as establishing nicotine as a CS, are predicted by basic conditioning principles. However, nicotine can also act non-associatively. Nicotine directly enhances the reinforcing efficacy of other reinforcing stimuli in the environment, an effect that does not require a temporal or predictive relationship between nicotine and either the stimulus or the behavior. Hence, the reinforcing actions of nicotine stem both from the primary reinforcing actions of the drug (and the subsequent associative learning effects) as well as the reinforcement enhancement action of nicotine which is non-associative in nature. Gaining a better understanding of how nicotine impacts behavior will allow for maximally effective tobacco control efforts aimed at reducing the harm associated with tobacco use by reducing and/or treating its addictiveness.

Compensatory smoking from gradual and immediate reduction in cigarette nicotine content

Reducing the addictiveness of cigarettes by reducing their nicotine content can potentially have a profound impact on public health. Two different approaches to nicotine reduction have been proposed: gradual and immediate. To determine if either of these approaches results in significant compensatory smoking behavior, which might lead to safety concerns, we performed a secondary analysis of data from studies that have utilized these two approaches. The number of cigarettes smoked per day, carbon monoxide exposure, and cotinine levels in plasma or urine were assessed while participants smoked reduced nicotine content cigarettes and compared with when they smoked their usual brand cigarettes. The results showed that in general, these two approaches led to minimal compensatory smoking and reduced levels of cotinine over the course of the experimental period, suggesting that neither of these approaches poses a major safety concern.

Nicotine reduction as an increase in the unit price of cigarettes: a behavioral economics approach

Urgent action is needed to reduce the harm caused by smoking. Product standards that reduce the addictiveness of cigarettes are now possible both in the U.S. and in countries party to the Framework Convention on Tobacco Control. Specifically, standards that required substantially reduced nicotine content in cigarettes could enable cessation in smokers and prevent future smoking among current non-smokers. Behavioral economics uses principles from the field of microeconomics to characterize how consumption of a reinforcer changes as a function of the unit price of that reinforcer (unit price=cost/reinforcer magnitude). A nicotine reduction policy might be considered an increase in the unit price of nicotine because smokers are paying more per unit of nicotine. This perspective allows principles from behavioral economics to be applied to nicotine reduction research questions, including how nicotine consumption, smoking behavior, use of other tobacco products, and use of other drugs of abuse are likely to be affected. This paper reviews the utility of this approach and evaluates the notion that a reduction in nicotine content is equivalent to a reduction in the reinforcement value of smoking-an assumption made by the unit price approach.

Reduced nicotine product standards for combustible tobacco: building an empirical basis for effective regulation

INTRODUCTION

Both the Tobacco Control Act in the U.S. and Article 9 of the Framework Convention on Tobacco Control enable governments to directly address the addictiveness of combustible tobacco by reducing nicotine through product standards. Although nicotine may have some harmful effects, the detrimental health effects of smoked tobacco are primarily due to non-nicotine constituents. Hence, the health effects of nicotine reduction would likely be determined by changes in behavior that result in changes in smoke exposure.

METHODS

Herein, we review the current evidence on nicotine reduction and discuss some of the challenges in establishing the empirical basis for regulatory decisions.

RESULTS

To date, research suggests that very low nicotine content cigarettes produce a desirable set of outcomes, including reduced exposure to nicotine, reduced smoking, and reduced dependence, without significant safety concerns. However, much is still unknown, including the effects of gradual versus abrupt changes in nicotine content, effects in vulnerable populations, and impact on youth.

DISCUSSION

A coordinated effort must be made to provide the best possible scientific basis for regulatory decisions. The outcome of this effort may provide the foundation for a novel approach to tobacco control that dramatically reduces the devastating health consequences of smoked tobacco.

Greater reductions in nicotine exposure while smoking very low nicotine content cigarettes predict smoking cessation

OBJECTIVE

Reducing the nicotine content of cigarettes is a potential regulatory strategy that may enable cessation. The present study investigated the effect of nicotine exposure while smoking very low nicotine content (VLNC) cigarettes on cessation outcomes. The roles of possible sources of nicotine were also explored, including the VLNC cigarette and co-use of cigarettes with normal nicotine content.

METHODS

A secondary data analysis of two analogous randomised trials of treatment seeking, adult daily smokers (n=112) who were instructed to smoke VLNC cigarettes for 6 weeks and then make a quit attempt. Controlling for baseline demographic and smoking features, the association between reductions in nicotine exposure during the 6-week trial, assessed by urinary total cotinine and biomarker-confirmed smoking abstinence 1 month later, was tested. Subsequent analyses controlled for the effects of the frequency of VLNC and normal nicotine content cigarette use and the nicotine yield of the VLNC cigarette (0.05 vs 0.09 mg).

RESULTS

Greater reductions in nicotine exposure while smoking VLNC cigarettes predicted abstinence independent of individual differences in baseline smoking, cotinine, dependence, gender and study. Nicotine reduction was largest among individuals who were assigned to smoke a VLNC cigarette with lower nicotine yield and who smoked fewer normal nicotine content and VLNC cigarettes.

CONCLUSIONS

In the context of nicotine regulations and corresponding research, factors that undermine nicotine reduction must be addressed, including the availability and use of cigarettes with normal nicotine content and not sufficiently reducing the nicotine yield of cigarettes. Maximising nicotine reduction may facilitate smoking cessation.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBERS

NCT 01050569 and NCT 00777569.

Scientific overview: 2013 BBC plenary symposium on tobacco addiction

Nicotine dependence plays a critical role in addiction to tobacco products, and thus contributes to a variety of devastating tobacco-related diseases (SGR 2014). Annual costs associated with smoking in the US are estimated to be between $289 and $333 billion. Effective interventions for nicotine dependence, especially in smokers, are a critical barrier to the eradication of tobacco-related diseases. This overview highlights research presented at the Plenary Symposium of Behavior, Biology and Chemistry: Translational Research in Addiction Conference (BBC), hosted by the UT Health Science Center San Antonio, on March 9-10, 2013. The Plenary Symposium focused on tobacco addiction, and covered topics ranging from basic science to national policy. As in previous years, the meeting brought together globally-renowned scientists, graduate student recruits, and young scientists from underrepresented populations in Texas and other states with the goal of fostering interest in drug addiction research in young generations.

The predicted impact of reducing the nicotine content in cigarettes on alcohol use

INTRODUCTION

Product standards reducing the level of nicotine in cigarettes could significantly improve public health by reducing smoking behavior and toxicant exposure. However, relatively little is known about how the regulatory strategy could impact alcohol use, a closely related health behavior that is also a major contributor to morbidity and mortality. The primary objective of this paper is to predict the effect of nicotine reduction on alcohol use, identify priorities for future research, and highlight areas for mitigating any adverse outcomes.

METHODS

We critically reviewed and integrated literatures examining the effects of very low nicotine content (VLNC) cigarettes on smoking-related outcomes (nicotine exposure, nicotine withdrawal, and smoking as a cue to drink) and, in turn, the effects of those outcomes on alcohol use.

RESULTS

Current evidence suggests reducing the nicotine content of cigarettes may benefit public health by reducing alcohol use and problematic drinking over time as a consequence of reduced exposure to nicotine and the smoking cues associated with drinking. Nicotine withdrawal could increase risk of drinking, although these effects should be short-lived and could be mitigated by other sources of nicotine. Gender, hazardous drinking, and psychiatric comorbidities are likely to be important moderators of the effects of VLNC cigarettes.

CONCLUSIONS

It is imperative to broadly assess the public health impact of potential tobacco product regulations by including measures of closely related health behaviors that could be impacted by these interventions. Nicotine reduction in cigarettes may contribute to improved public health through reductions in alcohol use.

Cigarettes with different nicotine levels affect sensory perception and levels of biomarkers of exposure in adult smokers

INTRODUCTION

Few clinical studies involving cigarettes have provided a comprehensive picture of smoke exposure, test article characterization, and insights into sensory properties combined. The purpose of these pilot studies was to determine whether cigarettes with different levels of nicotine but similar tar levels would affect sensory experience or smoking behavior so as to significantly alter levels of selected biomarkers of exposure (BOE).

METHODS

In 2 confined, double-blind studies, 120 adult smokers switched from Marlboro Gold cigarettes at baseline to either 1 of 2 lower nicotine cigarettes or 1 of 2 higher nicotine cigarettes and then to the other cigarette after 5 days. Urinary excretion of exposure biomarkers (nicotine equivalents [NE], total and free 4-(methylnitrosamino)-1-(3-pyridyl)-1-butanol [NNAL], 1-hydroxypyrene, and 3-hydroxypropyl mercapturic acid) as well as carboxyhemoglobin and plasma cotinine were measured at baseline, Day 5, and Day 10. Daily cigarette consumption was monitored and sensory characteristics were rated for each cigarette.

RESULTS

With higher nicotine yield, urine NE, urine total NNAL, and plasma cotinine increased while nonnicotine BOE decreased without changes in cigarette consumption. In contrast, with lower nicotine yield, urine NE, urine total NNAL, and plasma cotinine dropped while nonnicotine BOE and cigarettes per day increased. Higher nicotine cigarettes were rated harsher and stronger than at baseline while lower nicotine cigarettes were less strong. All 4 test cigarettes were highly disliked.

CONCLUSIONS

These studies demonstrate that abrupt increases or decreases in nicotine and the resulting sensory changes impact BOE through changes in intensity or frequency of smoking.

Electronic cigarettes for smoking cessation and reduction

BACKGROUND

Electronic cigarettes (ECs) are electronic devices that heat a liquid - usually comprising propylene glycol and glycerol, with or without nicotine and flavours, stored in disposable or refillable cartridges or a reservoir - into an aerosol for inhalation. Since ECs appeared on the market in 2006 there has been a steady growth in sales. Smokers report using ECs to reduce risks of smoking, but some healthcare organisations have been reluctant to encourage smokers to switch to ECs, citing lack of evidence of efficacy and safety. Smokers, healthcare providers and regulators are interested to know if these devices can reduce the harms associated with smoking. In particular, healthcare providers have an urgent need to know what advice they should give to smokers enquiring about ECs.

OBJECTIVES

To examine the efficacy of ECs in helping people who smoke to achieve long-term abstinence; to examine the efficacy of ECs in helping people reduce cigarette consumption by at least 50% of baseline levels; and to assess the occurrence of adverse events associated with EC use.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Tobacco Addiction Groups Trials Register, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, Embase, and two other databases for relevant records from 2004 to July 2014, together with reference checking and contact with study authors.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) in which current smokers (motivated or unmotivated to quit) were randomized to EC or a control condition, and which measured abstinence rates or changes in cigarette consumption at six months or longer. As the field of EC research is new, we also included cohort follow-up studies with at least six months follow-up. We included randomized cross-over trials and cohort follow-up studies that included at least one week of EC use for assessment of adverse events.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

One review author extracted data from the included studies and another checked them. Our main outcome measure was abstinence from smoking after at least six months follow-up, and we used the most rigorous definition available (continuous, biochemically validated, longest follow-up). For reduction we used a dichotomous approach (no change/reduction < 50% versus reduction by 50% or more of baseline cigarette consumption). We used a fixed-effect Mantel-Haenszel model to calculate the risk ratio (RR) with a 95% confidence interval (CI) for each study, and where appropriate we pooled data from these studies in meta-analyses.

MAIN RESULTS

Our search identified almost 600 records, from which we include 29 representing 13 completed studies (two RCTs, 11 cohort). We identified nine ongoing trials. Two RCTs compared EC with placebo (non-nicotine) EC, with a combined sample size of 662 participants. One trial included minimal telephone support and one recruited smokers not intending to quit, and both used early EC models with low nicotine content. We judged the RCTs to be at low risk of bias, but under the GRADE system the overall quality of the evidence for our outcomes was rated 'low' or 'very low' because of imprecision due to the small number of trials. A 'low' grade means that further research is very likely to have an important impact on our confidence in the estimate of effect and is likely to change the estimate. A 'very low' grade means we are very uncertain about the estimate. Participants using an EC were more likely to have abstained from smoking for at least six months compared with participants using placebo EC (RR 2.29, 95% CI 1.05 to 4.96; placebo 4% versus EC 9%; 2 studies; GRADE: low). The one study that compared EC to nicotine patch found no significant difference in six-month abstinence rates, but the confidence intervals do not rule out a clinically important difference (RR 1.26, 95% CI: 0.68 to 2.34; GRADE: very low). A higher number of people were able to reduce cigarette consumption by at least half with ECs compared with placebo ECs (RR 1.31, 95% CI 1.02 to 1.68, 2 studies; placebo: 27% versus EC: 36%; GRADE: low) and compared with patch (RR 1.41, 95% CI 1.20 to 1.67, 1 study; patch: 44% versus EC: 61%; GRADE: very low). Unlike smoking cessation outcomes, reduction results were not biochemically verified.None of the RCTs or cohort studies reported any serious adverse events (SAEs) that were considered to be plausibly related to EC use. One RCT provided data on the proportion of participants experiencing any adverse events. Although the proportion of participants in the study arms experiencing adverse events was similar, the confidence intervals are wide (ECs vs placebo EC RR 0.97, 95% CI 0.71 to 1.34; ECs vs patch RR 0.99, 95% CI 0.81 to 1.22). The other RCT reported no statistically significant difference in the frequency of AEs at three- or 12-month follow-up between the EC and placebo EC groups, and showed that in all groups the frequency of AEs (with the exception of throat irritation) decreased significantly over time.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

There is evidence from two trials that ECs help smokers to stop smoking long-term compared with placebo ECs. However, the small number of trials, low event rates and wide confidence intervals around the estimates mean that our confidence in the result is rated 'low' by GRADE standards. The lack of difference between the effect of ECs compared with nicotine patches found in one trial is uncertain for similar reasons. ECs appear to help smokers unable to stop smoking altogether to reduce their cigarette consumption when compared with placebo ECs and nicotine patches, but the above limitations also affect certainty in this finding. In addition, lack of biochemical assessment of the actual reduction in smoke intake further limits this evidence. No evidence emerged that short-term EC use is associated with health risk.

Gradual and immediate nicotine reduction result in similar low-dose nicotine self-administration

INTRODUCTION

Food and Drug Administration-mandated product standards that drastically reduce nicotine content in cigarettes aim to decrease smoking and thus improve health outcomes for millions of U.S. smokers. Researchers have suggested that nicotine reduction should be implemented gradually, but a gradual nicotine reduction may shift the minimum level of nicotine required to reinforce behavior or may result in different levels of compensatory smoking behavior.

METHOD

Rats were given the opportunity to acquire nicotine self-administration at 60 µg/kg/infusion nicotine with a cocktail of other tobacco constituents included as the vehicle. Rats were subsequently assigned to one of six immediate dose reductions (30, 15, 7.5, 3.75, 1.875, or 0.0 µg/kg/infusion) for 10 sessions (n = 9-15). Rats in the 30 µg/kg/infusion reduction group continued to have their nicotine dose reduced by half after at least 10 sessions at each dose until reaching 1.875 µg/kg/infusion (i.e., gradual reduction).

RESULTS

For both methods of reduction, reduction to 3.75 µg/kg/infusion resulted in significant decreases in behavior. Reduction to doses above 3.75 µg/kg/infusion resulted in only limited compensation. The largest compensation was temporary. There was no compensation following reduction to 3.75 µg/kg/infusion or below.

CONCLUSION

This study suggests that reduction to the same nicotine dose will result in similar reductions in behavior for both gradual and immediate reductions, and both methods result in similar compensation. Future studies using humans should investigate differences in other outcomes such as withdrawal and craving.

Nicotine reduction: strategic research plan

BACKGROUND

Reducing nicotine content in cigarettes and other combustible products to levels that are not reinforcing or addictive has the potential to substantially reduce tobacco-related morbidity and mortality. The authority to reduce nicotine levels as a regulatory measure is provided in the U.S. Family Smoking Prevention and Tobacco Control Act and is consistent with the general regulatory powers envisioned under the relevant articles of the World Health Organization's Framework Convention on Tobacco Control. Many experts have considered reducing nicotine in cigarettes to be a feasible national policy approach, but more research is necessary.

PURPOSE

This article describes proceedings from a conference that had the goals of identifying specific research gaps, describing methods and measures to consider for addressing these gaps, and considering ways to foster collaboration.

RESULTS AND CONCLUSION

Identified research gaps included determining the dose of nicotine that would be optimal for reducing and extinguishing cigarette use, examining approaches for reducing nicotine levels in the general and special populations of smokers, understanding how constituents other than nicotine may contribute to the reinforcing effects of tobacco, and identifying unintended consequences to determine ways to mitigate them. Methods that can be used ranged from brain imaging to large human clinical trials. The development and availability of valid biomarkers of exposure and effect are important. Infrastructures to facilitate collaboration need to be established.

Reduced nicotine content cigarettes and nicotine patch

BACKGROUND

Reduced nicotine content (RNC) cigarettes have led to smoking fewer cigarettes, withdrawal relief, and facilitation of cessation. The aim of this study is to examine the effects RNC cigarettes with and without nicotine patch and patch alone on smoking behavior, toxicant exposure, withdrawal discomfort, and as an exploratory analysis, on long-term abstinence.

METHODS

This study involved a randomized, parallel arm design and six weeks of: (i) 0.05-0.09 mg nicotine yield cigarettes (N = 79); (ii) 21 mg nicotine patch (N = 80), or (iii) 0.05-0.09 nicotine yield cigarettes with 21 mg nicotine patch (N = 76); all groups received six weeks of additional behavioral treatment with follow-ups up to six months.

RESULTS

Combination approach led to lower rates of smoking assigned cigarettes and hence lower carbon monoxide levels than RNC cigarettes alone. In addition, the combination approach was associated with less withdrawal severity when switching from usual brand to assigned product, and less smoking of usual brand cigarettes during treatment, but not after treatment compared with the other approaches.

CONCLUSION

Combining very low nicotine content cigarettes with nicotine patch may improve the acute effects resulting from switching to either of these products alone.

IMPACT

These findings may have implications for smoking cessation treatment or a policy measure to reduce nicotine content in cigarettes.

Nicotine replacement therapy for smoking cessation

BACKGROUND

The aim of nicotine replacement therapy (NRT) is to temporarily replace much of the nicotine from cigarettes to reduce motivation to smoke and nicotine withdrawal symptoms, thus easing the transition from cigarette smoking to complete abstinence.

OBJECTIVES

The aims of this review were: To determine the effect of NRT compared to placebo in aiding smoking cessation, and to consider whether there is a difference in effect for the different forms of NRT (chewing gum, transdermal patches, oral and nasal sprays, inhalers and tablets/lozenges) in achieving abstinence from cigarettes. To determine whether the effect is influenced by the dosage, form and timing of use of NRT; the intensity of additional advice and support offered to the smoker; or the clinical setting in which the smoker is recruited and treated. To determine whether combinations of NRT are more likely to lead to successful quitting than one type alone. To determine whether NRT is more or less likely to lead to successful quitting compared to other pharmacotherapies.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Tobacco Addiction Group trials register for papers mentioning 'NRT' or any type of nicotine replacement therapy in the title, abstract or keywords. Date of most recent search July 2012.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomized trials in which NRT was compared to placebo or to no treatment, or where different doses of NRT were compared. We excluded trials which did not report cessation rates, and those with follow-up of less than six months.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We extracted data in duplicate on the type of participants, the dose, duration and form of nicotine therapy, the outcome measures, method of randomization, and completeness of follow-up. The main outcome measure was abstinence from smoking after at least six months of follow-up. We used the most rigorous definition of abstinence for each trial, and biochemically validated rates if available. We calculated the risk ratio (RR) for each study. Where appropriate, we performed meta-analysis using a Mantel-Haenszel fixed-effect model.

MAIN RESULTS

We identified 150 trials; 117 with over 50,000 participants contributed to the primary comparison between any type of NRT and a placebo or non-NRT control group. The risk ratio (RR) of abstinence for any form of NRT relative to control was 1.60 (95% confidence interval [CI] 1.53 to 1.68). The pooled RRs for each type were 1.49 (95% CI 1.40 to 1.60, 55 trials) for nicotine gum; 1.64 (95% CI 1.52 to 1.78, 43 trials) for nicotine patch; 1.95 (95% CI 1.61 to 2.36, 6 trials) for oral tablets/lozenges; 1.90 (95% CI 1.36 to 2.67, 4 trials) for nicotine inhaler; and 2.02 (95% CI 1.49 to 2.73, 4 trials) for nicotine nasal spray. One trial of oral spray had an RR of 2.48 (95% CI 1.24 to 4.94). The effects were largely independent of the duration of therapy, the intensity of additional support provided or the setting in which the NRT was offered. The effect was similar in a small group of studies that aimed to assess use of NRT obtained without a prescription. In highly dependent smokers there was a significant benefit of 4 mg gum compared with 2 mg gum, but weaker evidence of a benefit from higher doses of patch. There was evidence that combining a nicotine patch with a rapid delivery form of NRT was more effective than a single type of NRT (RR 1.34, 95% CI 1.18 to 1.51, 9 trials). The RR for NRT used for a short period prior to the quit date was 1.18 (95% CI 0.98 to 1.40, 8 trials), just missing statistical significance, though the efficacy increased when we pooled only patch trials and when we removed one trial in which confounding was likely. Five studies directly compared NRT to a non-nicotine pharmacotherapy, bupropion; there was no evidence of a difference in efficacy (RR 1.01; 95% CI 0.87 to 1.18). A combination of NRT and bupropion was more effective than bupropion alone (RR 1.24; 95% CI 1.06 to 1.45, 4 trials). Adverse effects from using NRT are related to the type of product, and include skin irritation from patches and irritation to the inside of the mouth from gum and tablets. There is no evidence that NRT increases the risk of heart attacks.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

All of the commercially available forms of NRT (gum, transdermal patch, nasal spray, inhaler and sublingual tablets/lozenges) can help people who make a quit attempt to increase their chances of successfully stopping smoking. NRTs increase the rate of quitting by 50 to 70%, regardless of setting. The effectiveness of NRT appears to be largely independent of the intensity of additional support provided to the individual. Provision of more intense levels of support, although beneficial in facilitating the likelihood of quitting, is not essential to the success of NRT.