Article Text

PDF
Correlates of support for a nicotine-reduction policy in smokers with 6-week exposure to very low nicotine cigarettes
  1. Rachel L Denlinger-Apte1,
  2. Jennifer W Tidey1,2,
  3. Joseph S Koopmeiners3,
  4. Dorothy K Hatsukami4,
  5. Tracy T Smith5,
  6. Lauren R Pacek6,
  7. F Joseph McClernon6,
  8. Eric C Donny7
  1. 1 Department of Behavioral and Social Sciences, Brown University School of Public Health, Brown University, Providence, Rhode Island, USA
  2. 2 Department of Psychiatry and Human Behavior, Center for Alcohol and Addiction Studies, Brown University, Providence, Rhode Island, USA
  3. 3 Division of Biostatistics, School of Public Health, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, Minnesota, USA
  4. 4 Masonic Cancer Center and Department of Psychiatry, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, Minnesota, USA
  5. 5 Department of Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences, Medical University of South Carolina, Charleston, South Carolina, USA
  6. 6 Department of Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences, Duke University School of Medicine, Durham, North Carolina, USA
  7. 7 Baptist Comprehensive Cancer Center and Department of Physiology and Pharmacology, Wake Forest University, Winston-Salem, North Carolina, USA
  1. Correspondence to Rachel L Denlinger-Apte, Department of Behavioral and Social Sciences, Brown University School of Public Health, Brown University, Providence RI 02912, USA; rachel_denlinger{at}brown.edu

Abstract

Background The US Food and Drug Administration recently issued an advanced notice of proposed rule-making for reducing the nicotine content in cigarettes to a minimally addictive level. Very little is known about whether use of very low nicotine content (VLNC) cigarettes affects support for a nicotine reduction policy.

Objective This study examined the effects of using VLNC versus usual brand (UB) cigarettes on support for a nicotine reduction policy and determined whether participant characteristics and responses to VLNC cigarettes were associated with policy support.

Methods Participants from a cigarette trial who were assigned to either 0.4 mg nicotine/g tobacco research cigarettes or their UB for 6 weeks were asked about their support for the policy. χ2 tests were used to compare support for the policy between cigarette conditions and logistic regression analyses were conducted to assess covariates associated with policy support.

Findings Policy support did not differ by condition. After 6 weeks of using VLNC cigarettes, 50% of participants supported the policy, 26% opposed and 24% responded ‘Don’t Know’. Support was higher among those adherent to smoking only VLNC cigarettes (65%) compared with those who were non-adherent (44%). Older participants and those interested in quitting had increased odds of support. Cigarette satisfaction, perceived harm and perceived nicotine content were not significantly associated with support.

Conclusions Smoking VLNC cigarettes did not affect support for a nicotine reduction policy. Understanding predictors of policy support and opposition will help public health officials to maximise the public health acceptance and impact of this policy (ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT01681875 Post-Results).

  • nicotine
  • public policy
  • harm reduction
View Full Text

Statistics from Altmetric.com

Footnotes

  • Contributors All authors fulfill all three ICMJE criteria for authorship on this manuscript.

  • Funding Data collection in this publication was supported by the National Institute on Drug Abuse and FDA Center for Tobacco Products (U54 DA031659). Data analyses and manuscript preparation were supported by the Department of Behavioral and Social Sciences in the School of Public Health at Brown University and a grant from NIDA and the FDA Center for Tobacco Products (U54 DA036114). The authors are the sole responsibility of the content and does not necessarily represent the official views of the NIH or the FDA.

  • Competing interests None declared.

  • Patient consent Not required.

  • Ethics approval The study was approved by the institutional review board at each study site and was reviewed by the FDA Center for Tobacco Products. It was monitored by an independent data and safety monitoring board.

  • Provenance and peer review Not commissioned; externally peer reviewed.

Request Permissions

If you wish to reuse any or all of this article please use the link below which will take you to the Copyright Clearance Center’s RightsLink service. You will be able to get a quick price and instant permission to reuse the content in many different ways.