• Saul Shiffman, Brenda F Kurland, Sarah M Scholl, and Jason M Mao.
• Department of Psychology, University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania.
• JAMA Psychiatry. 2018 Oct 1; 75 (10): 995-1002.

ImportanceThe US Food and Drug Administration is considering limiting cigarettes to very low nicotine levels. Cigarette consumption of nondaily intermittent smokers (ITS), who compose one-third of US adult smokers, could feasibly increase or could be unaffected if their smoking is not motivated by nicotine seeking.ObjectiveTo compare cigarette consumption in ITS receiving very low-nicotine-content cigarettes (VLNCCs) or identical normal-nicotine-content cigarettes (NNCCs).Design, Setting, And ParticipantsThis randomized double-blind clinical trial was conducted from June 2015 to July 2017 at a single US site. Volunteer ITS not planning to quit were recruited via media. Overall, 297 individuals enrolled, and 238 were randomized. Analyses were intent-to-treat.InterventionsAfter a 2-week baseline of smoking their own brand of cigarettes provided gratis, ITS were randomized to VLNCCs or NNCCs for 10 weeks.Main Outcomes And MeasuresThe number of cigarettes per day (CPD) was assessed by real-time reporting, timeline follow-back reports, and cigarette butt counts. The primary outcome was change in CPD from baseline to weeks 9 to 10 of intervention, adjusting for baseline CPD.ResultsThe mean (SD) age of the 238 randomized participants was 37.9 (13.8) years. Of 238 participants, 108 (45%) were men. At baseline, the mean (SD) CPD was 3.1 (2.9). In intent-to-treat analyses using multiple imputation to address missing data, the VLNCC group had a mean decrease of 1.6 CPD (95% CI, 1.1-2.0; 51% of baseline) vs 0.05 decrease with NNCCs (95% CI, -0.5 to 0.4; 2% of baseline). Treatment group differences were not materially moderated by sex, race/ethnicity, or history of daily smoking. Cheating with conventional cigarettes, inferred from cotinine assays, was more common in the VLNCC group (OR, 2.95; 95% CI, 1.54-5.66), but sensitivity analyses showed significant VLNCC effects among the compliant participants as well. In longitudinal analysis of CPD over time with random intercept and slope, the VLNCC and NNCC groups differed significantly in both linear (-0.15; 95% CI, -0.22 to -0.08; P < .001) and quadratic (0.0026; 95% CI, 0.0010-0.0042; P = .002) trends: CPD dropped by 43.8% in the VLNCC group over 4 weeks, then leveled off thereafter. Abstinence (intent-to-treat, biochemically verified) in weeks 9 to 10 postrandomization did not differ significantly by treatment group (VLNCC, 10.2% vs NNNC, 5.0%; P = .28).Conclusions And RelevanceSwitching to VLNCCs caused substantial smoking reduction among ITS but did not significantly increase abstinence. Response to a VLNCC intervention suggests that nicotine-seeking motivates ITS' smoking.Trial RegistrationClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02228824.

15 keywords...

hide…