A Comparative Study of the Amount of Smoke Absorbed From Low Yield (‘Less Hazardous’) Cigarettes Part 2: Invasive Measures

Abstract

A group of 22 volunteers who smoked daily more than 20 'high' nicotine (0.8 to I.I mg) Canadian cigarettes were switched to lower yield brands in two stages over an eight-week period. The control group (six subjects) switched brands with nicotine yields within ± O.I mg of their usual brand while the treatment group smoked reduced yield brands (first stage, 33% reduction; second stage 61% reduction).Overall averages for levels of blood carboxyhemoglobin, plasma thiocyanate and serum cotinine were found to change significantly from week to week but there was no discernible difference between the treatment and the control group in week to week pattern. Although the majority of smokers in this study did not increase their exposure to cigarette smoke by smoking low yield cigarettes, it can not be said that the switch resulted in 'safer' smoking.

Smoking behaviour and compensation: A review of the literature with meta-analysis

“…(ii) Studies which investigated the impact of a significant reduction in the nicotine content on smoking behaviour, termed here as 'RNC studies'. In Supplementary data No 2, Table D, data from 19 non-RNC studies 5 are listed (Armitage et al, 1988;Benowitz et al, 1982Benowitz et al, , 1986Benowitz et al, , 2005Benowitz et al, , 2009Fagerström, 1982;Feng et al, 2006;Frost et al, 1995;Guyatt et al, 1989;Haley et al, 1985;Hammond et al, 2005;Kolonen et al, 1988;McAdam et al, 2011;Robinson et al, 1982Robinson et al, , 1983Roethig et al, 2005Roethig et al, , 2007Russell et al, 1982;Shepperd et al, 2011;Zacny and Stitzer, 1988), for which CIs were calculated by applying formulae (2e) and (5). In addition, Table D lists four RNC studies (Benowitz et al, , 2007(Benowitz et al, , 2012Hatsukami et al, 2010), for which nicotine biomarker-based CIs were calculated using formula (2e).…”

Clinical Trials Methods for Evaluation of Potential Reduced Exposure Products

“…Product is used throughout the day, and in most studies, ad libitum product use. These studies used either a between-subject design comparing different products (56, 61, 70–78), within-subject design taking assessments during usual brand cigarette smoking and after switching to a product (79–81) or within-subject cross-over design with different products (23, 82–85). Subjects were required to use a specific product (61, 70, 72–83, 85–89), or were given a choice after sampling the products (56, 71).…”

“…Published intermediate-term studies have control arms such as medicinal nicotine (23, 56, 72, 82–83), nonsmokers (86), smokers using their usual brand of cigarettes (79–81, 87) or a control group with conventional cigarettes similar to usual brand (61, 70, 74–76, 78, 84, 89). Some of these studies examined the effects of cigarettes with different nicotine or tar yields (70–71, 73, 76–78, 84–85, 87–89) or different amounts of product use (83).…”

“…Some of these studies examined the effects of cigarettes with different nicotine or tar yields (70–71, 73, 76–78, 84–85, 87–89) or different amounts of product use (83). The duration in trials ranged from 2 weeks to 13 months.…”

Do Reductions in the Tar and Nicotine Yields of Cigarettes Help to Explain Recent Reductions in Lung Cancer Rates in Young Men and Women in the United States?

“…However, the level of compensation which fits the data best varies by age. Evidence from experimental studies in which smokers switch brands (Fagerström, 1982;Robinson et al, 1982Robinson et al, , 1983Russell et al, 1982;Benowitz et al, 1982Benowitz et al, , 1986Benowitz et al, , 2005Haley et al, 1985;Armitage et al, 1988;Kolonen et al, 1988;Zacny & Stitzer, 1988;Frost et al, 1995;Hecht et al, 2005;Hammond et al, 2005) and in cross-sectional studies comparing smokers of brands with different tar and nicotine yields (Russell et al, 1980(Russell et al, , 1986Heller et al, 1982;Ebert et al, 1983;Hill et al, 1983;Gori & Lynch, 1985;Bridges et al, 1986Bridges et al, , 1990aBridges et al, , 1990bSepkovic et al, 1990;Höfer et al, 1991;Woodward & Tunstall-Pedoe, 1992, 1993Rosa et al, 1992;Hee et al, 1995;Byrd et al, 1995Byrd et al, , 1998Andersson et al, 1997;Jarvis et al, 2001;Ueda et al, 2002) is consistent in demonstrating some reduction in nicotine intake following a reduction in yield. Though estimates from some studies (e.g.…”