Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27714427›Full record

ArticlePsychopharmacology2017

Response to varying the nicotine content of cigarettes in vulnerable populations: an initial experimental examination of acute effects.

Stephen T Higgins, Sarah H Heil, Stacey C Sigmon, Jennifer W Tidey, Diann E Gaalema, Maxine L Stitzer, Hanna Durand, Janice Y Bunn, Jeff S Priest, Christopher A Arger and 8 more

Open access · greenAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Psychopharmacology, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 28 papers, 4 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
28citing papers in PubMed, 4 pooled it
4.7field-weighted citation impact, top 5% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

28 citing papers in PubMed, 4 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 36 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Regulatory Approaches and Implementation of Minimally Addictive Combusted Products.Nicotine & tobacco research : official journal of the Society for Research on Nicotine and Tobacco · 2022
    Pooled it
  2. Nicotine Reduction in Cigarettes: Literature Review and Gap Analysis.Nicotine & tobacco research : official journal of the Society for Research on Nicotine and Tobacco · 2019
    Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Trial
  6. Examining Age as a Potential Moderator of Response to Reduced Nicotine Content Cigarettes in Vulnerable Populations.Nicotine & tobacco research : official journal of the Society for Research on Nicotine and Tobacco · 2019
    Trial
  7. Trial
  8. Trial
  9. Trial
  10. Trial
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Review
  15. Review
  16. Review
  17. Article
  18. Potential Moderating Effects of Psychiatric Diagnosis and Symptom Severity on Subjective and Behavioral Responses to Reduced Nicotine Content Cigarettes.Nicotine & tobacco research : official journal of the Society for Research on Nicotine and Tobacco · 2019
    Article
  19. Review
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

18 authors at 4 institutions in 1 country.

Stephen T HigginsUniversity of Vermont Center on Tobacco Regulatory Science, UHC Campus, 1 S Prospect St, Burlington, VT, 05401, USA. stephen.higgins@uvm.edu.
Sarah H HeilUniversity of Vermont Center on Tobacco Regulatory Science, UHC Campus, 1 S Prospect St, Burlington, VT, 05401, USA.
Stacey C SigmonUniversity of Vermont Center on Tobacco Regulatory Science, UHC Campus, 1 S Prospect St, Burlington, VT, 05401, USA.
Jennifer W TideyBrown University, Providence, USA.
Diann E GaalemaUniversity of Vermont Center on Tobacco Regulatory Science, UHC Campus, 1 S Prospect St, Burlington, VT, 05401, USA.
Maxine L StitzerJohns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, USA.
Hanna DurandUniversity of Vermont Center on Tobacco Regulatory Science, UHC Campus, 1 S Prospect St, Burlington, VT, 05401, USA.
Janice Y BunnUniversity of Vermont Center on Tobacco Regulatory Science, UHC Campus, 1 S Prospect St, Burlington, VT, 05401, USA.
Jeff S PriestUniversity of Vermont Center on Tobacco Regulatory Science, UHC Campus, 1 S Prospect St, Burlington, VT, 05401, USA.
Christopher A ArgerUniversity of Vermont Center on Tobacco Regulatory Science, UHC Campus, 1 S Prospect St, Burlington, VT, 05401, USA.
Mollie E MillerBrown University, Providence, USA.
Cecilia L BergeriaUniversity of Vermont Center on Tobacco Regulatory Science, UHC Campus, 1 S Prospect St, Burlington, VT, 05401, USA.
Danielle R DavisUniversity of Vermont Center on Tobacco Regulatory Science, UHC Campus, 1 S Prospect St, Burlington, VT, 05401, USA.
Joanna M StreckUniversity of Vermont Center on Tobacco Regulatory Science, UHC Campus, 1 S Prospect St, Burlington, VT, 05401, USA.
Ivori ZvorskyUniversity of Vermont Center on Tobacco Regulatory Science, UHC Campus, 1 S Prospect St, Burlington, VT, 05401, USA.
Ryan RednerUniversity of Vermont Center on Tobacco Regulatory Science, UHC Campus, 1 S Prospect St, Burlington, VT, 05401, USA.
Ryan VandreyJohns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, USA.
Lauren R PacekJohns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, USA.
University of Vermont · USBrown University · USJohns Hopkins University · USJohns Hopkins Medicine · US

Funding

Vermont Center on Behavior and HealthP20GM103644 · NIGMS · UNIVERSITY OF VERMONT & ST AGRIC COLLEGE · PI HIGGINS, STEPHEN T · 2013 to 2022
$21.3M
Vermont Center on Tobacco Regulatory ScienceP50DA036114 · NIDA · UNIVERSITY OF VERMONT & ST AGRIC COLLEGE · PI HIGGINS, STEPHEN T · 2013 to 2017
$19.1M
NIDA NIH HHS P50 DA036114NIGMS NIH HHS P20 GM103644
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

rationaleThe purpose of this study was to begin researching the effects of very low nicotine content cigarettes in smokers especially vulnerable to dependence to assess their potential as a less dependence-producing alternative to current commercial cigarettes.

methodsParticipants were 26 adult, daily cigarette smokers from one of three populations: economically disadvantaged women of reproductive age (n = 9), opioid-dependent individuals (n = 11), and individuals with affective disorders (n = 6). Participants completed fourteen 2-4-h experimental sessions in a within-subjects research design. Sessions were conducted following brief smoking abstinence. Four research cigarettes varying in nicotine content (0.4, 2.4, 5.2, and 15.8 mg/g) were studied under double-blind conditions, assessing smoking topography, subjective effects, and relative reinforcing effects of varying doses in concurrent choice tests. Results were collapsed across vulnerable populations and analyzed using repeated measures ANOVA.

resultsNo significant differences between doses were discernible in smoking topography. All doses were equi-effective at reducing nicotine withdrawal. Ratings of satisfaction from smoking were lower at the 0.4 compared to 15.8 mg/g dose. Participants preferred the 15.8 mg/g dose over the 0.4 and 2.4 but not the 5.2 mg/g doses in concurrent choice testing; no differences between the two lowest doses were noted.

conclusionsAll cigarettes effectively reduced nicotine withdrawal with no differences in smoking topography, suggesting minimal compensatory smoking. Dependence potential was lowest at the 0.4 mg/g dose. These initial results are promising regarding the feasibility of lowering nicotine content in cigarettes to very low levels in vulnerable populations without untoward effects.

Indexed as

Personal SatisfactionVulnerable PopulationsAdultDouble-Blind MethodFemaleHumansMaleMiddle AgedNicotineOpioid-Related DisordersReinforcement, PsychologySmokingSubstance Withdrawal SyndromeTobacco ProductsTobacco Use DisorderNicotineAbuse liabilityAcute exposureCigarette smokingConcurrent choice testingNicotineNicotine dependenceNicotine withdrawalSmoking topographyTobaccoVery low nicotine content cigarettesVulnerable populations

Identifiers

PMID27714427
PMCPMC5203959
OpenAlexW2528448286

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.