Long-term effects of switching to cigarettes with lower tar and nicotine yields

Abstract

On switching to cigarettes with lower tar and nicotine yields, most individuals smoke more intensively, but it is not clear if this effect persists over a long period. Smoking behaviour was monitored in 10 male and 18 female volunteers at five monthly visits, smoking commercially available cigarettes (tar yield greater than 10 mg), then for six more visits at 6-week intervals after switching (mean reduction of 5.9 mg tar and 0.45 mg nicotine). Puffing behaviour was monitored with a flow sensing holder, and measurements were made before and after smoking of plasma cotinine, carboxyhaemglobin and alveolar carbon monoxide. After switching, cotinine levels only fell 40% of that predicted from the fall in nicotine yields, and there were no systematic trends for the rest of the study. Puff volumes rose (reflecting perhaps the reduced draw resistance of the lower yield cigarettes), and remained higher thereafter. The number of puffs per cigarette appeared to rise on switching, but then decreased again. In conclusion, most effects of switching to lower yield cigarettes appeared to persist for at least 36 weeks, suggesting that the strategy of reducing exposure to cigarette smoke by lowering tar and nicotine yields may be of limited value.

Transient compensatory smoking in response to placebo cigarettes

“…A separate study found that individuals assigned to smoke only placebo cigarettes for a seven day period actually displayed reduced total puff volumes relative to those receiving nicotine containing cigarettes (Donny and Jones, 2009). These findings appear to contradict earlier studies which have observed persistent compensatory smoking patterns when smokers switched from high-yield to lower-yield commercial cigarettes (as in Guyatt et al, 1989). Again, this discrepancy may be explained by differences in the amount of nicotine contained (as opposed to machine derived nicotine yield) in the cigarettes investigated.…”

“…Along the descending end of the curve, a reduction in dose concentration can result in an increased self-administration rate. This is consistent with the prolonged compensatory smoking patterns observed when smokers are switched from high yield (full flavor) cigarettes to lower yield (light) cigarettes (Guyatt et al 1989). In contrast, placebo doses should produce extinction of self-administration.…”

A longitudinal study of smokers’ exposure to cigarette smoke and the effects of spontaneous product switching

“…Cigarette consumption as measured by the two methods showed no significant variation over the duration of the study or as a consequence of product switching. These findings are consistent with the trends observed by Guyatt et al (1989), who studied a group of smokers for 5 months smoking their own cigarette product, followed by a forced switch to a cigarette with an ISO tar yield of at least 3 mg lower for 6 months. A longitudinal study of continuing smokers reported reductions in consumption over a 5 year period, though evidence of a survey effect was detected (Yong et al, 2012).…”

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).…”