IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jijerp/v17y2020i19p7047-d420081.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Comparison between Gradual Reduced Nicotine Content and Usual Nicotine Content Groups on Subjective Cigarette Ratings in a Randomized Double-Blind Trial

Author

Listed:
  • Wenxue Lin

    (Department of Public Health Sciences, Pennsylvania State University College of Medicine, Hershey, PA 17033, USA)

  • Nicolle M. Krebs

    (Department of Public Health Sciences, Pennsylvania State University College of Medicine, Hershey, PA 17033, USA)

  • Junjia Zhu

    (Department of Public Health Sciences, Pennsylvania State University College of Medicine, Hershey, PA 17033, USA)

  • Jonathan Foulds

    (Department of Public Health Sciences, Pennsylvania State University College of Medicine, Hershey, PA 17033, USA)

  • Kimberly Horn

    (Department of Population Health Sciences, Virginia Tech Carilion Research Institute, Roanoke, VA 24016, USA)

  • Joshua E. Muscat

    (Department of Public Health Sciences, Pennsylvania State University College of Medicine, Hershey, PA 17033, USA)

Abstract

In 2018, the United States Food and Drug Administration (FDA) issued an advanced notice of proposed rulemaking to reduce nicotine in tobacco products to produce a minimally addictive or nonaddictive effect, but there was a research gap in the subjective responses of reduced-nicotine-content cigarettes. We compared the responses of the modified cigarette evaluation questionnaire (mCEQ) and cigarette-liking scale (CLS) between the gradually reduced nicotine content (RNC) group and the usual nicotine content (UNC) group. Linear mixed-effects models for repeated measures were used to analyze and compare the change over time for the mCEQ and CLS across the two treatment groups (RNC and UNC). We found that the change over time for the mCEQ and CLS was significant between the RNC and the UNC treatment groups at the beginning of visit 6 with 1.4 mg nicotine/cigarette. At visits 8 and 9, the RNC group reported significantly lower satisfaction scores compared to UNC. Subscale analysis showed that smoking satisfaction decreased in RNC while other measures, such as cigarette enjoyment, did not change. Understanding the impact of nicotine reduction on cigarette subjective responses through evaluation and liking scales would provide valuable information to the FDA on nicotine reduction policies for cigarettes.

Suggested Citation

  • Wenxue Lin & Nicolle M. Krebs & Junjia Zhu & Jonathan Foulds & Kimberly Horn & Joshua E. Muscat, 2020. "Comparison between Gradual Reduced Nicotine Content and Usual Nicotine Content Groups on Subjective Cigarette Ratings in a Randomized Double-Blind Trial," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 17(19), pages 1-9, September.
  • Handle: RePEc:gam:jijerp:v:17:y:2020:i:19:p:7047-:d:420081
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/17/19/7047/pdf
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/17/19/7047/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Wenxue Lin, 2024. "The Association between Body Mass Index and Glycohemoglobin (HbA1c) in the US Population’s Diabetes Status," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 21(5), pages 1-12, April.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:gam:jijerp:v:17:y:2020:i:19:p:7047-:d:420081. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.