Evaluating The Utility Of The Modified Cigarette Evaluation Questionnaire And The Cigarette Purchase Task For Predicting Acute Relative Reinforcing Efficacy In Cigarettes Which Vary In Nicotine Content

Rationale: Nicotine is the addictive component in cigarettes which maintains cigarette smoking that subsequently leads to morbidity and mortality. There are growing regulatory efforts to lower the nicotine content in cigarettes so that they are minimally addictive. Valid methods for assessing the abuse liability of cigarettes are essential to these efforts. While subjective effect measures and hypothetical purchase tasks are appealing because they are far easier to administer, it is unclear whether these methods can be used to evaluate acute relative reinforcing, a critical component of abuse liability. This secondary analysis sought to evaluate the utility of one subjective effects measure, the modified Cigarette Evaluation Questionnaire (mCEQ), and one hypothetical purchase task, the Cigarette Purchase Task (CPT), for predicting acute relative reinforcing efficacy as measured by concurrent choice Self-Administration (SA) Method: Current smokers (N=169) belonging to one of three vulnerable populations (socioeconomically disadvantaged women of childbearing age, opioid-maintained individuals, or individuals with affective disorders) participated in a multi-site, double blind study evaluating research cigarettes with varying levels of nicotine content (0.4, 2.4, 5.2, 15.8 mg/g). In Phase 1 (4 sessions, 1 research cigarette per session) participants completed the mCEQ and CPT following ad-lib smoking of the research cigarette. In Phase II (6 sessions) cigarette preference was assessed using two-dose concurrent choice tests. Difference scores were calculated for each of the five mCEQ subscales and five CPT indices for all six possible dose comparisons evaluated in Phase II. We evaluated the utility of the mCEQ subscale and CPT index difference scores for predicting preference for the higher dose in a given dose comparison using a mixed-model of repeated measures analysis of variance. Finally, we used stepwise regressions to determine which subscales and indices served as independent predictors of concurrent choice SA. Results: Among mCEQ subscales, higher Satisfaction and Enjoyment of Respiratory Tract Sensation were independently predictive of higher dose preference in the choice testing regardless of dose comparison. There was a significant Satisfaction X Vulnerable Population interaction where increases in Satisfaction difference scores corresponded to greater changes in higher dose preference among socioeconomically disadvantaged women of childbearing age compared to other Vulnerable Populations. Among CPT indices, Elasticity was the only independent predictor of choice. However, there was a significant Elasticity X Dose Comparison X Vulnerable Population interaction associated with its predictive utility where the relationship between elasticity and choice differed by dose among opioid-maintained individuals. In a final model, including all subscales and indices, Satisfaction and Enjoyment of Respiratory Tract Sensations remained the only significant predictors of choice. Discussion: Concurrent choice testing, subjective effects and hypothetical purchase tasks capture some common features of abuse liability. Concurrent choice testing and the Satisfaction subscale were the most concordant measures. The observation that CPT indices are not robust predictors of choice in a concurrent arrangement suggests this measure may have greater utility for capturing individual differences as opposed to isolating the acute relative reinforcing effects of nicotine. Nevertheless, all three measures can contribute to efforts to assess the abuse liability of cigarettes varying in nicotine dose and important work aimed at regulating these products to improve human health

Attitudes toward organ donation for persons who have a substance use disorder relative to other health conditions.

Background: Increases in opioid-related overdose and death have led to increases in the number of organs available for donation and transplant, however persons who have a substance use disorder (SUD) may be disadvantaged relative to other health conditions with regard to receiving an organ for transplant.Objective: This study aimed to evaluate perceptions regarding acceptability and priority for organ donation vs. a control condition (resuscitation) for hypothetical persons with nine target health conditions including a substance use disorder, among persons recruited as part of an online survey.Methods: Respondents (N = 285; male = 172, female = 113) recruited from Amazon Mechanical Turk rated acceptability and priority that hypothetical persons representing nine target health conditions expected to influence transplant success (including a SUD) receive an organ transplant and resuscitation via a survey hosted by Qualtrics. Primary outcomes of stigma ratings and priority ranking of persons as a function of the hypothetical target health condition were analyzed using Repeated Measures Analyses of Variance and Bonferroni-corrected t-tests. Demographic information was presented descriptively for all respondents.Results: Ratings for acceptability and priority for persons who had a SUD were generally lower than ratings for other conditions for both organ for transplant and resuscitation, though respondents reported less stigma toward resuscitation, F(8) = 22.35, p <0.001 overall. Respondents were least supportive of persons who smoked cigarettes receiving an organ, p's < 0.001. Priority rankings favored persons who were young or had a history of heart disease. Multivariable models determined that target health condition, F(8) = 33.64, p < 0.001, was a better and more consistent predictor of response than demographic variables that were examined.Conclusions: Data suggest that general perception of acceptability and priority ranking for receipt of life-saving interventions was lower for persons who have a SUD relative to other clinically-relevant health conditions. Research to examine this effect among persons working in the donation system are warranted and efforts to reduce stigma toward persons who have a SUD should be continued

Potential Moderating Effects of Sex/Gender on the Acute Relative Reinforcing and Subjective Effects of Reduced Nicotine Content Cigarettes in Vulnerable Populations.

IntroductionReports in relatively healthy smokers suggest men are more sensitive than women to the subjective effects of reduced nicotine content cigarettes (RNCCs). We know of no reports examining sex differences in the relative reinforcing effects of RNCCs, an important outcome in assessing smoking's addiction potential. The aim of the present study is to address this gap by examining sex/gender differences on reinforcing effects while examining whether sex differences in subjective effects are discernible in vulnerable populations.MethodsSecondary analysis of a within-subject, double-blinded experiment examining acute effects of cigarettes varying in nicotine content (0.4, 2.4, 5.2, 15.8 mg/g) among 169 adult smokers with psychiatric conditions or socioeconomic disadvantage. Effects of dose, sex, and their interaction were examined on reinforcing (concurrent-choice and Cigarette Purchase Task [CPT] testing), and subjective effects (Cigarette Evaluation Questionnaire [CEQ] and craving/withdrawal ratings).ResultsReducing nicotine content decreased the relative reinforcing effects of smoking in concurrent-choice and CPT testing (p's < .05) with no significant effects of sex nor dose × sex/gender interactions. Reducing nicotine content decreased CEQ ratings with only a single significant effect of sex (higher Psychological Reward scores among women than men, p = .02) and no significant dose × sex/gender interactions. Results on craving/withdrawal paralleled those on the CEQ.ConclusionsReducing nicotine content decreases the addiction potential of smoking independent of sex in populations highly vulnerable to smoking and addiction, with no indication that women are less sensitive to subjective effects of RNCCs or would benefit less from a policy reducing the nicotine content of cigarettes.ImplicationsA policy reducing the nicotine content of cigarettes has the potential to reduce the addiction potential of smoking across men and women who are especially vulnerable to smoking, addiction, and tobacco-related adverse health impacts

Response to reduced nicotine content cigarettes among smokers with chronic health conditions

Individuals with chronic health conditions persist in smoking despite the presence of smoking-related illness. The aim of this study was to examine whether chronic health conditions moderate response to reduced nicotine content cigarettes (0.4, 2.4, 5.2, 15.8 mg/g of tobacco). This is a secondary analysis of a controlled clinical laboratory study that examined the acute effects of cigarettes varying in nicotine content among individuals especially vulnerable to smoking and tobacco dependence. Participants in the present study were categorized as having 0, 1–2, or ≥3 smoking-related chronic health conditions (i.e., chronic condition severity, CCS). Repeated-measures analysis of variance was used to examine whether CCS moderated response to cigarettes across measures of addiction potential (i.e., concurrent choice testing between nicotine dose pairs, Cigarette Purchase Task (CPT) performance, positive subjective effects), tobacco withdrawal, cigarette craving, and smoking topography. No main effects of CCS or interactions of CCS and nicotine dose were observed for concurrent choice testing, positive subjective effects, tobacco withdrawal, or smoking topography. Main effects of CCS were noted on the CPT with greater CCS being associated with less persistent demand. There was an interaction of CCS and nicotine dose on Factor 1 of the Questionnaire on Smoking Urges with the effects of dose significant only among those with 1–2 chronic conditions. Overall, we see minimal evidence that chronic condition severity affects response to reduced nicotine content cigarettes. A policy that reduces the nicotine content of cigarettes to minimally addictive levels may benefit smokers already experiencing smoking-related chronic conditions. Keywords: Reduced nicotine content cigarettes, Addiction potential, Abuse liability, Chronic health conditions, Medical comorbidities, Chronic conditions, Vulnerable population