Potential reduced exposure products (PREPs) for smokeless tobacco users: clinical evaluation methodology

Nicotine pharmacokinetics and subjective responses after using nicotine pouches with different nicotine levels compared to combustible cigarettes and moist smokeless tobacco in adult tobacco users

RATIONALE

Oral tobacco-derived nicotine products include on!® nicotine pouches (NPs) which are tobacco-leaf free and available in multiple flavors and nicotine levels. Switching completely to NPs from cigarettes and moist smokeless tobacco (MST) has the potential to reduce harm for adult tobacco consumers. However, the dependence potential of NPs is not established. Therefore, we characterized the abuse potential of NPs with different nicotine levels compared to cigarettes and MST.

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate nicotine pharmacokinetics (PK) and subjective effects of NPs (ranging from 1.5 to 8 mg nicotine) compared to own brand cigarettes (OBCs) and MST (OBMST).

METHODS

We used a randomized, in-clinic, partial single-blind, 7-way crossover design to assess nicotine PK and subjective effects in dual users of cigarettes and MST.

RESULTS

The mean nicotine Cmax for NPs increased with nicotine level, ranging from 3.5 ng/mL (1.5 mg NP) to 15.4 ng/mL (8 mg NP), compared with 12.2 ng/mL for OBCs and 9.8 ng/mL for OBMST. Nicotine tmax was much longer for all NPs and OBMST (32.5-34.4 min) compared to OBCs (8.5 min). Reductions in urges to smoke after use of the 2 mg, 3.5 mg, and 8 mg NPs were not statistically different (p > 0.05) relative to OBC. Also, NPs resulted in lower ratings of positive subjective effects relative to OBCs and OBMST.

CONCLUSIONS

Overall, based on the study results and literature reported nicotine PK values for cigarettes and MST, the abuse potential of NPs is not likely to be higher than OBCs and OBMST. NPs may be potentially acceptable switching products for users of cigarettes and MST products.

Human Abuse Liability Assessment of Tobacco and Nicotine Products: Approaches for Meeting Current Regulatory Recommendations

Many regulatory bodies now recommend that tobacco product manufacturers provide information regarding new tobacco products' abuse liability to inform regulatory authorization of currently marketed tobacco products or new product applications (including premarket tobacco product applications in the United States). In addition, the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) recommends including this information as part of modified risk tobacco product applications. Regulators, including FDA, and many public health officials and researchers consider abuse liability assessment a model which predicts the likelihood that the use of the tobacco product would result in addiction and be used repeatedly or even sporadically resulting in undesirable effects. Abuse liability of a new, potentially reduced harm product can also inform its ability to substitute completely for more harmful tobacco products. While many methods exist, no standard tobacco product abuse liability assessment has been established. The purpose of this review is to provide background information and practical recommendations for human abuse liability testing methods to meet tobacco regulatory needs. A combination of nicotine test product pharmacokinetic, subjective effect and/or behavioral response, and physiological response data relative to comparator products with known abuse liability satisfies some regulatory requirements. Implications: This review provides a practical inspection of the current, international regulatory recommendations for abuse liability assessment of tobacco and regulatory review of such information within the United States and also recommends study designs and methods for abuse liability testing of tobacco products based on scientific and regulatory knowledge. Given that tobacco product abuse liability testing is of increasing interest to regulatory bodies globally, especially with the emergence of novel tobacco products, this timely work provides background and functional recommendations for tobacco product abuse liability testing.

Tobacco-use behavior and toxicant exposure among current dual users of electronic cigarettes and tobacco cigarettes

Electronic cigarette (e-cigarette) use continues to grow with most users reporting concurrent cigarette smoking, but few studies have focused on tobacco use and toxicant exposure among naturalistic dual-using populations. This controlled clinical laboratory study examined how dual versus exclusive use of e-cigarettes and cigarettes and no tobacco/nicotine affected behavioral, physiological, and subjective measures among current dual users. Twenty-two participants identifying as cigarette (≥ 10 cigarettes per day [CPD]) and e-cigarette (≥ 3 days/week) users of "cig-a-like" e-cigarettes completed four 5-day outpatient conditions, which differed by their own brand of products used ad libitum: (a) cigarette and e-cigarette (dual), (b) cigarette-only, (c) e-cigarette-only, and (d) no tobacco/nicotine. Primary outcomes included daily tobacco use, expired air carbon monoxide (CO), and urinary cotinine and NNAL. Linear mixed models with pairwise comparisons (Bonferroni corrected) were performed (p < .05). CPD did not differ significantly between dual and cigarette-only use, but e-cigarette use and liquid consumed increased significantly during e-cigarette-only relative to dual use. Relative to dual use, expired air CO did not differ during cigarette-only and was significantly lower during e-cigarette-only use. Urinary cotinine was significantly lower during e-cigarette-only use relative to dual and cigarette-only use, while urinary NNAL did not differ between the nicotine-containing conditions. In summary, among current dual users, e-cigarettes in combination with cigarettes did not reduce CPD relative to exclusive cigarette use or toxicant exposure relative to exclusive use of either product. However, exclusive e-cigarette use did reduce CO and cotinine, highlighting the benefits of cigarette cessation. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2021 APA, all rights reserved).

Nicotine pharmacokinetics and subjective response among adult smokers using different flavors of on!® nicotine pouches compared to combustible cigarettes

RATIONALE

on!® nicotine pouches (NPs) are oral tobacco-derived nicotine products that are tobacco-leaf free and are available in a variety of flavors and nicotine strengths. Switching completely to NPs from cigarettes may present the potential to reduce harm in adult smokers (AS) unable or unwilling to quit smoking. We characterized the abuse potential of six different flavor variants of NPs compared to cigarettes.

OBJECTIVES

The objective of this study was to evaluate the nicotine pharmacokinetics (PK) and subjective effects of different flavor variants of NPs compared to participants' own brand cigarettes (OBCs) in AS.

METHODS

In this single-blind, randomized, 7-way crossover study, we assessed nicotine PK, subjective measures (using well-established questionnaires), and product use behavior associated with six flavors of 4 mg NPs and OBCs in AS that remained in clinic for the duration of the test period.

RESULTS

Nicotine C_max values ranged from 9.0 to 11.5 ng/mL for the NPs and 16.3 ng/mL for OBCs. The t_max ranged from 30.1 to 34.9 min for ONPs and 7.5 min for OBCs. Use of NPs resulted in lower ratings of urge to smoke or craving a cigarette. All the NPs were considered pleasant, but not as much as OBCs. Flavor did not appear to influence the nicotine PK or subjective responses.

CONCLUSIONS

Based on the nicotine PK parameters and subjective responses, we conclude that NPs, regardless of flavor, likely have lower abuse potential than cigarettes. Overall, this study suggests that the NPs may be potentially acceptable switching products for adult smokers.

Acute effects of snus in never-tobacco users: a pilot study

BACKGROUND

Snus tobacco characteristics may attract non-tobacco users, including relatively low, but pharmacologically active, doses of nicotine. Lower nicotine doses may limit adverse drug effects while also producing a physiologically active response.

OBJECTIVES

This pilot study is the first to profile the acute effects of snus on physiological and subjective assessments in a sample of never-tobacco users.

METHODS

Eleven never-tobacco users (five women; <100 uses/lifetime) were recruited from the community via university-approved advertisements. Using a within-subject design, participants consumed six pouches in ascending dose order (0, 1.6, 3.2, 4.8, 6.4, and 8.0 mg nicotine) within one session. The start of each snus bout was separated by 45 minutes, and pre- and post-pouch assessments included ratings of drug effects and physiological response.

RESULTS

The average heart rate and systolic blood pressure increased significantly from pre- to post-pouch use as a function of dose, though these increases were reliable for 8.0 mg nicotine only (p < .05). Collapsed across time, diastolic blood pressure was significantly higher for 8.0 mg nicotine than for all other doses (p < .05). Subjective ratings for "excessive salivation" and "satisfying" increased significantly from pre- to post-pouch use (p < .05), independent of dose.

CONCLUSION

Significant increases in physiological response at some doses suggest that users were exposed to pharmacologically active doses of nicotine. The lack of reliable subjective effects may be the product of the dosing regimen or the relatively small sample size. Findings highlight the need for identification of doses of snus that may promote abuse among naïve users.

Expanding clinical laboratory tobacco product evaluation methods to loose-leaf tobacco vaporizers

BACKGROUND

Novel tobacco products entering the US market include electronic cigarettes (ECIGs) and products advertised to "heat, not burn" tobacco. There is a growing literature regarding the acute effects of ECIGs. Less is known about "heat, not burn" products. This study's purpose was to expand existing clinical laboratory methods to examine, in cigarette smokers, the acute effects of a "heat, not burn" "loose-leaf tobacco vaporizer" (LLTV).

METHODS

Plasma nicotine and breath carbon monoxide (CO) concentration and tobacco abstinence symptom severity were measured before and after two 10-puff (30-s interpuff interval) product use bouts separated by 60min. LLTV effects were compared to participants' own brand (OB) cigarettes and an ECIG (3.3V; 1.5ohm; 18mg/ml nicotine).

RESULTS

Relative to OB, LLTV increased plasma nicotine concentration to a lesser degree, did not increase CO, and did not appear to reduce abstinence symptoms as effectively. Relative to ECIG, LLTV nicotine and CO delivery and abstinence symptom suppression did not differ. Participants reported that both the LLTV and ECIG were significantly less satisfying than OB.

CONCLUSIONS

Results demonstrate that LLTVs are capable of delivering nicotine and suppressing tobacco abstinence symptoms partially; acute effects of these products can be evaluated using existing clinical laboratory methods. Results can inform tobacco product regulation and may be predictive of the extent that these products have the potential to benefit or harm overall public health.

Interventions to reduce harm from continued tobacco use

BACKGROUND

Although smoking cessation is currently the only guaranteed way to reduce the harm caused by tobacco smoking, a reasonable secondary tobacco control approach may be to try and reduce the harm from continued tobacco use amongst smokers unable or unwilling to quit. Possible approaches to reduce the exposure to toxins from smoking include reducing the amount of tobacco used, and using less toxic products, such as pharmaceutical, nicotine and potential reduced-exposure tobacco products (PREPs), as an alternative to cigarettes.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effects of interventions intended to reduce the harm to health of continued tobacco use, we considered the following specific questions: do interventions intended to reduce harm have an effect on long-term health status?; do they lead to a reduction in the number of cigarettes smoked?; do they have an effect on smoking abstinence?; do they have an effect on biomarkers of tobacco exposure?; and do they have an effect on biomarkers of damage caused by tobacco?

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Tobacco Addiction Group Trials Register (CRS) on the 21st October 2015, using free-text and MeSH terms for harm reduction, smoking reduction and cigarette reduction.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomized or quasi-randomized controlled trials of interventions to reduce the amount smoked, or to reduce harm from smoking by means other than cessation. We include studies carried out in smokers with no immediate desire to quit all tobacco use. Primary outcomes were change in cigarette consumption, smoking cessation and any markers of damage or benefit to health, measured at least six months from the start of the intervention.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We assessed study eligibility for inclusion using standard Cochrane methods. We pooled trials with similar interventions and outcomes (> 50% reduction in cigarettes a day (CPD) and long-term smoking abstinence), using fixed-effect models. Where it was not possible to meta-analyse data, we summarized findings narratively.

MAIN RESULTS

Twenty-four trials evaluated interventions to help those who smoke to cut down the amount smoked or to replace their regular cigarettes with PREPs, compared to placebo, brief intervention, or a comparison intervention. None of these trials directly tested whether harm reduction strategies reduced the harms to health caused by smoking. Most trials (14/24) tested nicotine replacement therapy (NRT) as an intervention to assist reduction. In a pooled analysis of eight trials, NRT significantly increased the likelihood of reducing CPD by at least 50% for people using nicotine gum or inhaler or a choice of product compared to placebo (risk ratio (RR) 1.75, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.44 to 2.13; 3081 participants). Where average changes from baseline were compared for different measures, carbon monoxide (CO) and cotinine generally showed smaller reductions than CPD. Use of NRT versus placebo also significantly increased the likelihood of ultimately quitting smoking (RR 1.87, 95% CI 1.43 to 2.44; 8 trials, 3081 participants; quality of the evidence: low). Two trials comparing NRT and behavioural support to brief advice found a significant effect on reduction, but no significant effect on cessation. We found one trial investigating each of the following harm reduction intervention aids: bupropion, varenicline, electronic cigarettes, snus, plus another of nicotine patches to facilitate temporary abstinence. The evidence for all five intervention types was therefore imprecise, and it is unclear whether or not these aids increase the likelihood of smoking reduction or cessation. Two trials investigating two different types of behavioural advice and instructions on reducing CPD also provided imprecise evidence. Therefore, the evidence base for this comparison is inadequate to support the use of these types of behavioural advice to reduce smoking. Four studies of PREPs (cigarettes with reduced levels of tar, carbon and nicotine, and in one case delivered using an electronically-heated cigarette smoking system) showed some reduction in exposure to some toxicants, but it is unclear whether this would substantially alter the risk of harm. We judged the included studies to be generally at a low or unclear risk of bias; however, there were some ratings of high risk, due to a lack of blinding and the potential for detection bias. Using the GRADE system, we rated the overall quality of the evidence for our cessation outcomes as 'low' or 'very low', due to imprecision and indirectness. A 'low' grade means that further research is very likely to have an important impact on our confidence in the estimate of effect and is likely to change the estimate. A 'very low' grade means we are very uncertain about the estimate.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

People who do not wish to quit can be helped to cut down the number of cigarettes they smoke and to quit smoking in the long term, using NRT, despite original intentions not to do so. However, we rated the evidence contributing to the cessation outcome for NRT as 'low' by GRADE standards. There is a lack of evidence to support the use of other harm reduction aids to reduce the harm caused by continued tobacco smoking. This could simply be due to the lack of high-quality studies (our confidence in cessation outcomes for these aids is rated 'low' or 'very low' due to imprecision by GRADE standards), meaning that we may have missed a worthwhile effect, or due to a lack of effect on reduction or quit rates. It is therefore important that more high-quality RCTs are conducted, and that these also measure the long-term health effects of treatments.

Animal models to assess the abuse liability of tobacco products: effects of smokeless tobacco extracts on intracranial self-stimulation

BACKGROUND

Preclinical models are needed to inform regulation of tobacco products by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA). Typically, animal models of tobacco addiction involve exposure to nicotine alone or nicotine combined with isolated tobacco constituents (e.g. minor alkaloids). The goal of this study was to develop a model using extracts derived from tobacco products that contain a range of tobacco constituents to more closely model product exposure in humans.

METHODS

This study compared the addiction-related effects of nicotine alone and nicotine dose-equivalent concentrations of aqueous smokeless tobacco extracts on intracranial self-stimulation (ICSS) in rats. Extracts were prepared from Kodiak Wintergreen, a conventional product, or Camel Snus, a potential "modified risk tobacco product". Binding affinities of nicotine alone and extracts at various nicotinic acetylcholine receptor (nAChR) subtypes were also compared.

RESULTS

Kodiak and Camel Snus extracts contained levels of minor alkaloids within the range of those shown to enhance nicotine's behavioral effects when studied in isolation. Nonetheless, acute injection of both extracts produced reinforcement-enhancing (ICSS threshold-decreasing) effects similar to those of nicotine alone at low to moderate nicotine doses, as well as similar reinforcement-attenuating/aversive (ICSS threshold-increasing) effects at high nicotine doses. Extracts and nicotine alone also had similar binding affinity at all nAChRs studied.

CONCLUSIONS

Relative nicotine content is the primary pharmacological determinant of the abuse liability of Kodiak and Camel Snus as measured using ICSS. These models may be useful to compare the relative abuse liability of other tobacco products and to model FDA-mandated changes in product performance standards.

Nicotine Absorption from Smokeless Tobacco Modified to Adjust pH

INTRODUCTION

Nicotine delivery from smokeless tobacco (ST) products leads to addiction and the use of ST causes pathology that is associated with increased initiation of cigarette smoking. The rapid delivery of nicotine from ST seems to be associated with the pH of the aqueous suspension of the products - high pH is associated with high nicotine absorption. However, early studies compared nicotine absorption from different commercial products that not only differed in pH but in flavoring, nicotine content, and in format-pouches and loose tobacco.

METHODS

The present study compared nicotine absorption from a single unflavored referent ST product (pH 7.7) that was flavored with a low level of wintergreen (2 mg/g) and the pH was amended to either high (8.3) or low (5.4) pH with sodium carbonate or citric acid, respectively.

RESULTS

In a within-subject clinical study, the higher pH products delivered more nicotine. No significant differences were seen between perceived product strengths and product experience in all conditions. Heart rate increased by 4 to 6 beats per minute after the high pH flavored and the un-amended product but did not change after the low pH flavored product.

CONCLUSIONS

These results indicate that pH is a primary determinant of buccal nicotine absorption. The role of flavoring and other components of ST products in nicotine absorption remain to be determined.

Subjective responses to oral tobacco products: scale validation

INTRODUCTION

Several noncombusted oral tobacco products have been introduced that are primarily marketed to cigarette smokers. An important component of evaluating these products involves assessment of subjective responses to the product. To date, few studies have been undertaken to examine the validity of subjective response questionnaires for oral tobacco products. The goal of this study is to examine the extent subjective responses to a product are related to product preference and extent of product use.

METHODS

Data from a study examining oral tobacco product preference were used. Smokers were asked to sample a variety of oral tobacco products that differed in formulation (snus versus dissolvables) and dose of nicotine. At the end of the sampling period, subjects were asked to choose the product that they would use to completely substitute for cigarettes for the next 2 weeks. During the sampling period, subjects completed a Product Evaluation Scale (PES) that describes subjective responses to the product. During the treatment phase, they kept record of amount of product use.

RESULTS

Subjective responses to the product on the PES were related to product choice and to some extent, the amount of product use. Product choice was associated with different characteristics of the product and smoker needs.

CONCLUSION

The PES may be a useful tool for the evaluation or oral tobacco products.

Dependence on tobacco and nicotine products: a case for product-specific assessment

The International Classification of Diseases and the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual for diagnosing tobacco/nicotine dependence emphasize the dependence-producing drug nicotine. These diagnostic tools have been challenged on grounds of poor predictive validity, and they do not differentiate across various forms of nicotine-containing products. In fact, nicotine-containing products (e.g., tobacco cigarettes, smokeless tobacco [ST], waterpipe, electronic cigarettes [ECIGs], and nicotine replacement [NR] products) have very different characteristics both in terms of sensory and behavioral involvement and also in pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic effects. For example, a cigarette and a nicotine patch are very different on almost every one of these dimensions. When ability to stop using a nicotine/tobacco product is used as a criterion for dependence, success rates vary considerably across products: Tobacco cigarette cessation is more difficult than ST cessation that in turn is more difficult than NR product cessation. Based on these results, we hypothesize that there is a continuum of dependence as much as there is a continuum of harm, with tobacco cigarettes and NR products on opposite ends of both continua and other products (waterpipe and ECIGs) somewhere in between. In order to capture more precisely the dependence produced by both nicotine and its administration forms, product-specific instruments may be required. The pros and cons of this approach are discussed.

Effect of oral snus and medicinal nicotine in smokers on toxicant exposure and withdrawal symptoms: a feasibility study

BACKGROUND

Smokeless, spitless tobacco products are being introduced and marketed as cigarette substitutes. Data are needed regarding how smokers interested in cessation would use these products, the levels of resultant toxicant exposure, and the feasibility of using these products as aids for tobacco cessation.

METHODS

Smokers were randomized to receive Camel Snus (n = 51), Taboka (n = 52), or medicinal nicotine (n = 27) and required to quit smoking for 4 weeks. Measures of toxicant exposure and symptoms of craving and withdrawal were assessed prior to and during product use.

RESULTS

Concentrations of exhaled carbon monoxide, urinary cotinine, urinary 4-(methylnitrosamino)-1-(3-pyridyl)-1-butanol and its glucuronides (total NNAL), and urinary N'-nitrosonornicotine and its glucuronide (total NNN) were significantly (P values <0.05) lower at the end of treatment in each group except for total NNN in those receiving Camel Snus (P = 0.066). A significant group × time effect was observed for total NNAL concentrations (P = 0.002) with the decrease greatest in the medicinal nicotine group and smallest decrease in the Camel Snus group. No significant differences between groups were found in craving and withdrawal symptoms.

CONCLUSIONS

Enrolling smokers into a cessation study utilizing newer smokeless tobacco products is feasible. Camel Snus and Taboka use was not found to be superior to medicinal nicotine in reducing withdrawal symptoms but decreases in NNAL were smaller in users of Camel Snus.

IMPACT

This study demonstrates the feasibility of conducting a smoking cessation study utilizing these newer tobacco products. An appropriately powered study is needed to assess smoking cessation rates using these newer products compared with established, safer products such as medicinal nicotine.

Evaluating the acute effects of oral, non-combustible potential reduced exposure products marketed to smokers

BACKGROUND

Non-combustible potential reduced exposure products (PREPs; eg, Star Scientific's Ariva; a variety of other smokeless tobacco products) are marketed to reduce the harm associated with smoking. This marketing occurs despite an absence of objective data concerning the toxicant exposure and effects of these PREPs. Methods used to examine combustible PREPs were adapted to assess the acute effects of non-combustible PREPs for smokers.

METHODS

28 overnight abstinent cigarette smokers (17 men, 14 non-white) each completed seven, Latin-squared ordered, approximately 2.5 h laboratory sessions that differed by product administered: Ariva, Marlboro Snus (Philip Morris, USA), Camel Snus (RJ Reynolds, Winston-Salem, North Carolina, USA), Commit nicotine lozenge (GlaxoSmithKline; 2 mg), own brand cigarettes, Quest cigarettes (Vector Tobacco; delivers very low levels of nicotine) and sham smoking (ie, puffing on an unlit cigarette). In each session, the product was administered twice (separated by 60 min), and plasma nicotine levels, expired air CO and subjective effects were assessed regularly.

RESULTS

Non-combustible products delivered less nicotine than own brand cigarettes, did not expose smokers to CO and failed to suppress tobacco abstinence symptoms as effectively as combustible products.

CONCLUSIONS

While decreased toxicant exposure is a potential indicator of harm reduction potential, a failure to suppress abstinence symptoms suggests that currently marketed non-combustible PREPs may not be a viable harm reduction strategy for US smokers. This study demonstrates how clinical laboratory methods can be used to evaluate the short-term effects of non-combustible PREPs for smokers.

A clinical laboratory model for evaluating the acute effects of electronic "cigarettes": nicotine delivery profile and cardiovascular and subjective effects

BACKGROUND

Electronic "cigarettes" are marketed to tobacco users as potential reduced exposure products (PREP), albeit with little information regarding electronic cigarette user toxicant exposure and effects. This information may be obtained by adapting clinical laboratory methods used to evaluate other PREPs for smokers.

METHODS

Thirty-two smokers participated in four independent Latin-square ordered conditions that differed by product: own brand cigarette, "NPRO" electronic cigarettes (NPRO EC; 18 mg cartridge), "Hydro" electronic cigarettes (Hydro EC; 16 mg cartridge), or sham (unlit cigarette). Participants took 10 puffs at two separate times during each session. Plasma nicotine and carbon monoxide (CO) concentration, heart rate, and subjective effects were assessed.

RESULTS

Own brand significantly increased plasma nicotine and CO concentration and heart rate within the first five minutes of administration whereas NPRO EC, Hydro EC, and sham smoking did not. Own brand, NPRO EC, and Hydro EC (but not sham) significantly decreased tobacco abstinence symptom ratings and increased product acceptability ratings. The magnitude of symptom suppression and increased acceptability was greater for own brand than for NPRO EC and Hydro EC.

CONCLUSIONS

Under these acute testing conditions, neither of the electronic cigarettes exposed users to measurable levels of nicotine or CO, although both suppressed nicotine/tobacco abstinence symptom ratings.

IMPACT

This study illustrates how clinical laboratory methods can be used to understand the acute effects of these and other PREPs for tobacco users. The results and methods reported here will likely be relevant to the evaluation and empirically based regulation of electronic cigarettes and similar products.

Evaluating oral noncombustible potential-reduced exposure products for smokers

INTRODUCTION

Potential-reduced exposure products (PREPs) are marketed as a way for smokers to continue using tobacco while possibly lessening their tobacco toxicant intake. Some tobacco-based PREPs are combustible and intended to be smoked, while others are noncombustible and intended to be administered orally (e.g., Camel Snus [CS] tobacco sachets and Ariva tobacco tablets). The ability of these noncombustible PREPs to reduce smokers' exposure to cigarette-delivered toxicants and suppress tobacco abstinence symptoms effectively is unclear. Clinical laboratory methods have been used to measure combustible PREP-associated toxicant exposure and abstinence symptom suppression and could be applied to evaluating the effects of orally administered noncombustible PREPs.

METHODS

In this study, 21 smokers (6 women) participated in four 5-day conditions that differed by product used: CS, Ariva, own brand cigarettes, or no tobacco. Measures included expired-air carbon monoxide (CO), the urinary metabolite of nicotine (cotinine), the urinary metabolite of the carcinogen NNK (NNAL-T), and subjective effect ratings.

RESULTS

Relative to own brand, all other conditions were associated with CO and cotinine levels that were lower and abstinence symptom ratings that were greater. Only no-tobacco use was associated with significantly lower NNAL levels. Acceptability ratings were also lower in all conditions relative to own brand.

DISCUSSION

Although these oral products reduce exposure to CO, their ineffective abstinence symptom suppression and low acceptability may limit their viability as PREPs. As with combustible PREPs, clinical laboratory study of orally administered noncombustible PREPs will be a valuable part of any comprehensive PREP evaluation strategy.

Abuse liability assessment of tobacco products including potential reduced exposure products

The harm produced by tobacco products is a result of frequent use of a highly toxic product. Reducing the adverse public health impact of tobacco products might be most effectively achieved by reducing the likelihood of their use and the toxicity of the products. Products that retain some characteristics of cigarettes but have been altered with the intention of reducing toxicity have been referred to as modified risk tobacco products or potential reduced exposure products (MRTP/PREP). Evaluation of their content, emission, and toxicity is discussed in other articles in this special issue. Here, we discuss the methodology that has been used to examine the likelihood of abuse or addiction. Abuse liability assessment (ALA) methodology has been used by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and other drug regulatory agencies world-wide for decades to assess the risks posed by a wide variety of pharmacologically active substances. ALA is routinely required among other evaluations of safety during the pre-market assessment of new drugs, and is continually adapted to meet the challenges posed by new drug classes and drug formulations. In the 2009 law giving FDA regulation over tobacco products, FDA is now required to evaluate new tobacco products including MRTP/PREPs to determine their risk for abuse and toxicity at the population level. This article describes the traditional tools and methods of ALA that can be used to evaluate new tobacco and nicotine products including MRTP/PREPs. Such ALA data could contribute to the scientific foundation on which future public policy decisions are based.

Clinical trials methods for evaluation of potential reduced exposure products

Potential reduced exposure products (PREPs) to tobacco toxicants may have promise in reducing tobacco-related morbidity or mortality or may promote greater harm to individuals or the population. Critical to determining the risks or benefits from these products are valid human clinical trial PREP assessment methods. Such an assessment involves determining the effects of these products on biomarkers of exposure and effect, which serve as proxies for harm, and assessing the potential for consumer uptake and abuse of the product. This article identifies critical methodologic issues associated with PREP assessments, reviews the methods that have been used to assess PREPs, and describes the strengths and limitations of these methods. Additionally, recommendations are provided for clinical trial PREP assessment methods and future research directions in this area based on this review and on the deliberations from a National Cancer Institute sponsored Clinical Trials PREP Methods Workshop.

Measures for assessing subjective effects of potential reduced-exposure products

Potential reduced-exposure products (PREP) may reduce toxicant exposure and thereby may possibly reduce health risks associated with conventional tobacco use. However, lessened health risk to the individual or harm to the population through the use of PREPs is unknown. Research is being conducted to evaluate the possible health effects associated with PREP use. As part of this evaluation, it is critical to provide sound measures of subjective responses to PREPs to determine the use and the abuse potential of a product, that is, the likelihood that the product will lead to addiction. The goal of this paper is to conduct a systematic review of scales that have been used to measure the subjective responses to PREPs and examine their characteristics. In this article, scales are identified and the items on the scales are described. Scales are also examined to determine whether they are sensitive in testing PREPs. Furthermore, scales to assess PREPs are recommended to investigators. Where no scales exist, items that may be critical for the development and validation of new scales are identified.

Interventions to reduce harm from continued tobacco use

BACKGROUND

It may be reasonable to try to reduce the harm from continued smoking amongst smokers unable or unwilling to quit. Possible approaches to reduce the exposure to toxins from smoking include reducing the amount of tobacco used, and using less toxic products. The interventions evaluated in controlled trials have predominantly attempted to reduce the number of cigarettes smoked.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effect of interventions intended to reduce the harm from smoking on the following: biomarkers of damage caused by tobacco, biomarkers of tobacco exposure, number of cigarettes smoked, quitting, and long-term health status.

SEARCH STRATEGY

We searched the Cochrane Tobacco Addiction Group Specialised Register using free text and MeSH terms for harm reduction, smoking reduction and cigarette reduction. The initial search was in March 2006, updated in March 2007.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomized or quasi-randomized controlled trials of interventions in tobacco users to reduce amount smoked, or to reduce harm from smoking by means other than cessation. Outcomes were change in cigarette consumption, markers of cigarette exposure and any markers of damage or benefit to health, measured at least six months from the start of the intervention.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We pooled trials with similar interventions and outcomes using a fixed-effect model. Other studies were summarised narratively.

MAIN RESULTS

The 13 included trials all evaluated interventions to help smokers cut down the amount smoked. Self-reported reduction in cigarettes per day (CPD) was validated by reduction in carbon monoxide (CO) levels. Most trials tested nicotine replacement therapy (NRT) to assist reduction. No eligible studies evaluated the use of potentially reduced-exposure products. In a pooled analysis of eight trials, NRT significantly increased the odds of reducing CPD by 50% or more for people using nicotine gum or inhaler or a choice of product compared to placebo (n=3273, odds ratio [OR] 2.02, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.55 to 2.62). Where average changes from baseline were compared for different measures, CO and cotinine consistently showed smaller reductions than CPD. Whilst the effect for NRT was significant, small numbers of people in either treatment or control group successfully sustained a reduction of 50% or more. Use of NRT also significantly increased the odds of quitting (OR 1.90, 95% CI 1.46 to 2.47). One trial of bupropion failed to detect an effect on reduction or cessation. Four trials of different types of advice and instructions on reducing CPD did not provide clear evidence.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

There is insufficient evidence about long-term benefit to give firm support the use of interventions intended to help smokers reduce but not quit tobacco use. Some people who do not wish to quit can be helped to cut down the number of cigarettes smoked and reduce their carbon monoxide levels by using nicotine gum or nicotine inhaler. Because the long-term health benefit of a reduction in smoking rate is unclear this application of NRT is more appropriately used as a precursor to quitting.