Do smokers of lower tar cigarettes consume lower amounts of smoke components? Results from the Scottish Heart Health Study

Cigarette Filter Ventilation and its Relationship to Increasing Rates of Lung Adenocarcinoma

The 2014 Surgeon General's Report on smoking and health concluded that changing cigarette designs have caused an increase in lung adenocarcinomas, implicating cigarette filter ventilation that lowers smoking machine tar yields. The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) now has the authority to regulate cigarette design if doing so would improve public health. To support a potential regulatory action, two weight-of-evidence reviews were applied for causally relating filter ventilation to lung adenocarcinoma. Published scientific literature (3284 citations) and internal tobacco company documents contributed to causation analysis evidence blocks and the identification of research gaps. Filter ventilation was adopted in the mid-1960s and was initially equated with making a cigarette safer. Since then, lung adenocarcinoma rates paradoxically increased relative to other lung cancer subtypes. Filter ventilation 1) alters tobacco combustion, increasing smoke toxicants; 2) allows for elasticity of use so that smokers inhale more smoke to maintain their nicotine intake; and 3) causes a false perception of lower health risk from "lighter" smoke. Seemingly not supportive of a causal relationship is that human exposure biomarker studies indicate no reduction in exposure, but these do not measure exposure in the lung or utilize known biomarkers of harm. Altered puffing and inhalation may make smoke available to lung cells prone to adenocarcinomas. The analysis strongly suggests that filter ventilation has contributed to the rise in lung adenocarcinomas among smokers. Thus, the FDA should consider regulating its use, up to and including a ban. Herein, we propose a research agenda to support such an effort.

Mouth level smoke exposure using analysis of filters from smoked cigarettes: a study of eight countries

The analysis of spent cigarette filters enables the estimation of the nicotine and tar (nicotine-free dry particulate matter) yields obtained by smokers in their everyday environment and has been shown to correlate well with biomarkers of exposure. Leading products across the range of ISO tar yields were selected from Australia, Brazil, Canada, Germany, Japan, New Zealand, South Africa and Switzerland. At least fifty demographically representative smokers were recruited per product. Subjects, ≥ 21 years of age and smoking ≥ 5 cigarettes per day, were asked to collect ≥ 15 filters from cigarettes they had smoked. The collected filters were analysed for nicotine and UV absorbance to enable the smokers' mouth level exposure to nicotine and tar to be estimated and a comparison of countries and tobacco blend styles to be made. Smoking history data were also collected. More than 80,000 filters were collected from 5703 smokers of 106 products from eight countries. Mean ± SD estimated nicotine exposures per cigarette and per day ranged from 0.93 ± 0.34 mg/cigarette (Brazil) to 1.77 ± 0.69 mg/cigarette (South Africa) and from 16.4 ± 11.1mg/day (Germany) to 31.5 ± 14.8 mg/day (South Africa), respectively. Male smokers obtained higher mean estimated tar and nicotine exposures than female smokers. These gender differences were statistically significant for six countries. Significant correlations were found between estimated nicotine exposure and ISO nicotine yield, and between estimated tar exposure and ISO tar yield (p<0.001).

A survey of mouth level exposure to cigarette smoke in the United States

Smoke yields determined by a machine-based smoking method cannot adequately predict exposures experienced by human smokers. In this work, a filter analysis technique which addresses this fundamental limitation was used to measure mouth level exposures (MLE) to tar and nicotine in 1330 smokers of 26 brand-styles of US cigarettes covering a wide range of machine-generated yields. Despite the high degree of variability observed among individual smokers, MLEs were significantly correlated with machine-derived tar and nicotine yields (r=0.423 for nicotine MLE/cigarette; r=0.493 for tar MLE/cigarette; p<0.001 for both). Mean tar and nicotine MLE was higher for males than for females. Mean MLE across races was generally similar. Menthol cigarettes tended toward lower MLE than non-menthol cigarettes and King-Size cigarettes (≈ 83 mm) tended toward lower MLE than 100's cigarettes (≈ 100 mm), though those trends were not statistically significant. There were good agreements between MLEs measured in a group of 159 subjects smoking their usual cigarette brand-style on two separate occasions and between two independent groups of subjects smoking the same brand-styles. The results indicated that the filter analysis method used had sufficient precision to show similarity among groups.

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.

The relationship between smoking machine derived tar yields and biomarkers of exposure in adult cigarette smokers in the US

Comprehensive data on human exposure to smoke constituents from different machine-measured tar yield cigarettes is limited.

METHODS

This study used a stratified, cross-sectional, multi-center design to estimate biomarkers of exposure (BOE) from nicotine, 4-(methylnitrosamino)-1-(3-pyridyl)-1-butanone (NNK), pyrene, CO, acrolein, and 1,3-butadiene and their relationship to tar yield categories of cigarette in adult smokers in the U.S. 3625 adults smokers were enrolled into four tar categories < or =2.9 mg (T1), 3.0-6.9 mg (T2), 7.0-12.9 mg (T3), and > or =13.0mg (T4). Biomarkers were measured in blood (carboxyhemoglobin, 4-aminobiphenyl-hemoglobin (4-ABP-Hb)-adducts, serum cotinine) and 24h urine (nicotine and five metabolites, calculated as nicotine equivalents (NE), NNAL, 1-OH-pyrene, 3-HPMA, MHBMA and DHBMA). Data were analyzed using analysis of covariance (ANCOVA).

RESULTS

Tar was a significant factor for most biomarkers in the ANCOVA models. The largest least square mean differences between tar categories was 35% for NE per day, 28% for NE per cigarette, 36% for serum cotinine, 42% for NNAL per day, 29% for NNAL per cigarette, 26% for 1-OHP, 24% for COHb, 14% for 3-HPMA and 40% for 4-ABP-Hb. Variability in BOE ranged from 41% to 154% CV.

CONCLUSIONS

There was a statistically significant effect of machine-measured tar yield on most BOE, which were generally lower with lower tar yield.

Do reductions in the tar and nicotine yields of cigarettes help to explain recent reductions in lung cancer rates in young men and women in the United States?

Between 1985 and 2000, lung cancer rates in U.S. men and women aged 35-54 yr have declined. To investigate whether these declines can adequately be explained by changes in smoking prevalence, consumption, and duration, or if changes in tar and nicotine yields also contributed, two model-fitting approaches were used. Both approaches used individual person National Health Interview Survey data on smoking prevalence, age of starting and time of quitting, and national estimates of consumption per smoker and yields. Both approaches compared observed rates (by sex and age) relative to 1985, with those predicted after successively including various smoking variables into the model, making varying allowance for compensation for reduced yield. Approach A was simpler, based on mean smoking statistics estimated separately for current and former smokers. Approach B used the multistage model and individual smoking histories to estimate risk. Both approaches showed observed declines in risk were (except for men aged 35-39 yr) clearly greater than predicted based only on prevalence, consumption, and duration. Including yield generally improved the fit. At younger ages, models assuming substantial compensation (consistent with evidence from studies relating nicotine yield and intake) fitted well, but at age 50-54 yr in both sexes and age 45-49 yr in women, the decline was better fitted by models assuming little compensation. The conclusions were not sensitive to the precise parameter values assumed in the modeling. Interpretation is not straightforward, but the findings suggest declines in yields have contributed to the recent declines in rates in young U.S. men and women.

Smoking cigarettes of low nicotine yield does not reduce nicotine intake as expected: a study of nicotine dependency in Japanese males

BACKGROUND

Many Japanese believe that low-yield cigarettes are less hazardous than regular cigarettes, and many smokers consume low-yield cigarettes to reduce their risks from smoking. We evaluate the association between actual nicotine intake and brand nicotine yield, and the influence of nicotine dependence on this association.

METHODS

The study subjects included 458 Japanese male smokers, aged 51.2 +/- 9.9 years, who participated in health check-ups in a hospital in 1998 and 2000. Each subject filled out a self-administered smoking questionnaire and the score of each on the Fagerström Test for Nicotine Dependence was calculated. Urinary cotinine concentration was measured at the time of participation.

RESULTS

The geometric mean of urinary cotinine concentration was 535 ng/mgCr for those who smoked brands with the lowest nicotine (0.1 mg on the package), compared with 1010 ng/mgCr for those who smoked brands with the highest (0.9-2.4 mg, weighted mean of 1.1 mg). Thus, despite the 11-fold ratio of nicotine yield on the packages, the ratio of urinary cotinine level was less than twofold. Both nicotine yield on the package and nicotine dependence significantly increased urinary cotinine concentration, and the negative interaction between them almost attained statistical significance. Cotinine concentration in heavily dependent smokers was consistently high regardless of the nicotine yield of brands.

CONCLUSIONS

The nicotine yield of cigarettes measured by machine-smoking does not reliably predict the exposure of smokers. Smokers consuming low-yield nicotine cigarettes did not reduce actual intake of nicotine to the level that might be expected, especially for those heavily dependent on nicotine. Current labeling practices are misleading for the two-third of smokers who are moderately or highly dependent on nicotine.

Tobacco use, cancer causation and public health impact

This review describes global patterns of tobacco use and the mechanisms by which tobacco use is involved in carcinogenesis. A second part will discuss the association between tobacco use and risk of specific cancer types. Tobacco use has traditionally been a practice of high-income countries, but it has recently been taken up in low-income countries and it is particularly common in men. A wide variety of tobacco products exist, of which cigarettes are most frequently consumed. Tobacco products contain more than 50 established or identified carcinogens and these may increase risk of cancer by causing mutations that disrupt cell cycle regulation, or through their effect on the immune or endocrine systems. Certain factors such as genes, diet and environmental exposures may alter susceptibility to cancer in tobacco users. Today at least 15% of all cancers are estimated to be attributable to smoking, but this figure is expected to increase because of the uptake of tobacco use in low-income countries.

'Light' and 'mild' cigarettes: who smokes them? Are they being misled?

Using two population-based surveys of Ontarians, we examined the proportions of smokers who smoke 'light' and 'mild' cigarettes (L/M). We compared L/M smokers to regular cigarette smokers regarding demographic, health knowledge, and smoking characteristics and examined their health-related perceptions of L/M and reasons for smoking them. Use of these cigarettes increased from 71% in 1996 to 83% in 2000. Those who smoked L/M were more likely to be female, to be less addicted, and to be more advanced toward quitting. In 1996, one in five believed that smoking L/M lowers the risk of cancer and heart disease. In 1996 and 2000, respectively, 44% and 27% smoked L/M to reduce health risks, 41% and 40% smoked them as a step toward quitting, and 41% in both years said they would be more likely to quit if they learned L/M could provide the same tar and nicotine as regular cigarettes. These data provide empirical support for banning 'light' and 'mild' on cigarette packaging.

Cigarette nicotine yields and nicotine intake among Japanese male workers

OBJECTIVES

To analyse brand nicotine yield including "ultra low" brands (that is, cigarettes yielding less-than-or-equal 0.1 mg of nicotine by Federal Trade Commission (FTC) methods) in relation to nicotine intake (urinary nicotine, cotinine and trans-3'-hydroxycotinine) among 246 Japanese male smokers.

DESIGN

Cross sectional study.

SETTING

Two companies in Osaka, Japan.

SUBJECTS

130 Japanese male workers selected randomly during their annual regular health check up and 116 Japanese male volunteers taking part in a smoking cessation programme.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS

Subjects answered a questionnaire about smoking habits. Following the interview, each participant was asked to smoke his own cigarette and, after extinguishing it, to blow expired air into an apparatus for measuring carbon monoxide concentration. Urine was also collected for the assays of nicotine metabolites.

RESULTS

We found wide variation in urinary nicotine metabolite concentrations at any given nicotine yield. Based on one way analysis of variance (ANOVA), the urinary nicotine metabolite concentrations of ultra low yield cigarette smokers were significantly lower compared to smokers of high (p = 0.002) and medium yield cigarettes (p = 0.017). On the other hand, the estimated nicotine intake per ultra low yield cigarette smoked (0.59 mg) was much higher than the 0.1 mg indicated by machine.

CONCLUSIONS

In this study of Japanese male smokers, actual levels of nicotine intake bore little relation to advertised nicotine yield levels. Our study reinforces the need to warn consumers of inappropriate advertisements of nicotine yields, especially low yield brands.

Is compulsory restriction of tar yield of cigarettes a worthwhile public health policy?

BACKGROUND

Although the notion of a "safe cigarette" has proved an illusion, while people continue to smoke, an issue remains of whether compulsory restriction of tar yield is a worthwhile public health policy.

METHODS

The study group was comprised of a random population sample of middle-aged Scottish men and women-3464 smokers of cigarettes with known tar yield at baseline. Tar yields were classified into low (< 10 mg), low/middle (10-14.99 mg), and middle or high (> or = 15 mg), according to standard groupings. Deaths within the study cohort were recorded over a period of 13 years.

RESULTS

Among low, low/middle, and middle or high tar smokers, 55 (10%), 178 (16%), and 276 (16%), respectively, died. In a comparison group of lifetime never-smokers, 178 (6%) died. After adjustment for daily cigarette dose, duration of smoking, age, gender, social class, type A personality, body mass index, urinary potassium, and antioxidant vitamin consumption, hazard ratios (95% confidence intervals) for all-cause mortality comparing low-tar smokers to low/middle-tar smokers and to middle- or high-tar smokers were 1.64 (1.04-2.58) and 1.46 (0.95-2.26), respectively. Corresponding results for cardiovascular disease were 1.48 (0.74-2.96) and 1.35 (0.79-2.60). For lung cancer, after adjusting for known confounding factors, corresponding hazard ratios were 2.82 (0.98-8.15) and 2.30 (0.81-6.49).

CONCLUSIONS

Smoking any type of cigarette is far more risky than abstaining altogether. Although the results obtained comparing tar levels are limited because of lack of repeat measures of smoking during follow-up, potential residual confounding factors, statistical imprecision, and failure to show a dose-response relationship, results do support the hypothesis that persistent smokers will reduce their tobacco-induced health risk if they smoke cigarettes with < 10 mg of tar. However, the data do not permit quantification of the benefits of switching to lower-tar cigarettes. Worldwide legislation to limit tar levels to 10 mg as an absolute maximum is recommended, while recognizing that this must be part of an integrated approach to tobacco control.

Nicotine yield from machine-smoked cigarettes and nicotine intakes in smokers: evidence from a representative population survey

BACKGROUND

The relevance of nicotine yields from machine-smoked cigarettes for quantifying smokers' nicotine intakes and exposure to cigarette toxins has been called into question. However, most studies of the relationship between nicotine yield and nicotine intake have been on relatively small and unrepresentative samples and have included few smokers of "ultra-low" brands (i.e., those yielding around 1 mg of tar and 0.1 mg of nicotine).

METHODS

We examined the relationship between salivary cotinine (a major metabolite of nicotine) concentrations and nicotine yields of machine-smoked cigarettes in a nationally representative sample of 2031 adult smokers of manufactured cigarettes surveyed in the 1998 Health Survey for England. We used standard linear regression techniques to examine associations and two-sided tests of statistical significance.

RESULTS

Cotinine concentrations varied widely between smokers at any level of nominal brand nicotine yield. On average, cotinine levels were slightly lower in smokers of lower nicotine-yielding brands, but these smokers differed in terms of sex, socioeconomic profile, and cigarette consumption. After we controlled for potential confounders, nicotine yield from the brand smoked accounted for only 0.79% of the variation in saliva cotinine concentrations. Nicotine intake per cigarette smoked, as estimated from salivary cotinine level, did not correspond with machine-smoked yields at any level of nicotine yield. Nicotine intake per cigarette was about eight times greater than machine-smoked yields at the lowest deliveries (1.17 mg estimated nicotine intake per cigarette from brands averaging 0.14-mg delivery from machine smoking) and 1.4 times greater for the highest yield cigarettes (1.31-mg estimated nicotine intake per cigarette from brands averaging 0.91 mg from machine smoking).

CONCLUSIONS

Smokers' tendency to regulate nicotine intake vitiates potential health gains from lower tar and nicotine cigarettes. Current approaches to characterizing tar and nicotine yields of cigarettes provide a simplistic guide to smokers' exposure that is misleading to consumers and regulators alike and should be abandoned.

Smokers' behaviour and exposure according to cigarette yield and smoking experience

The influence of cigarette yield and length of smoking experience on smoking behaviour and biomarker levels was sought in 108 smokers who have never changed cigarette class. Smoking parameters carboxyhaemoglobin percentage (COHb), urinary nicotine, and its metabolites, mutagens, and thioethers were measured. Cigarette yield does not affect daily consumption or smoke volume puffed per cigarette. But the inhalation depth increases with decreasing cigarette yield and with length of smoking habit. The COHb level after the first cigarette in the morning increases significantly with CO cigarette yield and length of smoking experience. In the evening, only the cigarette yield has an effect on COHb level. Biomarker levels excreted in urine are generally lower for females than for males. They tend to increase with smoking history. Only COHb level and total urinary nicotine metabolites (Barlow index) are weakly correlated with cigarette yield. The absence of significant differences due to cigarette class in urinary biomarkers can be explained by changes in inhalation depth, individual differences of metabolism, and limited specificity of some markers (mutagens, thioethers).

Cigarette smoking, tar yields, and non-fatal myocardial infarction: 14,000 cases and 32,000 controls in the United Kingdom. The International Studies of Infarct Survival (ISIS) Collaborators

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effects of cigarette smoking on the incidence of non-fatal myocardial infarction, and to compare tar in different types of manufactured cigarettes.

METHODS

In the early 1990s responses to a postal questionnaire were obtained from 13,926 survivors of myocardial infarction (cases) recently discharged from hospitals in the United Kingdom and 32,389 of their relatives (controls). Blood had been obtained from cases soon after admission for the index myocardial infarction and was also sought from the controls. 4923 cases and 6880 controls were current smokers of manufactured cigarettes with known tar yields. Almost all tar yields were 7-9 or 12-15 mg/cigarette (mean 7.5 mg for low tar (< 10 mg) and 13.3 for medium tar (> or = 10 mg). The cited risk ratios were standardised for age and sex and compared myocardial infarction rates in current cigarette smokers with those in non-smokers who had not smoked cigarettes regularly in the past 10 years.

RESULTS

At ages 30-49 the rates of myocardial infarction in smokers were about five times those in non-smokers (as defined); at ages 50-59 they were three times those in non-smokers, and even at ages 60-79 they were twice as great as in non-smokers (risk ratio 6.3, 4.7, 3.1, 2.5, and 1.9 at 30-39, 40-49, 50-59, 60-69, 70-79 respectively; each 2P < 0.00001). After standardisation for age, sex, and amount smoked, the rate of non-fatal myocardial infarction was 10.4% (SD 5.4) higher in medium tar than in low tar cigarette smokers (2P = 0.06). This percentage was not significantly greater at ages 30-59 (16.6% (7.1)) than at 60-79 (1.0% (8.5)). In both age ranges the difference in risk between cigarette smokers and non-smokers was much larger than the difference between one type of cigarette and another (risk ratio 3.39 and 3.95 at ages 30-59 for smokers of similar numbers of low and of medium tar cigarettes, and risk ratio 2.35 and 2.37 at ages 60-79). Most possible confounding factors that could be tested for were similar in low and medium tar users, with no significant differences in blood lipid or albumin concentrations.

CONCLUSION

The present study indicates that the imminent change of tar yields in the European Union to comply with an upper limit of 12 mg/cigarette will not increase (and may somewhat decrease) the incidence of myocardial infarction, unless they indirectly help perpetuate tobacco use. Even low tar cigarettes still greatly increase rates of myocardial infarction, however, especially among people in their 30s, 40s, and 50s, and far more risk is avoided by not smoking than by changing from one type of cigarette to another.

Prevalence of chronic cough and phlegm among male cigar and pipe smokers: results of the Scottish Heart Health Study

BACKGROUND

Previous studies investigating the effect of cigar or pipe smoking on the occurrence of chronic cough and chronic phlegm have reported prevalences among cigar and pipe smokers lying between those of non-smokers and current cigarette smokers. This study uses data on previous cigarette consumption, current cigar or pipe consumption, and biochemical markers of smoking to provide a detailed analysis of chronic cough and chronic phlegm among cigar and pipe smokers.

METHODS

A total of 10,359 men and women aged 40-59 years were sampled for the Scottish Heart Health Study between 1984 and 1986. Prevalence of chronic cough and chronic phlegm among male cigar and pipe smokers (non-cigarette smokers) was compared with those who had never smoked, between ex-smokers of cigarettes and those who had never smoked cigarettes, between cigar-only and pipe-only smokers, and by cigar or pipe consumption levels.

RESULTS

In all, 463 ex-smokers of cigarettes and 154 who had never smoked cigarettes were cigar or pipe smokers; 1080 had never smoked any form of tobacco. Ex-cigarette smokers smoked and inhaled more than those who had never smoked cigarettes. Among the ex-cigarette smokers, cigar or pipe smokers had 1.63-1.71 times the prevalence of both chronic cough and chronic phlegm than those who had never smoked (1.31-1.36 among cigar only smokers; 2.23-2.84 among pipe only smokers). A strong positive dose-response effect was found between the prevalence of symptoms and cigar or pipe consumption.

CONCLUSIONS

Cigar and pipe smokers have a higher prevalence of chronic cough and phlegm than those who have never smoked, and the difference is more marked in pipe-only smokers than in cigar-only smokers. Both categories show a positive dose-response effect. Among cigar and pipe smokers, ex-cigarette smokers have a higher prevalence of symptoms than those who have never smoked cigarettes, which may be because they inhale more or may be attributable to previous cigarette smoking.