Ridwan J Said, Dana Mowls Carroll, Xianghua Luo, Jiayi Hu, Qing Cao, Katelyn M Tessier, Lorna Bittencourt, Dorothy K Hatsukami
{"title":"低尼古丁香烟随机临床试验的二次分析：跨社会和人口群体的结果。","authors":"Ridwan J Said, Dana Mowls Carroll, Xianghua Luo, Jiayi Hu, Qing Cao, Katelyn M Tessier, Lorna Bittencourt, Dorothy K Hatsukami","doi":"10.1016/j.ypmed.2025.108362","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>To examine whether the impact of a nicotine reduction standard (NRS) varies by socio-demographics.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Secondary analysis of a 12-week trial (2018-2022) with 438 people who smoke (PWS) comparing very low nicotine content (VLNC) vs. normal nicotine content (NNC) cigarettes. Moderation by education, race, and age on cigarettes per day (CPD), smoke-free days, and biomarkers (CEMA, NNAL) was assessed using interaction models.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>For race and education, interaction tests for moderation were not significant (ps > 0.05). In subgroup analyses, VLNC condition reduced CPD and biomarkers and increased smoke-free days with the following exception: no difference in CEMA was observed by condition among those of lower education (Geometric mean ratio [GMR] = 0.72, 95 % confidence interval [CI] = 0.39, 1.33). For age, multiple interaction tests were significant. In subgroup analyses, older but not younger adults, had no VLNC vs. NNC differences for CEMA (GMR: 0.85 [CI = 0.51, 1.41] vs 0.47 [CI = 0.35, 0.62]) or smoke-free days (rate ratio: 1.85 [CI = 0.63, 5.55] vs 5.85 [CI = 3.12, 10.89]).</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Age and potentially education moderate NRS effects among PWS.</p><p><strong>Policy implications: </strong>Targeted support for older adults and those with lower education may maximize NRS benefits.</p><p><strong>Trial registration: </strong>NCT03272685.</p>","PeriodicalId":20339,"journal":{"name":"Preventive medicine","volume":" ","pages":"108362"},"PeriodicalIF":4.3000,"publicationDate":"2025-07-21","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Secondary analysis of a randomized clinical trial of very low nicotine cigarettes: Outcomes across social and demographic groups.\",\"authors\":\"Ridwan J Said, Dana Mowls Carroll, Xianghua Luo, Jiayi Hu, Qing Cao, Katelyn M Tessier, Lorna Bittencourt, Dorothy K Hatsukami\",\"doi\":\"10.1016/j.ypmed.2025.108362\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>To examine whether the impact of a nicotine reduction standard (NRS) varies by socio-demographics.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Secondary analysis of a 12-week trial (2018-2022) with 438 people who smoke (PWS) comparing very low nicotine content (VLNC) vs. normal nicotine content (NNC) cigarettes. Moderation by education, race, and age on cigarettes per day (CPD), smoke-free days, and biomarkers (CEMA, NNAL) was assessed using interaction models.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>For race and education, interaction tests for moderation were not significant (ps > 0.05). In subgroup analyses, VLNC condition reduced CPD and biomarkers and increased smoke-free days with the following exception: no difference in CEMA was observed by condition among those of lower education (Geometric mean ratio [GMR] = 0.72, 95 % confidence interval [CI] = 0.39, 1.33). For age, multiple interaction tests were significant. In subgroup analyses, older but not younger adults, had no VLNC vs. NNC differences for CEMA (GMR: 0.85 [CI = 0.51, 1.41] vs 0.47 [CI = 0.35, 0.62]) or smoke-free days (rate ratio: 1.85 [CI = 0.63, 5.55] vs 5.85 [CI = 3.12, 10.89]).</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Age and potentially education moderate NRS effects among PWS.</p><p><strong>Policy implications: </strong>Targeted support for older adults and those with lower education may maximize NRS benefits.</p><p><strong>Trial registration: </strong>NCT03272685.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":20339,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Preventive medicine\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"108362\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":4.3000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-07-21\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Preventive medicine\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ypmed.2025.108362\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Preventive medicine","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ypmed.2025.108362","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
Secondary analysis of a randomized clinical trial of very low nicotine cigarettes: Outcomes across social and demographic groups.
Objective: To examine whether the impact of a nicotine reduction standard (NRS) varies by socio-demographics.
Methods: Secondary analysis of a 12-week trial (2018-2022) with 438 people who smoke (PWS) comparing very low nicotine content (VLNC) vs. normal nicotine content (NNC) cigarettes. Moderation by education, race, and age on cigarettes per day (CPD), smoke-free days, and biomarkers (CEMA, NNAL) was assessed using interaction models.
Results: For race and education, interaction tests for moderation were not significant (ps > 0.05). In subgroup analyses, VLNC condition reduced CPD and biomarkers and increased smoke-free days with the following exception: no difference in CEMA was observed by condition among those of lower education (Geometric mean ratio [GMR] = 0.72, 95 % confidence interval [CI] = 0.39, 1.33). For age, multiple interaction tests were significant. In subgroup analyses, older but not younger adults, had no VLNC vs. NNC differences for CEMA (GMR: 0.85 [CI = 0.51, 1.41] vs 0.47 [CI = 0.35, 0.62]) or smoke-free days (rate ratio: 1.85 [CI = 0.63, 5.55] vs 5.85 [CI = 3.12, 10.89]).
Conclusion: Age and potentially education moderate NRS effects among PWS.
Policy implications: Targeted support for older adults and those with lower education may maximize NRS benefits.
期刊介绍：
Founded in 1972 by Ernst Wynder, Preventive Medicine is an international scholarly journal that provides prompt publication of original articles on the science and practice of disease prevention, health promotion, and public health policymaking. Preventive Medicine aims to reward innovation. It will favor insightful observational studies, thoughtful explorations of health data, unsuspected new angles for existing hypotheses, robust randomized controlled trials, and impartial systematic reviews. Preventive Medicine''s ultimate goal is to publish research that will have an impact on the work of practitioners of disease prevention and health promotion, as well as of related disciplines.
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：
京公网安备 11010802042870号
