Menthol and filter ventilation in cigarettes: prevalence estimates and relationships with harm perception and smoking exposure

Dana Mowls Carroll; Lorna Bittencourt; Katelyn M Tessier; Ayaantuu Usman; Irina Stepanov; Dorothy K Hatsukami

doi:10.1136/tc-2023-058495

Menthol and filter ventilation in cigarettes: prevalence estimates and relationships with harm perception and smoking exposure

Tob Control. 2024 Apr 24:tc-2023-058495. doi: 10.1136/tc-2023-058495. Online ahead of print.

Authors

Dana Mowls Carroll^{1

2}, Lorna Bittencourt³, Katelyn M Tessier², Ayaantuu Usman², Irina Stepanov^{3

2}, Dorothy K Hatsukami⁴

Affiliations

¹ Division of Environmental Health Sciences, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, Minnesota, USA dcarroll@umn.edu.
² Masonic Cancer Center, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, Minnesota, USA.
³ Division of Environmental Health Sciences, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, Minnesota, USA.
⁴ Department of Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, Minnesota, USA.

PMID: 38658056
DOI: 10.1136/tc-2023-058495

Abstract

Introduction: Menthol and filter ventilation (FV) contribute to cigarette appeal. This observational study examines the US prevalence of menthol versus non-menthol cigarette use by FV and how harm perceptions, cigarettes per day and biomarkers of exposure vary.

Methods: Population Assessment of Tobacco and Health Study (2013-2014) was merged with FV levels of cigarettes and restricted to daily smoking adults who had a usual cigarette variety and did not regularly use other tobacco (N=1614). Weighted descriptive statistics identified the prevalence of menthol and non-menthol use by low (0.02%-10.04%), moderate (10.05%-23.40%), high (23.41%-28.12%) and very high FV (28.13%-61.10%). Weighted linear regression was used to examine differences in outcomes by menthol/FV adjusted for potential confounders.

Results: The prevalence of a usual brand that was non-menthol, low FV was the lowest at 2.91%. Using non-menthol cigarettes with high and very high FV (≥23.4%) vs low FV (≤10.04%) was associated with a greater likeliness of misperceiving one's cigarette variety to be less harmful than other varieties (p values<0.05). Total nicotine equivalent, biomarker for nicotine exposure, was elevated (p values<0.05) among three non-menthol groups (low, moderate and very high FV) compared with two menthol groups (moderate, very high FV).

Conclusion: The well-documented harm misperception linked to higher FV is more apparent in those using non-menthol than menthol cigarettes. Increased exposures were observed among some non-menthol cigarette users compared with some menthol cigarette users. These results should by no means delay a menthol ban but rather motivate concerted public health efforts to accompany the menthol ban to maximise smoking cessation.

Keywords: Addiction; Carcinogens; End game; Public policy.