Adults 21 to 60, any sex, with Smoking Behaviors. Patients with the condition only — healthy volunteers not accepted.
Results — posted to ClinicalTrials.gov
Per-arm endpoint measurements with 95% confidence intervals where reported. Source: trial results section.
Number of Puffs Taken (Video-scored Smoking Behavior Outcome 1)Primary· Session 1; assessed after smoking each of the two study cigarettes (i.e., after each filter condition)
Smoking behaviors were assessed using video-scored measures of smoking topography (i.e., puffing behavior), including number of puffs taken, total puffing duration, and total interpuff interval (time between puffs). Briefly, research staff used a digital timestamp feature in an open-source video editing software to estimate start and end times for individual puffs based on various physical cues (e.g., inhaling, glowing cigarette tip), prioritizing overall puffing behaviors (e.g., multiple occurrences of tip glowing without removing the cigarette from the mouth \["stutter puffs"\] were treated
Charcoal filtered cigarette
Group
Value
95% CI
Light Pack Color
15.8
± 1.8
Dark Pack Color
16.7
± 1.9
Non-charcoal filtered cigarette
Group
Value
95% CI
Light Pack Color
19.1
± 2.3
Dark Pack Color
19.6
± 2.4
Total Puffing Duration (Video-scored Smoking Behavior Outcome 2)Primary· Session 1; assessed after smoking each of the two study cigarettes (i.e., after each filter condition)
Smoking behaviors were assessed using video-scored measures of smoking topography (i.e., puffing behavior), including number of puffs taken, total puffing duration, and total interpuff interval (time between puffs). Briefly, research staff used a digital timestamp feature in an open-source video editing software to estimate start and end times for individual puffs based on various physical cues (e.g., inhaling, glowing cigarette tip), prioritizing overall puffing behaviors (e.g., multiple occurrences of tip glowing without removing the cigarette from the mouth \["stutter puffs"\] were treated
Charcoal filtered cigarette
Group
Value
95% CI
Light Pack Color
30.4
± 4.3
Dark Pack Color
32.6
± 4.5
Non-charcoal filtered cigarette
Group
Value
95% CI
Light Pack Color
41.4
± 6.1
Dark Pack Color
41.2
± 6.4
Total Interpuff Interval (Video-scored Smoking Behavior Outcome 3)Primary· Session 1; assessed after smoking each of the two study cigarettes (i.e., after each filter condition)
Smoking behaviors were assessed using video-scored measures of smoking topography (i.e., puffing behavior), including number of puffs taken, total puffing duration, and total interpuff interval (time between puffs). Briefly, research staff used a digital timestamp feature in an open-source video editing software to estimate start and end times for individual puffs based on various physical cues (e.g., inhaling, glowing cigarette tip), prioritizing overall puffing behaviors (e.g., multiple occurrences of tip glowing without removing the cigarette from the mouth \["stutter puffs"\] were treated
Charcoal filtered cigarette
Group
Value
95% CI
Light Pack Color
257.7
± 28.9
Dark Pack Color
290.4
± 30.3
Non-charcoal filtered cigarette
Group
Value
95% CI
Light Pack Color
267.9
± 28.8
Dark Pack Color
275.0
± 30.3
Correct Beliefs About Reduced RisksPrimary· Session 1; assessed after smoking each of the two study cigarettes (i.e., after each filter condition)
Risk beliefs were captured using an 8-item scale that asked participants to compare each study cigarette to 'regular' cigarettes on eight statements (i.e., "lower in nicotine", "lower in tar", "less addictive", "less likely to cause cancer", "has fewer chemicals", "is healthier", "makes smoking safer", "helps people quit smoking") using a 5-point response scale (1='definitely untrue', 5='definitely true'). Responses were scored dichotomously ("untrue" responses scored as correct; "unsure"/"true" responses scored as incorrect) and summed to create an overall beliefs measure. Thus, responses are
Charcoal filtered cigarette
Group
Value
95% CI
Light Pack Color
3.8
± 0.6
Dark Pack Color
3.8
± 0.6
Non-charcoal filtered cigarette
Group
Value
95% CI
Light Pack Color
2.9
± 0.6
Dark Pack Color
3.2
± 0.6
Perceived Health Risks Summary ScorePrimary· Session 1; assessed after smoking each of the two study cigarettes (i.e., after each filter condition)
Perceived health risks were assessed using the mean of six items that asked participants to indicate on a 7-point Likert scale (1 = "very low risk", 7 = "very high risk") their risk of developing smoking-related health conditions (i.e., lung cancer, heart disease, stroke, emphysema, respiratory infections, and other cancers) from regular use of each study cigarette.
Charcoal-filtered cigarette
Group
Value
95% CI
Light Pack Color
5.6
± 0.3
Dark Pack Color
5.4
± 0.3
Non-charcoal filtered cigarette
Group
Value
95% CI
Light Pack Color
5.3
± 0.3
Dark Pack Color
5.3
± 0.3
Product Harshness (Subjective Rating Subscale 1)Primary· Session 1; assessed after smoking each of the two study cigarettes (i.e., after each filter condition)
Subjective ratings were assessed with THE Cigarette Rating Scale, a 100 mm visual analog scale used by the tobacco industry and our laboratory to assess 14 characteristics; higher scores generally indicate more favorable ratings (e.g., taste: 0 = "bad," 100 = "good"). We examined mean scores from three subscales generated from these items to assess domains of product harshness, smoking satisfaction, and positive sensory experience. We also explored a fourth 'cleanliness' subscale created by averaging two exploratory items assessing "chemical vs. tobacco taste" and "dirty vs. clean body feeling
Charcoal filtered cigarette
Group
Value
95% CI
Light Pack Color
42.1
± 4.4
Dark Pack Color
42.6
± 4.6
Non-charcoal filtered cigarette
Group
Value
95% CI
Light Pack Color
24.7
± 4.7
Dark Pack Color
26.2
± 5.0
Smoking Satisfaction (Subjective Rating Subscale 2)Primary· Session 1; assessed after smoking each of the two study cigarettes (i.e., after each filter condition)
Subjective ratings were assessed with the Cigarette Rating Scale, a 100 mm visual analog scale used by the tobacco industry and our laboratory to assess 14 characteristics; higher scores generally indicate more favorable ratings (e.g., taste: 0 = "bad," 100 = "good"). We examined mean scores from three subscales generated from these items to assess domains of product harshness, smoking satisfaction, and positive sensory experience. We also explored a fourth 'cleanliness' subscale created by averaging two exploratory items assessing "chemical vs. tobacco taste" and "dirty vs. clean body feeling
Charcoal filtered cigarette
Group
Value
95% CI
Light Pack Color
65.8
± 4.2
Dark Pack Color
55.9
± 4.4
Non-charcoal filtered cigarette
Group
Value
95% CI
Light Pack Color
43.0
± 4.9
Dark Pack Color
36.2
± 5.2
Positive Sensory Experience (Subjective Rating Subscale 3)Primary· Session 1; assessed after smoking each of the two study cigarettes (i.e., after each filter condition)
Subjective ratings were assessed with the Cigarette Rating Scale, a 100 mm visual analog scale used by the tobacco industry and our laboratory to assess 14 characteristics; higher scores generally indicate more favorable ratings (e.g., taste: 0 = "bad," 100 = "good"). We examined mean scores from three subscales generated from these items to assess domains of product harshness, smoking satisfaction, and positive sensory experience. We also explored a fourth 'cleanliness' subscale created by averaging two exploratory items assessing "chemical vs. tobacco taste" and "dirty vs. clean body feeling
Charcoal filtered cigarette
Group
Value
95% CI
Light Pack Color
59.3
± 5.2
Dark Pack Color
47.5
± 5.4
Non-charcoal filtered cigarette
Group
Value
95% CI
Light Pack Color
48.4
± 5.2
Dark Pack Color
48.1
± 5.4
Cleanliness (Subjective Rating Subscale 4)Primary· Session 1; assessed after smoking each of the two study cigarettes (i.e., after each filter condition)
Subjective ratings were assessed with the Cigarette Rating Scale, a 100 mm visual analog scale used by the tobacco industry and our laboratory to assess 14 characteristics; higher scores generally indicate more favorable ratings (e.g., taste: 0 = "bad," 100 = "good"). We examined mean scores from three subscales generated from these items to assess domains of product harshness, smoking satisfaction, and positive sensory experience. We also explored a fourth 'cleanliness' subscale created by averaging two exploratory items assessing "chemical vs. tobacco taste" and "dirty vs. clean body feeling
Charcoal filtered cigarette
Group
Value
95% CI
Light Pack Color
72.4
± 5.8
Dark Pack Color
47.7
± 6.1
Non-charcoal filtered cigarette
Group
Value
95% CI
Light Pack Color
70.5
± 5.5
Dark Pack Color
49.3
± 5.8
Carbon Monoxide (CO) BoostPrimary· Session 1; assessed after smoking each of the two study cigarettes (i.e., after each filter condition)
CO will be measured in parts per million (ppm) using the Vitalograph BreathCO carbon monoxide monitor (Lenexa, KS) at the onset of the laboratory visit, as well as before and after each cigarette smoked. CO boost - the change in CO values resulting from smoking a cigarette - crudely estimates smoke exposure due to smoking an individual cigarette.
Charcoal-filtered cigarette
Group
Value
95% CI
Light Pack Color
4.6
± 0.7
Dark Pack Color
3.6
± 0.7
Non-charcoal filtered cigarette
Group
Value
95% CI
Light Pack Color
5.0
± 0.7
Dark Pack Color
2.4
± 0.7
IntensitySecondary· Session 1; assessed after smoking each of the two study cigarettes (i.e., after each filter condition)
A hypothetical cigarette purchase task, asked how many study cigarettes participants would purchase in a typical day across a range of escalating prices from free up to $1.45 per cigarette, chosen to reflect double the current median price of Natural American Spirit brands in the U.S. However, because 35-40% of participants failed to reach breakpoint (i.e., the price point at which consumption drops to 0), we report observed values for demand index of intensity (number of cigarettes consumed for free) only.
Charcoal-filtered cigarette
Group
Value
95% CI
Light Pack Color
15.2
± 2.5
Dark Pack Color
19.7
± 2.7
Non-charcoal filtered cigarette
Group
Value
95% CI
Light Pack Color
12.7
± 2.5
Dark Pack Color
18.8
± 2.7
Sponsor's own description
This single laboratory session pilot study will examine the acute effects of cigarette filter type and packaging on initial product perceptions, use, and exposure. Forty adult daily smokers will be randomized to smoke two study-supplied commercially-available cigarettes interspersed by 45 minutes, completing pre- and post-cigarette carbon monoxide and questionnaire measures. We will use a 2 x 2 mixed factorial design to manipulate cigarette filter type (within-subject: charcoal vs. non-charcoal) and packaging (between-subject: light vs. dark).
Publications & conference data
1 peer-reviewed publication reference this trial (live from Europe PMC):
NCT07322796 — Smoking Cessation Before Bronchoscopy or CT-guided Puncture
· recruiting
NCT07132814 — Abuse Liability for Five Modern Oral Nicotine Products
· NA
· recruiting
NCT06945120 — ACT Lung Health Intervention: Phase Two
· NA
· recruiting
NCT07102082 — Influence of Authorized Smokeless Tobacco Product Modified Risk Claims I: Consumer Product Demand
· NA
· recruiting
NCT07092501 — An Experimental Evaluation of Menthol-Flavored Tobacco Accessories
· NA
· active not recruiting
Other Abramson Cancer Center at Penn Medicine trials
Trials by the same sponsor.
NCT07478848 — Radiation, Oral Vancomycin, and CAR-T for B-Cell Lymphomas
· Phase 1
· not yet recruiting
NCT07059611 — Neoadjuvant Intra-tumoral RP2 and FLOT in Gastroesophageal Adenocarcinoma
· Phase 2
· not yet recruiting
NCT07454499 — Engaging M-health for Symptom Monitoring and Health Promotion for Women on Endocrine Therapy for Breast Cancer (EmSHAPE)
· NA
· not yet recruiting
NCT07222241 — Comparing Numbing Techniques in Mohs Micrographic Surgery
· NA
· recruiting
NCT06837480 — Photobiomodulation in Head and Neck Cancer-Related Chronic Lymphedema
· NA
· recruiting
Publications: Europe PMC API search by NCT ID, retrieved 10 June 2026
Drug + disease cross-links: matched in real time against Drug Landscape's normalised drug + company + condition tables
Sponsor: as reported to ClinicalTrials.gov by Abramson Cancer Center at Penn Medicine
Last refreshed: 7 November 2024
Drug Landscape aggregates and links these public records for informational use only. Always verify against the primary source before clinical or regulatory decisions. Canonical URL: https://druglandscape.com/trial/NCT05157048.