Table 2. Smokers by usual brand cigarette “tar” category a .
“Tar” category | TH | S | TB | Overall |
---|---|---|---|---|
Intent-to-treat sample | ||||
Full flavor b | 17 | 15 | 19 | 51 |
Full flavor low machine yield c | 25 | 26 | 24 | 75 |
Ultra-low machine yield d | 1 | 1 | 1 | 3 |
Per-protocol sample | ||||
Full flavor b | 14 | 10 | 16 | 40 |
Full flavor low machine yield c | 17 | 9 | 18 | 44 |
Ultra-low machine yield d | 1 | 0 | 1 | 2 |
TH, switched to tobacco-heating cigarette; S, switched to snus; TB, switched to ultra-low machine yield tobacco-burning cigarette.
a“Tar” category as determined by the Cambridge Filter Method (CFM) (FTC, 1967, 1980). CFM “tar” ratings for two brands (subjects) were unknown.
b>13 mg CFM “tar”.
c6–13 mg CFM “tar”.
d<6 mg CFM “tar”.