Nicotine pharmacokinetics and subjective response among adult smokers using different flavors of on!® nicotine pouches compared to combustible cigarettes

The potential of new nicotine and tobacco products as tools for people who smoke to quit combustible cigarettes - a systematic review of common practices and guidance towards a robust study protocol to measure cessation efficacy

New types of nicotine and tobacco products like electronic cigarettes (ECs), heated tobacco products or nicotine pouches have been discussed as less harmful alternatives to combustible cigarettes and other toxic forms of tobacco products. Their harm reduction potential lay in the efficient transition away from smoking to those new products. Numerous studies addressing the cessation efficacy of ECs have been published with contradictory outcomes. Yet, a comprehensive Cochrane review concluded with high certainty on the cessation efficacy of ECs. This prompted us to perform a review to identify weaknesses in common study designs and to summarize best practices for the study design on the potential of new nicotine products as cessation aids. 120 articles retrieved from Medline were found to be eligible. Most of the studies in the field were interventional trials while observational studies played a minor role in the evaluation of smoking cessation. Efficacy was predominantly assessed for ECs in 77% of the reports while heated tobacco (17%) and non-combustible products (11%) were less frequently investigated up to now. Measures to determine the efficacy were questionnaire-based assessments as well as use documentation/prevalence and abstinence rates. Studies varied largely in their duration and sample size with medians of 3 months and 156.5 participants, respectively.With the help of this review, we identified several weaknesses in the common study designs. One major limitation in longitudinal trials was the lack of compliance measures suited to verify the use status over longer time periods, relying solely on self-reports. Moreover, the motivation of the participants to quit was rarely defined and a profound familiarization period was not taken into account for the majority of the studies. To what extent such weaknesses influence the outcome of the studies was beyond the scope of this review. We encourage researchers to consider the recommendations which resulted from this review in order to determine the abuse liability and cessation efficacy of the products in a more robust manner. Finally, we like to call attention to the missing data for low- and middle-income countries which would require quitting strategies most urgently to combat the tobacco smoking epidemic.

The Potential Impact of Oral Nicotine Pouches on Public Health: A Scoping Review

INTRODUCTION

Oral nicotine pouches (ONPs) are a new class of nicotine products. This scoping review summarizes evidence on ONPs and explores their potential public health impact.

AIMS AND METHODS

We conducted a structured literature search for empirical studies across three electronic databases through January 10, 2024. Outcomes included ONP product characteristics, use patterns, beliefs and perceptions, toxicity, and marketing and sales.

RESULTS

Sixty-two studies were included, 17 were industry-funded. Most studies were from the United States. While large variations across studies were observed in ONP youth prevalence estimates, nationally representative U.S. studies find current use at 1.5% and lifetime use below 2.5% through 2023. Between 35% and 42% of U.S. adolescents and young adults have heard of ONPs, and 9-21% of tobacco-naïve youth were susceptible to trying them. U.S. adult-use estimates varied widely (0.8%-3% current; 3%-16% lifetime use) and were limited to populations with a history of tobacco use. The chemical composition of ONPs suggests fewer harmful/potentially harmful compounds at lower levels than cigarettes and smokeless tobacco (SLT), except formaldehyde. Industry-funded studies find substantially less cytotoxicity compared to cigarettes and suggest that higher nicotine-strength ONPs can deliver nicotine at levels comparable to or higher than SLT or cigarettes, although with slower nicotine release than cigarettes. Evidence on the cytotoxicity of ONPs relative to SLT is mixed.

CONCLUSIONS

ONPs appear to be less toxic than cigarettes and deliver comparable nicotine, presenting an alternative for combustible product users, although key data are mainly available from industry-funded studies. Data from independent research is critically needed. Industry marketing of ONPs may encourage initiation in youth and situational and dual use in adults.

IMPLICATIONS

The review provides an initial assessment of the potential role of ONPs in harm reduction and aims to determine unintended consequences of their use (youth uptake and dual-use) and identify populations that disproportionately use the product. This information is essential for tobacco regulatory bodies in determining the net public health impact of nicotine pouches.

Small pouches, but high nicotine doses-nicotine delivery and acute effects after use of tobacco-free nicotine pouches

Tobacco-free nicotine pouches are new nicotine products for oral consumption. They can contain very high nicotine amounts that have not been addressed with clinical studies yet. Thus, nicotine delivery, effects on craving, and side effects were assessed using pouches with up to 30 mg nicotine. In this single-center, five-arm, crossover study, 15 regular cigarette smokers consumed tobacco-free nicotine pouches from different brands with 6, 20, and 30 mg for 20 min. Comparators were nicotine-free pouches and tobacco cigarettes. At baseline and predefined time points over a study period of 240 min, plasma nicotine concentrations, effects on cigarette craving, and side effects were assessed. Cardiovascular parameters including arterial stiffness were measured using a MobilOGraph. Consumption of 30 mg nicotine pouches has led to a higher nicotine uptake compared with the cigarette (Cmax: 29.4 vs 15.2 ng/mL; AUC: 45.7 vs 22.1 ng/mL × h). Nicotine uptake in the acute phase was rapid during use of the 30 mg pouch and cigarette. Extraction rate of nicotine differed between pouches. Use of all products has reduced acute cigarette craving, even the nicotine-free pouch. During consumption of the cigarette and the pouches with 20 and 30 mg, heart rate increased about 27, 12, and 25 bpm, respectively. Parameters for arterial stiffness were elevated and all pouches have induced mouth irritations. The pouches with 30 mg nicotine had overall the strongest side effects and may induce addiction. As craving was also reduced by products with less nicotine, it is questionable whether such high nicotine contents should be allowed on the market. A limit of nicotine content is warranted. The nicotine release rate varies across products and needs to be known to estimate the nicotine delivery.

Evaluating the Role of Nicotine Stereoisomer on Nicotine Pouch Abuse Liability: A Randomized Crossover Trial

INTRODUCTION

Many oral nicotine pouch (ONP) brands use synthetic nicotine, which typically contains a racemic (50:50) mixture of nicotine's two stereoisomers: S-nicotine and R-nicotine. Because tobacco-derived nicotine contains more than 99% S-nicotine, the effects of R-nicotine in humans are not well known. We compared systemic nicotine exposure and product appeal of ONPs containing more than 99% S-nicotine versus racemic nicotine.

AIMS AND METHODS

N = 18 adult smokers (Mage = 45 years, 66.7% male, 77.8% White) enrolled in a three-visit single-blind, randomized crossover study. During each visit, participants used one wintergreen-flavored, 3 mg nicotine ONP for 30 min following at least12 h nicotine abstinence. Study ONP #1 contained more than 99% S-nicotine and the other two study ONPs contained racemic nicotine (collapsed for analyses). Plasma nicotine assessments and measures of withdrawal relief occurred at t = 0, 5, 15, 30, 60, and 90 min; measures of product appeal were assessed following ONP use.

RESULTS

Using the ONP with more than 99% S-nicotine resulted in greater plasma nicotine concentration from 15 to 90 min (p < .0001) and greater maximum plasma nicotine concentration than the ONPs with racemic nicotine (M = 9.9 ng/mL [SD = 2.5] vs. M = 5.7 ng/mL [SD = 2.8], respectively; p < .0001). Product liking and withdrawal relief were similar across ONPs, although participants reported more "bad effects" when using the ONP with more than 99% S-nicotine.

CONCLUSIONS

Participants reported few subjective differences in ONPs according to nicotine stereoisomer, but plasma nicotine concentration was greater for ONPs using more than 99% S-nicotine. ONPs with more than 99% S-nicotine (vs. racemic nicotine) might be better substitutes for cigarettes, but research into other ONP characteristics (eg flavors, freebase nicotine) is needed to inform regulation.

IMPLICATIONS

Little is known about the effects of racemic (vs. S-) nicotine in humans. In a sample of adults who smoke cigarettes, we identified that oral nicotine pouches containing racemic nicotine exposed participants to less nicotine than oral nicotine pouches containing only S-nicotine, but both types of oral nicotine pouches held similar, moderate appeal. Additional research evaluating the roles that flavorings, total nicotine concentration, and freebase nicotine play in the abuse liability of oral nicotine pouches would inform comprehensive product regulations to support public health.

Using pod based e-cigarettes and nicotine pouches to reduce harm for adults with low socioeconomic status who smoke: A pilot randomized controlled trial

INTRODUCTION

Alternative Nicotine Delivery Systems (ANDS) such as e-cigarettes (EC) and oral nicotine pouches (ONP) may facilitate the substitution of smoking for those unwilling to quit. This pilot study assesses the harm reduction potential of EC and ONP among smokers with low socioeconomic status (SES).

METHODS

Adults who smoked daily in the past 6 months, had a household income < 250% federal poverty level and had no intention of quitting smoking in the next 30 days were randomized 2:2:1 to 8 Weeks of 5% nicotine EC; 4mg ONP or assessment-only control (CC). The primary outcome was a within-group change in cigarettes per day (CPD) from Baseline to Week 8.

RESULTS

45 individuals were randomized (EC: N=18; ONP: N=18; CC: N=9). Analyses included 33 participants who completed the Week 8 visit. Mean age was 50.2 years (SD:10.7) and average CPD at baseline was 13.9 (SD: 10.1). For those randomized to EC, average CPD decreased from 14.7 (95%CI: 10.3; 19.1) at Baseline to 2.9 (95%CI: 0.09; 5.79) at Week 8 (p-value <0.001). For those randomized to ONP, average CPD decreased from 15.0 (95%CI: 5.02; 24.93) to 8.3 (95%CI: 1.34; 15.18) by Week 8 (p-value =0.01). In the EC and ONP groups, respectively, 4 (28.6%) and 1 (8.3%) participant fully switched from smoking to the ANDS product by Week 8.

CONCLUSIONS

Individuals with low SES who smoke had lower CPD after switching to EC or ONP. These findings show the potential of ANDS in helping smokers switch to less harmful devices.

IMPLICATIONS

This study provides novel evidence that e-cigarettes and nicotine pouches can be a harm reduction tool for individuals with lower SES who smoke and are not willing to quit smoking, contributing to reducing tobacco-related disparities in this population.

Evaluating the effects of nicotine concentration on the appeal and nicotine delivery of oral nicotine pouches among rural and Appalachian adults who smoke cigarettes: A randomized cross-over study

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Oral nicotine pouches (ONPs) probably offer reduced harm compared with cigarettes, but independent data concerning their misuse liability are lacking. We compared nicotine delivery and craving relief from ONPs with different nicotine concentrations to cigarettes.

DESIGN

This was a single-blind, three-visit (≥ 48-hour washout), randomized-cross-over study. Participants were encouraged to complete all study visits in less than 1 month.

SETTING

The study took place in Rural/Appalachian Ohio.

PARTICIPANTS

Participants comprised 30 adults who smoke cigarettes. Participants (meanage  = 34.5) were 60% men and 90% White.

INTERVENTION

Participants who were ≥ 12-hour tobacco-abstinent used: (1) a 3-mg nicotine concentration ONP, (2) a 6-mg nicotine concentration ONP and (3) usual brand cigarette in separate visits. ONPs (wintergreen Zyn) were used for 30 minutes; cigarettes were puffed every 30 sec for 5 minutes.

MEASUREMENTS

Plasma nicotine and self-reported craving were assessed at t = 0, 5, 15, 30, 60 and 90 minutes. The primary outcome was plasma nicotine concentration at t = 30 minutes. A secondary outcome was craving relief at t = 5 minutes.

FINDINGS

At t = 30, mean [95% confidence interval (CI)] plasma nicotine was 9.5 ng/ml (95% CI = 7.1, 11.9 ng/ml) for the 3 mg nicotine ONP, 17.5 ng/ml (95% CI = 13.7, 21.3) for the 6 mg nicotine ONP and 11.4 ng/ml (95% CI = 9.2, 13.6 ng/ml) for the cigarette. Mean plasma nicotine at t = 30 minutes differed between the 3- and 6-mg nicotine ONPs (P = 0.001) and between the 6-mg nicotine ONP and cigarette (P = 0.002). Mean (95% CI) craving at t = 5 minutes was lower for the cigarette (mean = 1.00, 95% CI = 0.61, 1.39) than either the 3 mg (mean = 2.25, 95% CI = 1.68, 2.82; P < 0.0001) or 6 mg nicotine (mean = 2.19, 95% CI = 1.60, 2.79; P < 0.0001) ONP.

CONCLUSIONS

Among adult smokers, using 6-mg nicotine concentration oral nicotine pouches (ONPs) was associated with greater plasma nicotine delivery at 30 minutes than 3-mg ONPs or cigarettes, but neither ONP relieved craving symptoms at 5 minutes as strongly as a cigarette. Accelerating the speed of nicotine delivery in ONPs might increase their misuse liability relative to cigarettes.

Tobacco-Free Nicotine Pouches and Their Potential Contribution to Tobacco Harm Reduction: A Scoping Review

Tobacco harm reduction (THR) refers to strategies designed to reduce the health risks associated with tobacco smoking but may involve continued use of nicotine and/or tobacco. Next-generation products (NGPs) are a THR alternative as they do not burn tobacco or produce smoke and deliver nicotine and have fewer and substantially lower levels of harmful chemicals compared to cigarettes. Tobacco‑free nicotine pouches (TFNPs) are an emerging category of nicotine‑containing oral products that do not combust or contain tobacco leaf. Similar to Swedish snus, TFNPs are placed between a user's lip and gum, and nicotine is absorbed through the oral mucosa rather than being inhaled. The aim of this scoping review was to systematically collate and evaluate published scientific evidence (cut‑off of 31 May 2023) identified from bibliometric databases investigating the potential of TFNPs to contribute to THR. Overall, studies examining chemical constituents indicated that the use of TFNPs may result in lower exposure to toxicants than other tobacco or nicotine-containing products, both combustible and non‑combustible. This reduction in toxicant exposure has been demonstrated by multiple human biomarker studies and in vitro toxicological assessments to translate to harm reduction potential in smokers switching to TFNPs. However, further study is warranted. At present, there is some evidence from human behavioral research that TFNPs can support either transitioning away from smoking or reducing cigarette consumption. Furthermore, TFNP use appears very much limited to current users of traditional tobacco products, and youth uptake has been limited. In conclusion, the findings of this review indicate that TFNPs have the potential to support THR efforts and may help inform evidence‑based regulation.

Nicotine pouches: a review for the dental team

Nicotine pouches are tobacco-free products that are becoming increasingly popular in the UK. They are held between the user's lip and gum to provide a source of nicotine. This article describes the composition of nicotine pouches, the legality surrounding their production and sale, patterns of use and explores possible oral and general health effects of their usage.

A Randomized, Controlled Study to Assess Changes in Biomarkers of Exposures Among Adults Who Smoke That Switch to Oral Nicotine Pouch Products Relative to Continuing Smoking or Stopping All Tobacco Use

The purpose of this open-label, randomized, controlled, in-clinic, 5-parallel-group study was to assess biomarkers of exposure (BoE) to select harmful and potentially harmful constituents in adults who smoke (N = 144) switching to oral tobacco products (on!® mint nicotine pouches; test products) compared to continuing smoking cigarettes (CS) and completely quitting all tobacco products (NT). Changes in 20 BoE to select harmful and potentially harmful constituents, including 4-(methylnitrosamino)-1-(3-pyridyl)-1-butanol (NNAL), were evaluated. Adult smokers smoked their usual brand of cigarettes for 2 days (baseline assessments) and then were randomly assigned to ad libitum use of 2, 4, or 8 mg test products, CS, or NT for 7 days. Analysis of covariance was used to assess the Day 7 BoE levels between each group using test products, CS, and NT. The creatinine-adjusted total urinary NNAL and other 18 of 19 BoE levels (except nicotine equivalents [NEs]) were significantly lower (P < .05) on Day 7, among all test product groups compared to CS. Geometric least-square means were reduced for all biomarkers of exposure, except NEs, in test product groups by approximately 42%-96% compared to the CS group, and reductions were comparable to the NT group. The geometric least-square means for urinary NE between the test product and the CS groups, although not significantly different, the Day 7 mean change relative to the CS group were 49.9%, 65.8%, and 101% for the 2, 4, and 8 mg test product groups, respectively. The substantial reduction in harmful and potentially harmful constituent exposure suggests complete switching from cigarettes to test products may present a harm reduction opportunity for adults who smoke.

Harmful and potentially harmful constituents (HPHCs) in two novel nicotine pouch products in comparison with regular smokeless tobacco products and pharmaceutical nicotine replacement therapy products (NRTs)

BACKGROUND

Tobacco-free nicotine pouches is a novel category of oral nicotine-delivery products. Among current tobacco users such pouches may serve as a low-risk alternative to cigarettes or conventional, tobacco-based oral products e.g., snus and moist snuff. In the United States (U.S.), the market leading nicotine-pouch brand is ZYN®. However, no data on the chemical characteristics of ZYN have been published.

METHODS

We screened for 43 compounds potentially present in tobacco products in seven oral nicotine-delivery products: ZYN (dry and moist), snus (General^®), moist snuff (CRP2.1 and Grizzly Pouches Wintergreen), and two pharmaceutical, nicotine replacement therapy products (NRTs, Nicorette^® lozenge and Nicotinell^® gum). Thirty-six of the tested compounds are classified as harmful and potentially harmful constituents (HPHCs) by the Center for Tobacco Products at the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA-CTP). Five additional compounds were included to cover the GOTHIATEK^® product standard for Swedish snus and the last two compounds were chosen to include the four primary tobacco specific nitrosamines (TSNAs).

RESULTS

The tested products contained nicotine at varying levels. The two ZYN products contained no nitrosamines or polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) but low levels of ammonia, chromium, formaldehyde, and nickel. In the NRT products we quantified low levels of acetaldehyde, ammonia, cadmium, chromium, lead, nickel, uranium-235, and uranium-238. The largest number (27) and generally the highest levels of HPHCs were quantified in the moist snuff products. For example, they contained six out of seven tested PAHs, and seven out of ten nitrosamines (including NNN and NNK). A total of 19 compounds, none of which were PAHs, were quantified at low levels in the snus product. NNN and NNK levels were five to 12-fold lower in snus compared to the moist snuff products.

CONCLUSIONS

No nitrosamines or PAHs were quantified in the ZYN and NRT products. Overall, the number of quantified HPHCs were similar between ZYN and NRT products and found at low levels.

Nicotine Pouch: Awareness, Beliefs, Use, and Susceptibility among Current Tobacco Users in the United States, 2021

Little is known about awareness, beliefs, and use of nicotine pouches (NPs). Data from 1583 U.S. adult (age ≥ 21 years) current tobacco users were collected in 2021. Respondents self-reported NP awareness, beliefs, use, and susceptibility as well as current tobacco product use and socio-demographics. We used weighted logistic and multinomial regression models to explore the associations between these variables. Overall, 46.6% of U.S. adult current tobacco users were aware of, 16.4% had ever used, and 3.0% currently used NPs. Younger individuals (vs. 61+ years) were more likely to have ever heard of NPs, while Black individuals (vs. White) were less likely to have ever heard of NPs. Individuals younger than 45 years (vs. 61+ years) and those using smokeless tobacco products (vs. non-users) were more likely to have ever used NPs. Additionally, younger than 45 years (vs. 61+ years) and current use of certain tobacco products (e.g., smokeless) were associated with current NP use. Holding favorable beliefs about NPs was associated with susceptibility to and more advanced NP use statuses (p < 0.05). Continuous surveillance of NP use and beliefs is important.

An Analysis of Nicotine Pouch Use by Middle School and High School Students Surveyed by the National Youth Tobacco Survey in 2021 and a Review of the Literature

OBJECTIVES

The use of alternative nicotine products by middle and high school students is a growing concern due to industry marketing techniques, availability, and popularity of new products, and ambiguous nicotine concentrations. The 2021 National Youth Tobacco Survey (NYTS) provides information about the frequency, and characteristics of middle, and high school students who have used nicotine pouches.

METHODS

The National Youth Tobacco Surveys provide important information about the frequency of use of tobacco and alternative nicotine products by a representative sample of students in schools in the United States. The 2021 survey included questions about the use of nicotine pouches/dissolvable tobacco products. The results from the survey were analysis using descriptive statistics, and logistic regression to model the association between the use of these alternative nicotine products, and the use of electronic cigarettes or the use of conventional cigarettes.

RESULTS

A total of 20 413 students participated in the survey year 2021; 17 842 were included in the final data analysis. Their ages ranged from 9 to 18+. Identified risk factors for the use of alternative nicotine products included race, and age. The adjusted odds ratio (OR) was lower in non-Hispanic Black and Hispanic students, as compared to non-Hispanic White students. Older students had a substantially higher risk of using nicotine/dissolvable tobacco products, specifically, compared to students less than or equal to 13 years old. The OR increased 174% (OR: 2.74; 1.70-4.41) in 17-year-old students. The perception of harm associated with electronic cigarettes increased the likelihood of using alternative nicotine products. Students who did not smoke cigarettes (OR: 0.39; 0.27-0.56) or did not smoke electronic cigarettes (OR: 0.20; 0.18-0.40) had significantly lower OR for using alternative nicotine products.

CONCLUSIONS

The 2021 National Youth Tobacco Survey indicates that a relatively small percentage of middle school and high school student have used nicotine pouches. However, with the increase in new, alternative tobacco products, understanding adolescent use in comparison to other tobacco products is an important trend to monitor.

Differences in intention to use flavored oral nicotine products among young adult e-cigarette users and non-users

New oral nicotine products (ONPs; nicotine pouches, gums, lozenges, and gummies), which are regulated as nonmedicinal tobacco products in the U.S., have flavors and other characteristics that previously attracted young adults to e-cigarettes. Whether young adults' interest in ONPs differs by e-cigarette use status and quit-vaping motivation is unknown but important for understanding the possible health impact of ONPs. It is particularly important to study if nonmedicinal ONPs attract e-cigarette users interested in quitting vaping, given that nicotine replacement (NRT) therapy uptake in young adults is low. In this study, ONP non-users (ages: 20-24) from California viewed digital images of 5 flavored ONPs (4 nonmedicinal and one NRT gum product) and reported intention to use each ONP (0-100 score). Main and interactive effects of Group (past-6-month e-cigarette non-users [n = 1,1388], e-cigarette users unmotivated to quit vaping [n = 168], and e-cigarette users motivated to quit vaping [n = 99]) and ONP type (nonmedicinal gum, nonmedicinal lozenge, gummy, pouch, and NRT gum) on use intention were tested. For each nonmedicinal ONP, use intention was higher in both e-cigarette user groups than non-users (ds = 0.47-0.59; Ps < 0.001), but did not differ between e-cigarette users with and without quit-vaping motivation (Ps ≥ 0.31). A Group × ONP type interaction was found, whereby higher use intention for e-cigarette users with vs without quit motivation was present for only gum NRT (Cohens d = 0.17; P =.01). Among young adults, e-cigarette users might be more inclined than e-cigarette non-users to try nonmedicinal ONPs regardless of quit-vaping motivation.

Biomarkers of Exposure and Potential Harm in Exclusive Users of Nicotine Pouches and Current, Former, and Never Smokers: Protocol for a Cross-sectional Clinical Study

Background

Tobacco harm reduction (THR) aims to reduce the health burden of cigarettes by encouraging smokers to switch to using alternative tobacco or nicotine products. Nicotine pouches (NPs) are smokeless, tobacco-free, oral products that may be beneficial as part of a THR strategy.

Objective

This 2-center, cross-sectional confinement study conducted in Denmark and Sweden aimed to determine whether biomarkers of exposure (BoEs) to tobacco toxicants and biomarkers of potential harm (BoPHs) in exclusive users of NPs show favorable differences compared with current smokers.

Methods

Participants were healthy NP users (target n=100) and current, former, or never smokers (target n=40 each), as confirmed by urinary cotinine and exhaled carbon monoxide concentrations. During a 24-hour confinement period, participants were asked to use their usual product (NP or cigarette) as normal, and BoEs and BoPHs were measured in blood and 24-hour urine samples, with compliance determined using anabasine, anatabine, and N-(2-cyanoethyl)valine. BoEs and BoPHs were compared between NP users and current, former, and never smokers. Urinary total 4-(methylnitrosamino)-1-(3-pyridyl)-1-butanol (BoE to nicotine-derived nitrosamine ketone) and urinary 8-epi-prostaglandin F2α type III, exhaled nitric oxide, blood carboxyhemoglobin, white blood cell count, soluble intercellular adhesion molecule-1, and high-density lipoprotein cholesterol (BoPHs) were evaluated as primary outcomes. Other measures included urinary 11-dehydrothromboxane B2, forced expiratory volume, carotid intima-media thickness, self-reported quality of life, and oral health.

Results

The results of this study were received in mid-2022 and will be published in late 2022 to early 2023.

Conclusions

The results of this study will provide information on toxicant exposure and biomarkers associated with the development of smoking-related diseases among users of NPs compared with smokers, as well as on the potential role of NPs in THR.

Trial Registration

International Standard Randomised Controlled Trial Number (ISRCTN) ISRCTN16988167; https://www.isrctn.com/ISRCTN16988167

International Registered Report Identifier (IRRID)

DERR1-10.2196/39785

Oral Nicotine Product Awareness and Use Among People Who Smoke and Vape in the U.S

INTRODUCTION

Tobacco-free oral nicotine products are an emerging class of noncombustible nicotine products. Oral nicotine product sales have increased since 2016, although little research has investigated consumer awareness, use, or correlates of oral nicotine product use. The purpose of this analysis was to assess the prevalence and correlates of oral nicotine product awareness and use.

METHODS

This paper is a cross-sectional analysis of 2,507 U.S. participants from Wave 3 (February-June 2020) of the International Tobacco Control Four Country Smoking and Vaping Survey, a population-based survey of current and former cigarette smokers and nicotine vaping product users in the U.S. Oral nicotine product awareness and use prevalence were compared with those of heated tobacco products. Analyses conducted in late 2021 assessed the correlates of oral nicotine product awareness and use such as demographic characteristics, tobacco use (cigarettes, nicotine vaping products, smokeless tobacco), and tobacco quit attempts.

RESULTS

Almost 1 in 5 respondents claimed to have heard of oral nicotine products, 3.0% reported ever use, and 0.9% were current users, all of which were lower than for heated tobacco products. Ever use of oral nicotine products was more common among younger adults (e.g., aged 18-24 years), males, and current users of smokeless tobacco. Oral nicotine product prevalence was higher among those who reported having made attempts to stop smoking or vaping.

CONCLUSIONS

Oral nicotine product use was low among current and former smokers and nicotine vaping product users. Oral nicotine product users were demographically similar to use among individuals who smoke/vape and also use smokeless tobacco. Future studies are needed to understand emerging oral nicotine products, particularly whether they are being used as product supplements (dual use), replacements (switching), or cessation aids (quitting).

A randomised, open-label, cross-over clinical study to evaluate the pharmacokinetic, pharmacodynamic and safety and tolerability profiles of tobacco-free oral nicotine pouches relative to cigarettes

RATIONALE

Tobacco harm reduction (THR) involves encouraging adult smokers who would otherwise continue to smoke to transition to less harmful forms of nicotine delivery. These products must offer adult smokers reduced exposure to chemicals associated with tobacco combustion, satisfactory blood plasma nicotine levels and serve as an acceptable alternative. The most recent THR innovation is tobacco-free oral nicotine pouches.

OBJECTIVES

This study aimed to compare pharmacokinetic, pharmacodynamic and safety and tolerability profiles of two nicotine pouch variants (ZoneX #2 (5.8 mg nicotine/pouch); ZoneX #3 (10.1 mg nicotine/pouch)) with cigarette to assess the pouches' THR potential.

METHODS

This was a controlled use, randomised, open-label, cross-over clinical study with 24 healthy adult traditional tobacco users. Pharmacokinetic (plasma nicotine levels; up to 8 h post-use), pharmacodynamic (urge to smoke, product liking; up to 4 h post-use) and short-term safety and tolerability profiles were assessed.

RESULTS

Distinct nicotine pouch pharmacokinetic profiles indicated nicotine absorption via the oral mucosa. Plasma nicotine levels were lower, and time to peak slower, for the nicotine pouches compared to cigarette (Cmax cigarette: 11.6 ng/ml vs. #2: 5.2 ng/ml, p < 0.0001; #3: 7.9 ng/ml, p < 0.0003) (Tmax cigarette: 8.6 min vs. #2: 26 min; #3: 22 min). All products effectively reduced subjects' urge to smoke and presented favourable product liking scores; nicotine pouches were also well tolerated following short-term use (no serious adverse events).

CONCLUSIONS

Overall, the assessed ZoneX nicotine pouches may offer an acceptable alternative for adult smokers to achieve satisfactory levels of nicotine delivery and, based on the pharmacokinetic parameters and under the study conditions, likely have a lower abuse liability and addictive potential for current adult smokers compared to continued cigarette smoking.

CLINICAL TRIAL IDENTIFIER

NCT04891406 (clinicaltrials.gov).

Nicotine pharmacokinetics and subjective responses after using nicotine pouches with different nicotine levels compared to combustible cigarettes and moist smokeless tobacco in adult tobacco users

RATIONALE

Oral tobacco-derived nicotine products include on!® nicotine pouches (NPs) which are tobacco-leaf free and available in multiple flavors and nicotine levels. Switching completely to NPs from cigarettes and moist smokeless tobacco (MST) has the potential to reduce harm for adult tobacco consumers. However, the dependence potential of NPs is not established. Therefore, we characterized the abuse potential of NPs with different nicotine levels compared to cigarettes and MST.

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate nicotine pharmacokinetics (PK) and subjective effects of NPs (ranging from 1.5 to 8 mg nicotine) compared to own brand cigarettes (OBCs) and MST (OBMST).

METHODS

We used a randomized, in-clinic, partial single-blind, 7-way crossover design to assess nicotine PK and subjective effects in dual users of cigarettes and MST.

RESULTS

The mean nicotine Cmax for NPs increased with nicotine level, ranging from 3.5 ng/mL (1.5 mg NP) to 15.4 ng/mL (8 mg NP), compared with 12.2 ng/mL for OBCs and 9.8 ng/mL for OBMST. Nicotine tmax was much longer for all NPs and OBMST (32.5-34.4 min) compared to OBCs (8.5 min). Reductions in urges to smoke after use of the 2 mg, 3.5 mg, and 8 mg NPs were not statistically different (p > 0.05) relative to OBC. Also, NPs resulted in lower ratings of positive subjective effects relative to OBCs and OBMST.

CONCLUSIONS

Overall, based on the study results and literature reported nicotine PK values for cigarettes and MST, the abuse potential of NPs is not likely to be higher than OBCs and OBMST. NPs may be potentially acceptable switching products for users of cigarettes and MST products.

Bridging: Accelerating Regulatory Acceptance of Reduced-Risk Tobacco and Nicotine Products

INTRODUCTION

The number and variety of alternative tobacco and nicotine products that can potentially provide reduced-risk choices for cigarette smokers who switch completely to such products instead of continued smoking have grown substantially in the past decade. Innovation and choice are likely to improve the prospects of smokers making the switch, but this provides challenges to regulators and manufacturers to ensure that changes to regulations and products promote and do not hinder contributions to tobacco harm reduction.

AIMS AND METHODS

This paper looks at where bridging data sets for tobacco heating products, closed system vaping products, and oral nicotine products might enable innovation while protecting the interests of consumers.

RESULTS

We review product data from chemical studies and a toxicological study showing how bridging can be applied and consider what product development changes might allow bridging from existing datasets or trigger the need for new ones.

CONCLUSIONS

Bridging across specific product ranges can increase the speed of innovation, foster competition, and limit the burden of assessment for regulators while maintaining product safety and quality.

IMPLICATIONS

Bridging partial data sets is an established practice within other industries, that aims to improve efficiency with regulatory approvals, accepts natural product variation, and supports product innovation. We review product data from chemical studies and a toxicological study showing how bridging can be applied and consider what product development changes might allow bridging from existing datasets or trigger the need for new ones. This in turn can increase the speed of innovation, foster competition, and limit the burden of assessment for regulators while maintaining product safety and quality.

A randomised study to assess the nicotine pharmacokinetics of an oral nicotine pouch and two nicotine replacement therapy products

Nicotine replacement therapies (NRTs) are intended for short-term use to help cigarette smokers to quit. Some smokers find NRTs ineffective or seek a more satisfactory source of nicotine. Tobacco-free oral nicotine pouch (NP) products have emerged as a potential reduced risk product compared with cigarettes and other tobacco products. In a randomised crossover clinical study, thirty-four healthy adult smokers were enrolled and their nicotine C_max and AUC_0-T determined for three 4 mg nicotine products (NP, gum, lozenge) under fasting conditions. The NP, lozenge and gum mean C_max values were 8.5, 8.3 and 4.4 ng/mL, AUC_0-T values were 30.6, 31.5 and 14.3 ng*h/mL, respectively. The NP showed similar nicotine bioavailability to the lozenge (p = 0.6526 (C_max), p = 1.0000 (AUC_0-T)), and superior bioavailability to the gum (p  < 0.0001 for C_max and AUC_0-T). Compared with the lozenge, the NP demonstrated greater product satisfaction with a higher number of positive responses to subjective satisfaction questions. All products were judged to be well-tolerated; the incidence of minor adverse events was lower for the NP (18.2%) than the lozenge (33.3%) or gum (18.8%). In summary, NPs may provide smokers with a more satisfying alternative nicotine source as compared to the reference NRTs.

Study Registry/Registered Trial No: ISRCTN/ISRCTN65708311.