A Randomised Study to Investigate the Nicotine Pharmacokinetics of Oral Nicotine Pouches and a Combustible Cigarette

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.

Multi-endpoint in vitro toxicological assessment of snus and tobacco-free nicotine pouch extracts

'Modern' oral tobacco-free nicotine pouches (NPs) are a nicotine containing product similar in appearance and concept to Swedish snus. A three-step approach was taken to analyse the biological effects of NPs and snus extracts in vitro. ToxTracker was used to screen for biomarkers for oxidative stress, cell stress, protein damage and DNA damage. Cytotoxicity, mutagenicity, and genotoxicity were assessed in the following respective assays: Neutral Red Uptake (NRU), Ames and Mouse Lymphoma Assay (MLA). Targeted analysis of phosphorylation signalling and inflammatory markers under non-toxic conditions was used to investigate any potential signalling pathways or inflammatory response. A reference snus (CRP1.1) and four NPs with various flavours and nicotine strengths were assessed. Test article extracts was generated by incubating one pouch in 20 mL of media (specific to each assay) with the inclusion of the pouch material. NP extracts did not induce any cytotoxicity or mutagenic response, genotoxic response was minimal and limited signalling or inflammatory markers were induced. In contrast, CRP1.1 induced a positive response in four toxicological endpoints in the absence of S9: Srxn1 (oxidative stress), Btg2 (cell stress), Ddit3 (protein damage) and Rtkn (DNA damage), and three endpoints in presence of S9: Srxn1, Ddit3 and Rtkn. CRP1.1 was genotoxic when assessed in MLA and activated signalling pathways involved in proliferation and cellular stress and specifically induced phosphorylation of c-JUN, CREB1, p53, p38 MAPK and to a lesser extent AKT1S1, GSK3α/β, ERK1/2 and RSK1 in a dose-dependent manner. CRP 1.1 extracts resulted in the release of several inflammatory mediators including cytokines IL-1α, IL5, IL6, IL8, IL-1RA, MIF and TNF-β, receptor IL-2RA, and growth factors FGF-basic, VEGF and M-CSF. In conclusion these assays contribute to the weight of evidence assessment of the potential comparative health risks of NPs and snus.

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.

Qualitative perspective on nicotine pouches from adults who smoke cigarettes in North Carolina

BACKGROUND

Little is known about how nicotine pouch products are perceived by people who smoke, including if they are perceived as a cessation aid or a substitute for when they cannot smoke. We qualitatively investigated the reactions and perceptions about On!, a leading brand of nicotine pouches.

METHODS

We conducted online semistructured interviews with 30 adults who smoke cigarettes. Participants viewed an On! brochure and an image of an opened nicotine pouch and were asked about their initial impression, who the intended user is, and how they thought of the product's safety compared with other tobacco and cessation products. Transcripts were independently coded and the data were analysed using thematic content analysis.

RESULTS

Among the participants, half identified as female and slightly more than half were white (n=16). The mean age was 43 years old. The following are the central themes that emerged: (1) participants perceived the concealability, flavours and packaging of On! as appealing to youth and young adults; (2) participants perceived nicotine pouches as a product that would supplement rather than replace tobacco use; and (3) the product raised health concerns, which decreased interest in trying nicotine pouches.

CONCLUSIONS

Participants believed that the On! nicotine pouch promotional material may promote youth and young adult nicotine product initiation and dual product use for people who smoke. Most viewed On! as a product to use with cigarettes, rather than a way to quit cigarettes. Increased surveillance of nicotine pouches is warranted to monitor the trajectory of this emerging tobacco product and prevent youth initiation.

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.

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.

Assessment of biomarkers of exposure and potential harm, and physiological and subjective health measures in exclusive users of nicotine pouches and current, former and never smokers

Background: Oral nicotine pouches (NPs) are smokeless, tobacco-free products that have a potential role in tobacco harm reduction strategies.Methods: In a cross-sectional study in Sweden/Denmark, several recognised biomarkers of potential harm (BoPHs) linked to smoking-related diseases/their initiating biological processes, and biomarkers of exposure (BoEs) to tobacco/tobacco smoke toxicants were compared among exclusive adult users of Velo NPs and current/former/never smokers. Over 24 h, participants used their usual product (Velo NP or cigarette) as normal, and BoEs/BoPHs were assessed via blood/24-h urine/exhaled breath/physiological assessments.Results: Among the primary endpoints, total NNAL (16.9 ± 29.47 vs 187.4 ± 228.93 pg/24 h), white blood cell count (5.59 ± 1.223 vs 6.90 ± 1.758 × 10⁹/L), and COHb (4.36 ± 0.525 vs 8.03 ± 2.173% saturation) were significantly lower among Velo users than among smokers (91%, 19% and 46% lower, respectively, all P < 0.0001), while fractional exhaled NO, previously shown to be lower in smokers, was significantly higher (23.18 ± 17.909 vs 11.20 ± 6.980 ppb) among Velo users (107% higher, P < 0.0001). Furthermore, sICAM-1 tended to be lower (185.9 ± 42.88 vs 204.5 ± 64.85 ng/mL) among Velo users than smokers (9% lower). Several secondary endpoints, including six BoEs (3-HPMA (246.7 ± 91.07 vs 1165.7 ± 718.35 μg/24 h), 3-OH-B[a]P (82.4 ± 217.58 vs 258.3 ± 190.20 pg/24 h), HMPMA (135.1 ± 77.85 vs 368.8 ± 183.15 μg/24 h), MHBMA (0.22 ± 0.166 vs 3.39 ± 2.943 μg/24 h), S-PMA (0.10 ± 0.059 vs 3.53 ± 2.736 µg/24 h) and total NNN (7.5 ± 24.84 vs 9.7 ± 5.93 ng/24 h)), were significantly lower among Velo users (78.8%, 68.1%, 63.4%, 93.5%, 97.2% and 22.7% lower, respectively, P < 0.0001-0.0011), while total nicotine equivalents was significantly higher among Velo users (22.6 ± 12.69 vs 12.1 ± 7.92 mg/24 h, P < 0.0001), although Velo user levels are comparable to those previously reported among oral tobacco users, and Velo user and smoker mean levels were similar in Denmark.Conclusion: As compared with smokers, exclusive users of Velo NPs have significantly less exposure to tobacco toxicants and more favourable BoPHs associated with initiating biological processes of smoking-related diseases.International Standard Registered Clinical Trial number: ISRCTN16988167.

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).

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.

Smoking cessation aids and strategies: a population-based survey of former and current smokers in Norway

BACKGROUND

In Norway, tobacco consumption is equally divided between combustible (cigarettes) and non-combustible (snus) tobacco. In the process of quitting, people who smoke can choose between several smoking cessation aids and strategies based on what is available on the market or what are recommended as cessation aids. A quit attempt may be planned or unplanned and consist of a gradual decline in consumption or an abrupt quitting. This study explores smoking cessation aids and strategies used at the latest quit attempt among people who have ever smoked. How prevalent is the use of various cessation aids and strategies, and do they correlate with each other? Are there any differences in successful quits depending on the use of a specific cessation aid or strategy?

METHOD

We used repeated cross-sectional representative surveys in Norway for 2017, 2018, 2019 and 2020. The analytic sample consists of people aged 20 years or older who have ever smoked daily, more precisely current daily smokers with at least one quit attempt (n = 476), and former daily smokers who quit in 2012 or later (n = 397). Participants answered questions on cessation aids and strategies used at their last quit attempt. Logistic regression analysis was used to estimate the associations between cessation aids and strategies and sociodemographic and smoking-related variables and successful quit attempts.

RESULTS

Fifty-six percent of people who ever smoked daily reported any use of cessation aids, and nicotine replacement therapy (NRT), snus and e-cigarettes were the most commonly used cessation aids. Snus and web/mobile use was associated with successful quits, while NRT was associated with unsuccessful quit attempts. When exclusive use was separated from the combined use of several aids, only snus was associated with successful quits.

CONCLUSION

Snus use was found to be a "stand-alone" cessation aid, and only weakly associated with the use of other cessation aids. Further investigation of cessation aid preferences is needed, especially among smokers with little or no contact with health services and/or for whom traditional cessation aids have no appeal.