Trial reportTobacco control2007
Nicotine pharmacokinetics and subjective effects of three potential reduced exposure products, moist snuff and nicotine lozenge.
Trial report in Tobacco control, 2007. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 29 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
29 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Interventions to reduce harm from continued tobacco use.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2016Pooled it
- Measures for assessing subjective effects of potential reduced-exposure products.Cancer epidemiology, biomarkers & prevention : a publication of the American Association for Cancer Research, cosponsored by the American Society of Preventive Oncology · 2009Pooled it
- 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.Psychopharmacology · 2022Trial
- Effect on Tobacco Use and Subjective Measures of Including E-cigarettes in a Simulated Ban of Menthol in Combustible Cigarettes.Nicotine & tobacco research : official journal of the Society for Research on Nicotine and Tobacco · 2022Trial
- A Randomised Study to Investigate the Nicotine Pharmacokinetics of Oral Nicotine Pouches and a Combustible Cigarette.European journal of drug metabolism and pharmacokinetics · 2022Trial
- Nicotine pharmacokinetics and subjective response among adult smokers using different flavors of on!® nicotine pouches compared to combustible cigarettes.Psychopharmacology · 2021Trial
- Characterization of the Abuse Potential in Adult Smokers of a Novel Oral Tobacco Product Relative to Combustible Cigarettes and Nicotine Polacrilex Gum.Clinical pharmacology in drug development · 2021Trial
- Effect of nicotine lozenge use prior to smoking cue presentation on craving and withdrawal symptom severity.Drug and alcohol dependence · 2020Trial
- Timing of nicotine lozenge administration to minimize trigger induced craving and withdrawal symptoms.Addictive behaviors · 2017Trial
- Snus undermines quit attempts but not abstinence: a randomised clinical trial among US smokers.Tobacco control · 2017Trial
- Nicotine delivery and pharmacologic response from Verve, an oral nicotine delivery product.Pharmacology, biochemistry, and behavior · 2015Trial
- The effect of acute exercise on cigarette cravings while using a nicotine lozenge.Psychopharmacology · 2015Trial
- Oral tobacco products: preference and effects among smokers.Drug and alcohol dependence · 2011Trial
- Effect of oral snus and medicinal nicotine in smokers on toxicant exposure and withdrawal symptoms: a feasibility study.Cancer epidemiology, biomarkers & prevention : a publication of the American Association for Cancer Research, cosponsored by the American Society of Preventive Oncology · 2011Trial
- Evaluating oral noncombustible potential-reduced exposure products for smokers.Nicotine & tobacco research : official journal of the Society for Research on Nicotine and Tobacco · 2010Trial
- A pilot randomized study of smokeless tobacco use among smokers not interested in quitting: changes in smoking behavior and readiness to quit.Nicotine & tobacco research : official journal of the Society for Research on Nicotine and Tobacco · 2010Trial
- Potential reduced exposure products (PREPs) for smokeless tobacco users: clinical evaluation methodology.Nicotine & tobacco research : official journal of the Society for Research on Nicotine and Tobacco · 2008Trial
- Research on the safety risk of oral nicotine products and its prospects.Current research in toxicology · 2026Review
- Clinical Laboratory Evaluation of Electronic Cigarettes/Electronic Nicotine Delivery Systems: Methodological Challenges.Tobacco regulatory science · 2016Article
- Animal models to assess the abuse liability of tobacco products: effects of smokeless tobacco extracts on intracranial self-stimulation.Drug and alcohol dependence · 2015Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectiveTo compare nicotine pharmacokinetics and subjective effects of three new smokeless tobacco potential reduced exposure products (PREPs; Ariva, Revel and Stonewall) with moist snuff (Copenhagen) and medicinal nicotine (Commit lozenge).
methods10 subjects completed a randomised, within-subject, crossover study. Subjects used one product for 30 min at each of the five laboratory sessions. Maximal nicotine concentration (Cmax) was determined and area under the concentration time curve (AUC) was calculated for a 90-min period (during use and 60 min after use). Nicotine craving, withdrawal symptoms and ratings of product effects and liking were measured during product use.
resultsNicotine AUC and Cmax were higher for Copenhagen than for any other product (p<0.002) and higher for Commit than for either Ariva or Revel (p<0.001). Cmax for Commit was also higher than for Stonewall (p = 0.03). Craving was lowest during use of Copenhagen (p<0.03). Craving during use of Stonewall, Ariva and Commit was lower than during use of Revel (p<0.05). Withdrawal symptom score during use of Copenhagen was lower than during use of Revel (p = 0.009). Copenhagen scores were higher (p<0.005) than all other products in several measures of drug effects and liking (feel good effects, satisfaction, liking and desire for product, and strength of product).
conclusionThe new smokeless tobacco PREPs result in lower nicotine concentrations and equivalent or lower reductions in subjective measures compared with medicinal nicotine. Since health effects of PREPs are largely unknown, medicinal nicotine should be preferentially encouraged for smokers or smokeless tobacco users wishing to switch to lower-risk products.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.