ArticleTobacco control2010
Evaluating the acute effects of oral, non-combustible potential reduced exposure products marketed to smokers.
Article in Tobacco control, 2010. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT00932295 (Evaluating the Acute Effects of Electronic Nicotine Delivery Devices Marketed to Smokers.), which is not on this map. Cited by 27 papers, 1 of them a synthesis 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.
Evaluating the Acute Effects of Electronic Nicotine Delivery Devices Marketed to Smokers.
Who cites it
27 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 44 citations in OpenAlex.
- 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
- 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
- Randomized Trial to Compare Smoking Cessation Rates of Snus, With and Without Smokeless Tobacco Health-Related Information, and a Nicotine Lozenge.Nicotine & tobacco research : official journal of the Society for Research on Nicotine and Tobacco · 2019Trial
- Acute effects of snus in never-tobacco users: a pilot study.The American journal of drug and alcohol abuse · 2018Trial
- Comparison of the Pharmacokinetics of Nicotine Following Single and Ad Libitum Use of a Tobacco Heating System or Combustible Cigarettes.Nicotine & tobacco research : official journal of the Society for Research on Nicotine and Tobacco · 2016Trial
- Randomised clinical trial of snus versus medicinal nicotine among smokers interested in product switching.Tobacco control · 2016Trial
- Oral tobacco products: preference and effects among smokers.Drug and alcohol dependence · 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
- Beyond smoking: Risk assessment of nicotine in pouches.Toxicology reports · 2024Article
- E-cigarette use, opinion about harmfulness and addiction among university students in Bratislava, Slovakia.Central European journal of public health · 2022Article
- Randomized controlled trials using electronic nicotine delivery systems as smoking cessation aids require an accurate, empirically-based understanding of the nicotine delivery profile of the products under study.Journal of public health and emergency · 2021Article
- Adolescents' First Tobacco Product: Results from a Nationally Representative Survey.Tobacco regulatory science · 2018Article
- Acute Effects of "Hyping" a Black&Mild Cigarillo.Nicotine & tobacco research : official journal of the Society for Research on Nicotine and Tobacco · 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
- Tobacco use among middle and high school students--United States, 2013.MMWR. Morbidity and mortality weekly report · 2014Article
- Smokeless tobacco use among working adults - United States, 2005 and 2010.MMWR. Morbidity and mortality weekly report · 2014Article
- Patterns and correlates of polytobacco use in the United States over a decade: NSDUH 2002-2011.Addictive behaviors · 2014Article
- Subjective responses to oral tobacco products: scale validation.Nicotine & tobacco research : official journal of the Society for Research on Nicotine and Tobacco · 2013Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundNon-combustible potential reduced exposure products (PREPs; eg, Star Scientific's Ariva; a variety of other smokeless tobacco products) are marketed to reduce the harm associated with smoking. This marketing occurs despite an absence of objective data concerning the toxicant exposure and effects of these PREPs. Methods used to examine combustible PREPs were adapted to assess the acute effects of non-combustible PREPs for smokers.
methods28 overnight abstinent cigarette smokers (17 men, 14 non-white) each completed seven, Latin-squared ordered, approximately 2.5 h laboratory sessions that differed by product administered: Ariva, Marlboro Snus (Philip Morris, USA), Camel Snus (RJ Reynolds, Winston-Salem, North Carolina, USA), Commit nicotine lozenge (GlaxoSmithKline; 2 mg), own brand cigarettes, Quest cigarettes (Vector Tobacco; delivers very low levels of nicotine) and sham smoking (ie, puffing on an unlit cigarette). In each session, the product was administered twice (separated by 60 min), and plasma nicotine levels, expired air CO and subjective effects were assessed regularly.
resultsNon-combustible products delivered less nicotine than own brand cigarettes, did not expose smokers to CO and failed to suppress tobacco abstinence symptoms as effectively as combustible products.
conclusionsWhile decreased toxicant exposure is a potential indicator of harm reduction potential, a failure to suppress abstinence symptoms suggests that currently marketed non-combustible PREPs may not be a viable harm reduction strategy for US smokers. This study demonstrates how clinical laboratory methods can be used to evaluate the short-term effects of non-combustible PREPs for smokers.
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.