Trial reportPsychopharmacology2022
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.
Trial report in Psychopharmacology, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 23 papers.
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
23 citing papers in PubMed, 28 citations in OpenAlex.
- Evaluation of high-nicotine oral products shows potential to reduce tobacco-related harm by offering satisfying alternatives.Scientific reports · 2025Trial
- Characterization of the nicotine uptake and safety of Nordic spirit tobacco-free oral nicotine pouches: A randomized cross-over study.Psychopharmacology · 2025Trial
- Using Pod Based e-Cigarettes and Nicotine Pouches to Reduce Harm for Adults With Low Socioeconomic Status Who Smoke: A Pilot Randomized Controlled Trial.Nicotine & tobacco research : official journal of the Society for Research on Nicotine and Tobacco · 2024Trial
- 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.Addiction (Abingdon, England) · 2024Trial
- Product acceptance and cigarette reduction: Results from a Velo® pouch actual use study among United States adults who smoke.Preventive medicine reports · 2026Article
- Effects of nicotine concentration and pH on nicotine pouch appeal and sensory experience: A randomized experimental study.Addiction (Abingdon, England) · 2026Article
- Nicotine pouches: an aid in smoking cessation, or a new public health hazard?Internal and emergency medicine · 2026Review
- Nicotine pouch pharmacokinetics compared to smoked tobacco: A systematic review and meta-analysis.Drug and alcohol dependence reports · 2025Review
- Evaluation of Factors Impacting Nicotine Permeation in Oral Nicotine Pouch Products.ACS omega · 2025Article
- Physiologically Based Pharmacokinetic Modeling to Predict Nicotine Pharmacokinetics of Nicotine Pouches Under Naturalistic Use Conditions.Journal of clinical pharmacology · 2025Article
- Physiological and subjective effects of an oral nicotine pouch in people who use smokeless tobacco.Experimental and clinical psychopharmacology · 2025Article
- Effects of oral nicotine pouches on cigarette smoking behaviour and tobacco harm exposure: a randomised pilot trial in adults.Tobacco control · 2025Article
- Oral health effects of non-combustible nicotine products: protocol for a systematic review and network meta-analysis.Systematic reviews · 2025Article
- A comprehensive review on oral nicotine pouches: Available scientific evidence and future research needs.Experimental and clinical psychopharmacology · 2025Review
- Nicotine Pouch and E-Cigarette Use and Co-Use Among US Youths in 2023 and 2024.JAMA network open · 2025Article
- The Potential Impact of Oral Nicotine Pouches on Public Health: A Scoping Review.Nicotine & tobacco research : official journal of the Society for Research on Nicotine and Tobacco · 2025Article
- Nicotine Toxicity From Repeat Use of Nicotine Pouches.Nicotine & tobacco research : official journal of the Society for Research on Nicotine and Tobacco · 2025Article
- Randomized crossover clinical studies to assess abuse liability and nicotine pharmacokinetics of Velo Oral Nicotine pouches.Frontiers in pharmacology · 2025Article
- Investigating oral nicotine pouch use among adults in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia: prevalence, awareness, susceptibility, and associated symptoms.Frontiers in public health · 2025Article
- Tobacco-Free Nicotine Pouches and Their Potential Contribution to Tobacco Harm Reduction: A Scoping Review.Cureus · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
rationaleOral 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.
objectivesTo 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).
methodsWe 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.
resultsThe mean nicotine C
conclusionsOverall, 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.
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.