ArticleAddiction (Abingdon, England)2025
Examining the role of freebase nicotine in the harm reduction potential of oral nicotine pouches versus moist snuff: A randomized crossover trial.
Article in Addiction (Abingdon, England), 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Nicotine pouch pharmacokinetics compared to smoked tobacco: A systematic review and meta-analysis.Drug and alcohol dependence reports · 2025Review
- Testing oral nicotine pouches versus nicotine replacement therapy for cigarette harm reduction in Appalachia: The ARISE study protocol.PloS one · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
11 authors.
Funding
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND
aimsOral nicotine pouches (ONPs) contain varying proportions of freebase nicotine (FBN), with higher FBN expected to increase nicotine delivery across the oral mucosa. Because ONPs contain fewer toxicants than moist snuff and may serve as a reduced harm alternative for smokeless tobacco, we compared how the FBN in ONPs affects both nicotine pharmacokinetics and craving relief relative to moist snuff.
designThree-visit (90-minute sessions; ≥48-hour washout), single-blind, randomized crossover study. Participants were asked to complete all visits within 1 month.
settingClinical facility in Columbus, Ohio, USA.
participantsN = 62 moist snuff users (M
interventionFollowing ≥12 hours of nicotine abstinence, participants used either a (1) low FBN peppermint ONP (27.4% FBN; 5.1 mg nicotine/pouch; Rogue brand), (2) high FBN peppermint ONP (70.2% FBN; 5.0 mg nicotine/pouch; Zyn brand) or (3) 2 g of usual brand moist snuff for 30 minutes. Participants completed the three study visits in one of six randomized orders. MEASUREMENTS: Plasma nicotine and self-reported craving were assessed at t = baseline, 5, 15, 30, 60 and 90 minutes. Plasma nicotine and craving relief at t = 30 minutes were primary and secondary outcomes, respectively.
findingsAt t = 30 minutes, mean [standard deviation (SD)] plasma nicotine concentrations were 7.1 (2.8) ng/mL for low FBN ONP, 14.8 (6.4) ng/mL for high FBN ONP and 12.3 (8.4) ng/mL for moist snuff (all comparison Ps ≤ 0.001). Craving was lower for moist snuff (mean = 0.8) than either ONP (means = 1.4), with the low FBN ONP providing statistically significantly less craving relief than moist snuff (P < 0.001).
conclusionsThe proportion of freebase nicotine in oral nicotine pouches appears to statistically significantly influence their nicotine delivery, with higher freebase nicotine oral nicotine pouches delivering more nicotine than usual brand moist snuff. However, craving appears to be higher when using oral nicotine pouches than usual brand moist snuff.
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.