Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41044396›Full record

Trial reportScientific reports2025

Evaluation of high-nicotine oral products shows potential to reduce tobacco-related harm by offering satisfying alternatives.

Fiona Chapman, Ruby Morrissey, Simon McDermott, Xavier Cahours, Thomas Verron, Victoria Taverner, Matthew Stevenson, Thomas Nahde

Registry-linked trialAbstract readRandomized Controlled Trial
In one paragraph

Trial report in Scientific reports, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT05452278 (A Randomised, Cross-over, Single-blind, Relative Bioavailability Study of Nicotine Delivery From Selected Oral Nicotine Products), which is not on this map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

NCT05452278 nacompletednot on this map

A Randomised, Cross-over, Single-blind, Relative Bioavailability Study of Nicotine Delivery From Selected Oral Nicotine Products

TypeinterventionalSponsorImperial Brands PLCRan2021 to 2023Enrolled27ConditionsHealthy VolunteersArmsProduct A, Product B, Product C, Product D
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Trial
  2. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

8 authors.

Fiona ChapmanImperial Brands PLC, 121 Winterstoke Road, Bristol, BS3 2LL, UK. Fiona.Chapman@impbrands.com.
Ruby MorrisseyImperial Brands PLC, 121 Winterstoke Road, Bristol, BS3 2LL, UK.
Simon McDermottImperial Brands PLC, 121 Winterstoke Road, Bristol, BS3 2LL, UK.
Xavier CahoursSEITA-Imperial Brands, 216 Rue Raymond Losserand, Paris, France.
Thomas VerronSEITA-Imperial Brands, 216 Rue Raymond Losserand, Paris, France.
Victoria TavernerImperial Brands PLC, 121 Winterstoke Road, Bristol, BS3 2LL, UK.
Matthew StevensonImperial Brands PLC, 121 Winterstoke Road, Bristol, BS3 2LL, UK.
Thomas NahdeImperial Brands Reemtsma Cigarettenfabriken GmbH, Albert-Einstein-Ring-7, 22761, Hamburg, Germany.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Modern oral nicotine delivery (MOND) offers potentially reduced harm nicotine delivery for adult smokers who do not wish to quit. Most clinical studies to date have characterised MOND with lower nicotine content, therefore, this study aimed to assess products with higher nicotine strengths. This randomised, open-label, cross-over, confinement study, conducted in Sweden, compared the nicotine pharmacokinetic and subjective effects of three MOND products, zoneX #5 slim (14 mg nicotine/pouch), zoneX #5 (16 mg) and zoneX #6 (20 mg), and a tobacco snus product (Skruf Slim Fresh #5 (16.6 mg)) in 27 adult snus or MOND users. The zoneX #6 product delivered the highest levels of nicotine; however, all products exhibited similar reductions in urge to use nicotine during and following a controlled product use session. Furthermore, the zoneX products generally scored more favourably than the snus on a 7-point Likert product evaluation scale for satisfaction, psychological reward, aversion and relief, assessed 8 h after the start of product use. There was some indication that pouch size may influence nicotine uptake, however, further characterisation is required. All study products demonstrated good short-term tolerability, with no serious adverse events observed. Overall, the findings support that MOND has tobacco harm reduction potential, providing a satisfactory alternative for adult smokers. Clinical Trial identifier: NCT05452278 https://clinicaltrials.gov/ .

Indexed as

NicotineTobacco ProductsAdministration, OralAdultCross-Over StudiesFemaleHarm ReductionHumansMaleMiddle AgedSmoking CessationSwedenTobacco, SmokelessYoung AdultNicotineModern oral nicotine deliveryNicotine pharmacokineticsSmokingSnusTobacco-free nicotine pouchesTobacco harm reduction

Identifiers

PMID41044396
PMCPMC12494975

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
Read underepoch 390

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.