Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
Randomized Controlled Trial
. 2007 Apr;16(2):138-42.
doi: 10.1136/tc.2006.018440.

Nicotine pharmacokinetics and subjective effects of three potential reduced exposure products, moist snuff and nicotine lozenge

Affiliations
Randomized Controlled Trial

Nicotine pharmacokinetics and subjective effects of three potential reduced exposure products, moist snuff and nicotine lozenge

Michael Kotlyar et al. Tob Control. 2007 Apr.

Abstract

Objective: To 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).

Methods: 10 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.

Results: Nicotine 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).

Conclusion: The 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.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

Competing interests: None.

References

    1. Stratton K, Shetty P, Wallace R.et alClearing the smoke: assessing the science base for tobacco harm reduction. Washington, DC: Institute of Medicine National Academy Press, 2001 - PubMed
    1. Hatsukami D K, Giovino G A, Eissenberg T.et al Methods to assess potential reduced exposure products. Nicotine Tob Res 20057827–844. - PubMed
    1. Hatsukami D K, Benowitz N L, Rennard S I.et al Biomarkers to assess the utility of potential reduced exposure tobacco products. Nicotine Tob Res 20068169–191. - PubMed
    1. Rodu B, Cole P. Tobacco‐related mortality. Nature 1994370184 - PubMed
    1. Hatsukami D K, Lemmonds C, Tomar S L. Smokeless tobacco use: harm reduction or induction approach? Prev Med 200438309–317. - PubMed

Publication types