A randomised study to assess the nicotine pharmacokinetics of an oral nicotine pouch and two nicotine replacement therapy products
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Nicotine replacement therapies (NRTs) are intended for short-term use to help cigarette smokers to quit. Some smokers find NRTs ineffective or seek a more satisfactory source of nicotine. Tobacco-free oral nicotine pouch (NP) products have emerged as a potential reduced risk product compared with cigarettes and other tobacco products. In a randomised crossover clinical study, thirty-four healthy adult smokers were enrolled and their nicotine C max and AUC 0-T determined for three 4 mg nicotine products (NP, gum, lozenge) under fasting conditions. The NP, lozenge and gum mean C max values were 8.5, 8.3 and 4.4 ng/mL, AUC 0-T values were 30.6, 31.5 and 14.3 ng*h/mL, respectively. The NP showed similar nicotine bioavailability to the lozenge ( p = 0.6526 (C max ), p = 1.0000 (AUC 0-T )), and superior bioavailability to the gum ( p < 0.0001 for C max and AUC 0-T ). Compared with the lozenge, the NP demonstrated greater product satisfaction with a higher number of positive responses to subjective satisfaction questions. All products were judged to be well-tolerated; the incidence of minor adverse events was lower for the NP (18.2%) than the lozenge (33.3%) or gum (18.8%). In summary, NPs may provide smokers with a more satisfying alternative nicotine source as compared to the reference NRTs. Study Registry/Registered Trial No: ISRCTN/ISRCTN65708311.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.009 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.006 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".