HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS REGISTER		Author Keyword(s) Vol Page [Advanced]

This Article Full Text Full Text (PDF) Submit a response Alert me when this article is cited Alert me when eLetters are posted Alert me if a correction is posted Services Email this link to a friend Similar articles in this journal Similar articles in PubMed Add article to my folders Download to citation manager Request Permissions Citing Articles Citing Articles via Google Scholar Google Scholar Articles by Kotlyar, M. Articles by Hatsukami, D. K Search for Related Content PubMed PubMed Citation Articles by Kotlyar, M. Articles by Hatsukami, D. K

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

¹ Department of Experimental and Clinical Pharmacology, College of Pharmacy, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, Minnesota, USA
² Transdisciplinary Tobacco Use Research Center, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, Minnesota, USA
³ Biostatistics Core, Cancer Center, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, Minnesota, USA

Correspondence to:
Dr M Kotlyar
College of Pharmacy, University of Minnesota, 7-170 Weaver Densford Hall, 308 Harvard Street SE, Minneapolis, MN 55455, USA; kotly001{at}umn.edu

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 (C_max) 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 C_max 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). C_max 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.

Abbreviations: AUC, area under the concentration–time curve; C_max, maximal nicotine concentration; PREP, potential reduced exposure product; T_max, maximal tobacco concentration