A randomised, open-label, cross-over clinical study to evaluate the pharmacokinetic, pharmacodynamic and safety and tolerability profiles of tobacco-free oral nicotine pouches relative to cigarettes

Fiona Chapman, Simon McDermott, Kathryn Rudd, Victoria Taverner, Matthew Stevenson, Nveed Chaudhary, Kerstin Reichmann, Joseph Thompson, Thomas Nahde, Grant O'Connell, Fiona Chapman, Simon McDermott, Kathryn Rudd, Victoria Taverner, Matthew Stevenson, Nveed Chaudhary, Kerstin Reichmann, Joseph Thompson, Thomas Nahde, Grant O'Connell

Abstract

Rationale: Tobacco harm reduction (THR) involves encouraging adult smokers who would otherwise continue to smoke to transition to less harmful forms of nicotine delivery. These products must offer adult smokers reduced exposure to chemicals associated with tobacco combustion, satisfactory blood plasma nicotine levels and serve as an acceptable alternative. The most recent THR innovation is tobacco-free oral nicotine pouches.

Objectives: This study aimed to compare pharmacokinetic, pharmacodynamic and safety and tolerability profiles of two nicotine pouch variants (ZoneX #2 (5.8 mg nicotine/pouch); ZoneX #3 (10.1 mg nicotine/pouch)) with cigarette to assess the pouches' THR potential.

Methods: This was a controlled use, randomised, open-label, cross-over clinical study with 24 healthy adult traditional tobacco users. Pharmacokinetic (plasma nicotine levels; up to 8 h post-use), pharmacodynamic (urge to smoke, product liking; up to 4 h post-use) and short-term safety and tolerability profiles were assessed.

Results: Distinct nicotine pouch pharmacokinetic profiles indicated nicotine absorption via the oral mucosa. Plasma nicotine levels were lower, and time to peak slower, for the nicotine pouches compared to cigarette (Cmax cigarette: 11.6 ng/ml vs. #2: 5.2 ng/ml, p < 0.0001; #3: 7.9 ng/ml, p < 0.0003) (Tmax cigarette: 8.6 min vs. #2: 26 min; #3: 22 min). All products effectively reduced subjects' urge to smoke and presented favourable product liking scores; nicotine pouches were also well tolerated following short-term use (no serious adverse events).

Conclusions: Overall, the assessed ZoneX nicotine pouches may offer an acceptable alternative for adult smokers to achieve satisfactory levels of nicotine delivery and, based on the pharmacokinetic parameters and under the study conditions, likely have a lower abuse liability and addictive potential for current adult smokers compared to continued cigarette smoking.

Clinical trial identifier: NCT04891406 (clinicaltrials.gov).

Keywords: Cigarettes; Nicotine; Nicotine pouches; Oral nicotine delivery; Smoking; Tobacco harm reduction; Tobacco-free nicotine pouches.

Conflict of interest statement

All the authors were employed by Imperial Brands PLC either during part or all of the study. Skruf Snus A.B., Sweden, is a wholly owned subsidiary of Imperial Brands PLC and is the manufacturer of the two nicotine pouch products investigated in this study.

© 2022. The Author(s).

Figures

Fig. 1
Fig. 1
Study design overview, where three products: two nicotine pouches (#2 (5.8 mg nicotine/pouch) and #3 (10.1 mg nicotine/pouch)) and one cigarette product, were randomised to 24 subjects for assessments across 5 days
Fig. 2
Fig. 2
Baseline adjusted nicotine levels measured in the blood plasma of adult traditional tobacco product users during 8 h following use of a single nicotine pouch product (#2 or #3) or cigarette. For #2, n = 21; #3, n = 22; cigarette, n = 22. Non-baseline adjusted data plotted with error bars (standard deviation) can be found in the supplementary information (Fig. S1)
Fig. 3
Fig. 3
Average self-reported urge to smoke according to the 100-mm VAS scoring system self-assessed by subjects over 240 min following use of a single nicotine pouch (#2 or #3) or cigarette study products (pre-dose is plotted as 0 min). 100 = extreme urge to smoke, 0 = no urge to smoke. A lower score indicates a greater reduction in desire to smoke. For no. #2, n = 22; no. #3, n = 23; cigarette, n = 22. Data plotted with error bars (standard deviation) can be found in the supplementary information (Fig. S2)
Fig. 4
Fig. 4
Average product liking according to the 100-mm VAS scoring system self-assessed by subjects over 2–240 min following use of a single nicotine pouch (#2 or #3) or cigarette study products. 100 = extreme, 0 = none. A higher score indicates greater product liking. For no. #2, n = 22; no. #3, n = 23; cigarette, n = 22. Data plotted with error bars (standard deviation) can be found in the supplementary information (Fig. S3)

References

    1. Abrams DB, et al. Harm minimization and tobacco control: reframing societal views of nicotine use to rapidly save lives. Annu Rev Public Health. 2018;39:193–213. doi: 10.1146/annurev-publhealth-040617-013849.
    1. Aldeek F, et al. Dissolution testing of nicotine release from OTDN pouches: product characterization and product-to-product comparison. Separations. 2021;8:1. doi: 10.3390/separations8010007.
    1. Azzopardi, D., et al. (2021). Chemical characterization of tobacco-free “modern” oral nicotine pouches and their position on the toxicant and risk continuums. Drug and Chemical Toxicology: 1–9.
    1. Bishop E, et al. An approach for the extract generation and toxicological assessment of tobacco-free ‘modern’ oral nicotine pouches. Food Chem Toxicol. 2020;145:111713. doi: 10.1016/j.fct.2020.111713.
    1. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (US); National Center for Chronic Disease Prevention and Health Promotion (US); Office on Smoking and Health (US). How tobacco smoke causes disease: the biology and behavioral basis for smoking-attributable disease: a report of the Surgeon General. Atlanta (GA): Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (US); 2010. Available from:
    1. Clarke E, et al. Snus: a compelling harm reduction alternative to cigarettes. Harm Reduct J. 2019;16(1):62. doi: 10.1186/s12954-019-0335-1.
    1. Dautzenberg B, et al. Pharmacokinetics, safety and efficacy from randomized controlled trials of 1 and 2 mg nicotine bitartrate lozenges (Nicotinell) BMC Clin Pharmacol. 2007;7:11–11. doi: 10.1186/1472-6904-7-11.
    1. World Medical Association, WMA Declaration of Helsinki – ethical principles for medical research involving human subjects [website], (accessed 30MAR2021).
    1. East N, et al. A screening approach for the evaluation of tobacco-free ‘modern oral’ nicotine products using real time cell analysis. Toxicol Rep. 2021;8:481–488. doi: 10.1016/j.toxrep.2021.02.014.
    1. FDA. (2012). Harmful and potentially harmful constituents in tobacco products and tobacco smoke; established list. Federal Register.
    1. Gale, N., et al. (2021). Changes in biomarkers after 180 days of tobacco heating product use: a randomised trial. Internal and Emergency Medicine.
    1. Jaunky T, et al. Assessment of tobacco heating product THP1.0. Part 5: In vitro dosimetric and cytotoxic assessment. Regul Toxicol Pharmacol. 2018;93:52–61. doi: 10.1016/j.yrtph.2017.09.016.
    1. Kenward MG, Roger JH. Small sample inference for fixed effects from restricted maximum likelihood. Biometrics. 1997;53(3):983–997. doi: 10.2307/2533558.
    1. Lee PN. The effect on health of switching from cigarettes to snus – a review. Regul Toxicol Pharmacol. 2013;66(1):1–5. doi: 10.1016/j.yrtph.2013.02.010.
    1. Lüdicke F, et al. Evaluation of biomarkers of exposure in smokers switching to a carbon-heated tobacco product: a controlled, randomized, open-label 5-day exposure study. Nicotine Tobacco Res : Official J Soc Res Nicotine Tobacco. 2016;18(7):1606–1613. doi: 10.1093/ntr/ntw022.
    1. Lunell E, et al. Pharmacokinetic comparison of a novel non-tobacco-based nicotine pouch (ZYN) with conventional, tobacco-based Swedish snus and American moist snuff. Nicotine Tob Res. 2020;22(10):1757–1763. doi: 10.1093/ntr/ntaa068.
    1. McEwan, M., et al. (2021). A randomised study to investigate the nicotine pharmacokinetics of oral nicotine pouches and a combustible cigarette. European Journal of Drug Metabolism and Pharmacokinetics.
    1. McNeill A, Brose LS, Calder R, Bauld L & Robson D (2018). Evidence review of e-cigarettes and heated tobacco products 2018. A report commissioned by Public Health England. London: Public Health England.
    1. McNeill A, Munafò MR. Reducing harm from tobacco use. J Psychopharmacol. 2013;27(1):13–18. doi: 10.1177/0269881112458731.
    1. Meier E, et al. A randomized clinical trial of snus examining the effect of complete versus partial cigarette substitution on smoking-related behaviors, and biomarkers of exposure. Nicotine Tobacco Res : Official J Soc Res Nicotine Tobacco. 2020;22(4):473–481. doi: 10.1093/ntr/ntz055.
    1. Morris, P., et al. (2021). Reductions in biomarkers of exposure to selected harmful and potentially harmful constituents following exclusive and partial switching from combustible cigarettes to myblu(™) electronic nicotine delivery systems (ENDS). Intern Emerg Med.
    1. Murkett R, Rugh M and Ding B. Nicotine products relative risk assessment: a systematic review and meta-analysis [version 1; peer review: 1 approved]. F1000Research 2020, 9:1225 10.12688/f1000research.26762.1
    1. Nutt DJ, et al. Estimating the harms of nicotine-containing products using the MCDA approach. Eur Addict Res. 2014;20(5):218–225. doi: 10.1159/000360220.
    1. O'Connell G, et al. Reductions in biomarkers of exposure (BoE) to harmful or potentially harmful constituents (HPHCs) following partial or complete substitution of cigarettes with electronic cigarettes in adult smokers. Toxicol Mech Methods. 2016;26(6):443–454.
    1. O'Leary R, Polosa R. Tobacco harm reduction in the 21st century. Drugs Alcohol Today. 2020;20(3):219–234. doi: 10.1108/DAT-02-2020-0007.
    1. Patwardhan S, Fagerström K. The new nicotine pouch category: a tobacco harm reduction tool? Nicotine Tob Res. 2021;24(4):623–625. doi: 10.1093/ntr/ntab198.
    1. Polosa R, et al. The effect of e-cigarette aerosol emissions on respiratory health: a narrative review. Expert Rev Respir Med. 2019;13(9):899–915. doi: 10.1080/17476348.2019.1649146.
    1. Polosa R, et al. COPD smokers who switched to e-cigarettes: health outcomes at 5-year follow up. Therapeutic Adv Chronic Disease. 2020;11:2040622320961617. doi: 10.1177/2040622320961617.
    1. Rensch, J., et al. (2021). Nicotine pharmacokinetics and subjective response among adult smokers using different flavors of on!® nicotine pouches compared to combustible cigarettes. 10.1007/s00213-021-05948-y
    1. Rudd K, et al. Chemical composition and in vitro toxicity profile of a pod-based E-cigarette aerosol compared to cigarette smoke. Appl Vitro Toxicol. 2020;6(1):11–41. doi: 10.1089/aivt.2019.0015.
    1. Russell MA, et al. Nicotine chewing gum as a substitute for smoking. BMJ. 1977;1(6068):1060. doi: 10.1136/bmj.1.6068.1060.
    1. Simonavicius E, et al. Heat-not-burn tobacco products: a systematic literature review. Tob Control. 2019;28(5):582–594. doi: 10.1136/tobaccocontrol-2018-054419.
    1. Tønnesen P, et al. Efficacy of a nicotine mouth spray in smoking cessation: a randomised, double-blind trial. Eur Respir J. 2012;40(3):548–554. doi: 10.1183/09031936.00155811.
    1. Tran CT, et al. Reduced levels of biomarkers of exposure in smokers switching to the Carbon-Heated Tobacco Product 1.0: a controlled, randomized, open label 5-day exposure trial. Scientific Rep. 2020;10(1):19227–19227. doi: 10.1038/s41598-020-76222-y.
    1. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.(2014) The health consequences of smoking: 50 years of progress. A Report of the Surgeon General. Atlanta, GA: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, National Center for Chronic Disease Prevention and Health Promotion, Office on Smoking and Health. Printed with corrections, January 2014.
    1. Vansickel A, et al. Human abuse liability assessment of tobacco and nicotine products: approaches for meeting current regulatory recommendations. Nicotine Tob Res. 2022;24(3):295–305. doi: 10.1093/ntr/ntab183.
    1. Yu F, et al. Pre-clinical assessment of tobacco-free nicotine pouches demonstrates reduced in vitro toxicity compared to tobacco snus and combustible cigarette smoke. Appl Vitro Toxicol. 2022;8(1):24–35. doi: 10.1089/aivt.2021.0020.

Source: PubMed

3
Subscribe