Nicotine & tobacco research : official journal of the Society for Research on Nicotine and Tobacco · 2025
Evaluating the Role of Nicotine Stereoisomer on Nicotine Pouch Abuse Liability: A Randomized Crossover Trial.
СтатьяРандомизированное исследованиеНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Keller-Hamilton Brittney, Curran Hayley, Alalwan Mahmood, Hinton Alice, Brinkman Marielle C, El-Hellani Ahmad, Wagener Theodore L, Chrzan Kirsten, Atkinson Leanne, Suraapaneni Sriya, Mays Darren
Аннотация
INTRODUCTION: Many oral nicotine pouch (ONP) brands use synthetic nicotine, which typically contains a racemic (50:50) mixture of nicotine's two stereoisomers: S-nicotine and R-nicotine. Because tobacco-derived nicotine contains more than 99% S-nicotine, the effects of R-nicotine in humans are not well known. We compared systemic nicotine exposure and product appeal of ONPs containing more than 99% S-nicotine versus racemic nicotine.
AIMS AND METHODS: N = 18 adult smokers (Mage = 45 years, 66.7% male, 77.8% White) enrolled in a three-visit single-blind, randomized crossover study. During each visit, participants used one wintergreen-flavored, 3 mg nicotine ONP for 30 min following at least12 h nicotine abstinence. Study ONP #1 contained more than 99% S-nicotine and the other two study ONPs contained racemic nicotine (collapsed for analyses). Plasma nicotine assessments and measures of withdrawal relief occurred at t = 0, 5, 15, 30, 60, and 90 min; measures of product appeal were assessed following ONP use.
RESULTS: Using the ONP with more than 99% S-nicotine resulted in greater plasma nicotine concentration from 15 to 90 min (p < .0001) and greater maximum plasma nicotine concentration than the ONPs with racemic nicotine (M = 9.9 ng/mL [SD = 2.5] vs. M = 5.7 ng/mL [SD = 2.8], respectively; p < .0001). Product liking and withdrawal relief were similar across ONPs, although participants reported more "bad effects" when using the ONP with more than 99% S-nicotine.
CONCLUSIONS: Participants reported few subjective differences in ONPs according to nicotine stereoisomer, but plasma nicotine concentration was greater for ONPs using more than 99% S-nicotine. ONPs with more than 99% S-nicotine (vs. racemic nicotine) might be better substitutes for cigarettes, but research into other ONP characteristics (eg flavors, freebase nicotine) is needed to inform regulation.
IMPLICATIONS: Little is known about the effects of racemic (vs. S-) nicotine in humans. In a sample of adults who smoke cigarettes, we identified that oral nicotine pouches containing racemic nicotine exposed participants to less nicotine than oral nicotine pouches containing only S-nicotine, but both types of oral nicotine pouches held similar, moderate appeal. Additional research evaluating the roles that flavorings, total nicotine concentration, and freebase nicotine play in the abuse liability of oral nicotine pouches would inform comprehensive product regulations to support public health.
AIMS AND METHODS: N = 18 adult smokers (Mage = 45 years, 66.7% male, 77.8% White) enrolled in a three-visit single-blind, randomized crossover study. During each visit, participants used one wintergreen-flavored, 3 mg nicotine ONP for 30 min following at least12 h nicotine abstinence. Study ONP #1 contained more than 99% S-nicotine and the other two study ONPs contained racemic nicotine (collapsed for analyses). Plasma nicotine assessments and measures of withdrawal relief occurred at t = 0, 5, 15, 30, 60, and 90 min; measures of product appeal were assessed following ONP use.
RESULTS: Using the ONP with more than 99% S-nicotine resulted in greater plasma nicotine concentration from 15 to 90 min (p < .0001) and greater maximum plasma nicotine concentration than the ONPs with racemic nicotine (M = 9.9 ng/mL [SD = 2.5] vs. M = 5.7 ng/mL [SD = 2.8], respectively; p < .0001). Product liking and withdrawal relief were similar across ONPs, although participants reported more "bad effects" when using the ONP with more than 99% S-nicotine.
CONCLUSIONS: Participants reported few subjective differences in ONPs according to nicotine stereoisomer, but plasma nicotine concentration was greater for ONPs using more than 99% S-nicotine. ONPs with more than 99% S-nicotine (vs. racemic nicotine) might be better substitutes for cigarettes, but research into other ONP characteristics (eg flavors, freebase nicotine) is needed to inform regulation.
IMPLICATIONS: Little is known about the effects of racemic (vs. S-) nicotine in humans. In a sample of adults who smoke cigarettes, we identified that oral nicotine pouches containing racemic nicotine exposed participants to less nicotine than oral nicotine pouches containing only S-nicotine, but both types of oral nicotine pouches held similar, moderate appeal. Additional research evaluating the roles that flavorings, total nicotine concentration, and freebase nicotine play in the abuse liability of oral nicotine pouches would inform comprehensive product regulations to support public health.