Nicotine polacrilex dose effects: serum nicotine levels and sensory characteristics
Abstract
This study evaluated serum nicotine and sensory differences of five different doses of nicotine polacrilex (0.0, 0.5, 1.0, 2.0 and 4.0 mg nicotine), three of which have been used as placebo doses in clinical trials (0.0, 0.5, and 1.0 mg) and two of which are currently available as pharmacologic treatments for smoking cessation (2.0 or 4.0 mg nicotine). Twenty-one smokers received, on different days and in random order, five pieces of each of the five doses of polacrilex. The objective of the study was to evaluate whether consistent serum nicotine and sensory differences would be observed between the doses. After 5 h use, the 0.0, 0.5, 1.0, 2.0, and 4.0 mg doses produced the following results: (1) there was a linear trend across the placebo doses of nicotine polacrilex in serum nicotine and nicotine flavor, although pairwise dose comparisons were not significant, (2) the 0.0 and 0.5 mg placebo doses resulted in serum nicotine and sensory ratings that were significantly different from the 2.0 mg dose, and even more so from the 4.0 mg dose, (3) the 1.0 mg dose was not different from the 2.0 mg dose on serum nicotine level and several sensory characteristics, though it was different from the 4.0 mg dose on both, and (4) the 4.0 mg dose resulted in significantly higher serum nicotine and usually higher sensory ratings than the 2.0 mg dose. Since the 0.0 mg placebo achieves sensory effects that are comparable to the nicotine-containing placebo doses, it is recommended over the 0.5…
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
A relationship between nicotine content and Cmax/AUC has been demonstrated for other oral nicotine products such as nicotine gum.
“while the existence of such a relationship has been demonstrated for other oral nicotine products such as nicotine gum [30].”
From A Randomised Study to Investigate the Nicotine Pharmacokinetics of Oral Nicotine Pouches and a Combustible Cigarette (2022) · cites this paper as [30]
Cited by
Sorted by citations
McEwan, M., Azzopardi, D., Gale, N., Camacho, O. M., Hardie, G., Fearon, I. M., & Murphy, J. (2022) · European Journal of Drug Metabolism and Pharmacokinetics · doi:10.1007/s13318-021-00742-9 · Cited by 70 · see citing works
- Authors
- Leischow, S. J., Sachs, D. P. L., Hansen, M. D., & Bostrom, A. G.
- Venue
- Psychopharmacology
- Published
- 1995-01
- Volume
- 117
- Issue
- 2
- Pages
- 125-129
- ISSN
- 0033-3158
- 1432-2072
- Cited by
- 4
- References
- 0
- Language
- en
- Licence
- www.springer.com/tdm (tdm)
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review