CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 61

Steady‐state nicotine plasma levels following use of four different types of Swedish snus compared with 2‐mg Nicorette chewing gum: A crossover study

Lunell, Erik, Lunell, Marianne·2005·Nicotine & Tobacco Research
DOI 10.1080/14622200500125468
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

The present study evaluated nicotine plasma levels achieved following 1 day's regular use of four commonly used brands of Swedish portion snus and 2-mg Nicorette chewing gum. The study also estimated the amount of sodium chloride extracted from each snus sachet to identify potential risks for exacerbation of heart failure and hypertension with the use of Swedish snus. Extracted dose of nicotine, area under the venous plasma concentration-time curve (AUC), maximum plasma nicotine concentration (Cmax) of the last (12th) dosing interval, and the Cmax and AUC ratios versus Nicorette were calculated. Relative bioavailable dose was calculated using AUC of 2-mg Nicorette gum as the reference. The mean extracted nicotine doses were 2.74+/-0.80, 1.55+/-0.68, 2.00+/-0.56, and 1.08+/-0.94 mg/sachet for General, Catch Licorice, Catch Mini, and Catch Dry Mini snus, respectively. The approximate bioavailable dose of nicotine from snus was 40%-60% of the extracted dose. The steady-state nicotine plasma concentration-time curve for the weakest brand, Catch Dry Mini portion snus, did not differ significantly from that of the 2-mg Nicorette gum. The AUC and Cmax for Catch Licorice 1 g and Catch Mini 0.5 g portion snus were twice those for the 2-mg Nicorette gum; for the strongest brand, General, these values were 2(1/2) times those for Nicorette gum. The differences in AUC and Cmax versus the 2-mg Nicorette gum were statistically significant (p=.020). Nicotine plasma levels with General portio…

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1080/14622200500125468

Cites

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

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?

  • Previous studies have reported greater AUC and Cmax values for some types of snus than for cigarettes, probably due to the longer period of snus use relative to smoking a single cigarette.

    “previous studies have similarly reported greater AUC and Cmax values for some types of snus than for cigarettes [25–27], probably due to the longer period of snus use relative to smoking a single cigarette.”

    From A Randomised Study to Investigate the Nicotine Pharmacokinetics of Oral Nicotine Pouches and a Combustible Cigarette (2022) · cites this paper as [26]

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Lunell, E., & Lunell, M.
Venue
Nicotine & Tobacco Research
Publisher
Oxford University Press (OUP)
Published
2005-06-01
Volume
7
Issue
3
Pages
397-403
ISSN
  • 1462-2203
  • 1469-994X
DOI
10.1080/14622200500125468
Cited by
61
References
0

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