A single-blind, randomized, crossover trial of the effects of a nicotine pouch on the relief of tobacco withdrawal symptoms and user satisfaction
Abstract
Introduction We compared the effects of a 4-mg oral nicotine pouch (Zonnic pouch), with nicotine chewing gum and placebo pouch, on withdrawal discomfort after overnight tobacco abstinence. We also assessed participants' preferences, satisfaction, and consumption patterns. Methods This was a randomized, placebo-controlled, three-way crossover study of 30 adult smokers. After overnight tobacco abstinence, subjects reported on a Visual Analog Scale (VAS; 0-100) tobacco withdrawal symptoms (craving, irritability, difficulty concentrating, and restlessness) before use and during the first hour after first product use. They then used the product throughout the study day and in the evening reported product usefulness, temporary abstinence success, and satisfaction. Results In a multivariate analysis, area under the curve (craving vs. time) was reduced by 23 points 60 min after taking the study medication in the nicotine pouch group, compared with 15- and 8-point decreases in the gum and placebo groups, respectively. The difference in craving ratings between the pouch and placebo was significant (p = .002). Nicotine pouch reduced irritability more than gum (difference = 9.86; p = .01). For pouch users, the odds ratio for temporary tobacco abstinence (21.5 hr) during study days (compared with gum) was 2.8 (95% CI = 0.8-8.1). Compared with the gum, the pouch was rated as significantly more "helpful to stop smoking" (difference = 20.6; 95% CI = 2.4-38.9) and "pleasant to use" (differenc…
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?
ONP use reduces the area under the curve for craving versus time by 23 points compared to gum and placebo.
“Reduce in area under the curve for craving vs. time by 23 points after ONPs use compared to gum and placebo (Thornley et al. 2009)”
From Comparison of the Health Effects Associated with the Use of Snus and Tobacco-Free Oral Nicotine Pouches: A Systematic Review (2026) · cites this paper as Thornley et al. 2009
There is an increase in temporary tobacco abstinence (21.5 h) during study days among ONP users (OR = 2.8; 95% CI: 0.8-8.1) compared to gum.
“Increase in temporary tobacco abstinence (21.5 h) during study days among ONP users (OR = 2.8; 95% CI: 0.8-8.1)compared to gum (Thornley et al. 2009)”
From Comparison of the Health Effects Associated with the Use of Snus and Tobacco-Free Oral Nicotine Pouches: A Systematic Review (2026) · cites this paper as Thornley et al. 2009
Cites
Signs and Symptoms of Tobacco Withdrawal
Hughes, J. R. (1986) · Archives of General Psychiatry · doi:10.1001/archpsyc.1986.01800030107013 · Cited by 1,669 · see citing works
Measuring nicotine dependence: A review of the Fagerstrom Tolerance Questionnaire
Fagerstrom, K. O., & Schneider, N. G. (1989) · Journal of Behavioral Medicine · doi:10.1007/bf00846549 · Cited by 1,598 · see citing works
Nicotine replacement therapy for smoking cessation
Stead, L. F., Perera, R., Bullen, C., Mant, D., & Lancaster, T. (2008) · Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews · doi:10.1002/14651858.cd000146.pub3 · Cited by 721 · see citing works
Self-citation
Flagged first, then by citations
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Kopa-Stojak, P. N., & Pawliczak, R. (2026) · Exposure and Health · doi:10.1007/s12403-026-00812-w
- Authors
- Thornley, S., McRobbie, H., Lin, R.-B., Bullen, C., Hajek, P., Laugesen, M., Senior, H., & Whittaker, R.
- Venue
- Nicotine & Tobacco Research
- Publisher
- Oxford University Press (OUP)
- Published
- 2009-05-19
- Volume
- 11
- Issue
- 6
- Pages
- 715-721
- ISSN
- 1469-994X
- 1462-2203
- Cited by
- 36
- References
- 3
- Language
- en
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