Patterns of oral nicotine pouch use among U.S. adolescents and young adults

Qualitative perspective on nicotine pouches from adults who smoke cigarettes in North Carolina

BACKGROUND

Little is known about how nicotine pouch products are perceived by people who smoke, including if they are perceived as a cessation aid or a substitute for when they cannot smoke. We qualitatively investigated the reactions and perceptions about On!, a leading brand of nicotine pouches.

METHODS

We conducted online semistructured interviews with 30 adults who smoke cigarettes. Participants viewed an On! brochure and an image of an opened nicotine pouch and were asked about their initial impression, who the intended user is, and how they thought of the product's safety compared with other tobacco and cessation products. Transcripts were independently coded and the data were analysed using thematic content analysis.

RESULTS

Among the participants, half identified as female and slightly more than half were white (n=16). The mean age was 43 years old. The following are the central themes that emerged: (1) participants perceived the concealability, flavours and packaging of On! as appealing to youth and young adults; (2) participants perceived nicotine pouches as a product that would supplement rather than replace tobacco use; and (3) the product raised health concerns, which decreased interest in trying nicotine pouches.

CONCLUSIONS

Participants believed that the On! nicotine pouch promotional material may promote youth and young adult nicotine product initiation and dual product use for people who smoke. Most viewed On! as a product to use with cigarettes, rather than a way to quit cigarettes. Increased surveillance of nicotine pouches is warranted to monitor the trajectory of this emerging tobacco product and prevent youth initiation.

Tobacco-Free Nicotine Pouches and Their Potential Contribution to Tobacco Harm Reduction: A Scoping Review

Tobacco harm reduction (THR) refers to strategies designed to reduce the health risks associated with tobacco smoking but may involve continued use of nicotine and/or tobacco. Next-generation products (NGPs) are a THR alternative as they do not burn tobacco or produce smoke and deliver nicotine and have fewer and substantially lower levels of harmful chemicals compared to cigarettes. Tobacco‑free nicotine pouches (TFNPs) are an emerging category of nicotine‑containing oral products that do not combust or contain tobacco leaf. Similar to Swedish snus, TFNPs are placed between a user's lip and gum, and nicotine is absorbed through the oral mucosa rather than being inhaled. The aim of this scoping review was to systematically collate and evaluate published scientific evidence (cut‑off of 31 May 2023) identified from bibliometric databases investigating the potential of TFNPs to contribute to THR. Overall, studies examining chemical constituents indicated that the use of TFNPs may result in lower exposure to toxicants than other tobacco or nicotine-containing products, both combustible and non‑combustible. This reduction in toxicant exposure has been demonstrated by multiple human biomarker studies and in vitro toxicological assessments to translate to harm reduction potential in smokers switching to TFNPs. However, further study is warranted. At present, there is some evidence from human behavioral research that TFNPs can support either transitioning away from smoking or reducing cigarette consumption. Furthermore, TFNP use appears very much limited to current users of traditional tobacco products, and youth uptake has been limited. In conclusion, the findings of this review indicate that TFNPs have the potential to support THR efforts and may help inform evidence‑based regulation.

A Cross-Sectional Survey on Oral Nicotine Pouches: Characterizing Use-Motives, Topography, Dependence Levels, and Adverse Events

INTRODUCTION

Oral nicotine pouches (ONPs) contain a crystalized nicotine powder instead of tobacco leaves. ONPs come in a variety of flavors and are often marketed as "tobacco-free," but research on ONP use-motivations and related experiences is limited.

AIMS AND METHODS

This cross-sectional web-based survey collected self-report data on ONP use-characteristics (eg, frequency), brands and flavors used, use-motivations, dependence (Fagerström Test for Nicotine Dependence-Smokeless Tobacco [FTND-ST]), and ONP-related adverse events (AEs) experienced.

RESULTS

The sample included 118 adults who reported current (past 30-day) ONP use. On average (SD), participants reported ONP use on 13 (6) days during the past month. Most participants (% of the sample) also reported the use of tobacco cigarettes (74%) and/or electronic cigarettes (53%) during the past month. Zyn (27%) and Lucy (19%) were the most currently used ONP brands with mint (23%) and tobacco (16%) as the most currently used flavors. The availability of preferred flavors was the most frequently reported (31%) ONP use-motivation. The sample demonstrated significant dependence levels (FTND-ST = 7, SD = 2). Reported AEs included mouth lesions (48%), upset stomach (39%), sore mouth (37%), sore throat (21%), and nausea (9%). Results should be interpreted in the context of study limitations, including using a relatively small and homogeneous online convenience sample. Acknowledging the limitations, this sample was deemed appropriate to include considering the novelty of the findings, the dearth of related research, and the necessity of examining foundational ONP use-characteristics (eg, topography, AEs); however, future research should consider recruiting larger and more generalizable samples.

CONCLUSIONS

The availability of preferred flavors was a key ONP use-motivation in this sample. Mint and tobacco were the most currently used flavors, with Zyn and Lucy being the most currently used ONP brands. Participants reported dependence and a substantial number of ONP-related AEs. Nationally representative surveys should investigate ONP use along with outcomes included in the current study (eg, AEs) to inform ONP surveillance and policy development efforts.

IMPLICATIONS

This study is among the first to assess reasons for initiating/maintaining ONP use as well as other relevant use-experiences (eg, AEs, dependence). These results highlight the role of flavors and nicotine dependence in ONP use, which are important considerations for informing ONP regulations.

Effects of flavour and modified risk claims on nicotine pouch perceptions and use intentions among young adults who use inhalable nicotine and tobacco products: a randomised controlled trial

BACKGROUND

Availability of flavours and potential modified risk tobacco product (MRTP) claims may influence young adults' (YAs') perceptions of and intentions to use nicotine pouches ('pouches').

METHODS

YAs aged 21-34 years (N=47, M age=24.5, SD=3.1) with past-month nicotine/tobacco use (10.6% cigarette-only, 51.1% e-cigarette-only, 38.3% dual use) and no intention to quit were randomised to self-administer four Zyn 3 mg nicotine pouches in a 4 (flavour; within-subjects: smooth, mint, menthol, citrus) × 2 (MRTP claim on packaging; between subjects: present or absent) mixed-factorial design. After self-administering each pouch, participants reported appeal, use intentions and perceived harm compared with cigarettes and e-cigarettes. Three mixed-factorial analysis of variances (ANOVAs) examined main and interactive effects of flavour and MRTP claim on appeal, use intentions and comparative harm perceptions.

RESULTS

Mint (M=55.9, SD=26.4), menthol (M=49.7, SD=26.8) and citrus (M=46.6, SD=24.8) flavours were significantly more appealing than smooth (M=37.6, SD=25.4; p<0.001). MRTP claim did not significantly affect product appeal (p=0.376). Use intentions were greater for mint (M=2.6, SD=1.3) and menthol (M=2.0, SD=1.1) flavours than smooth (M=1.8, SD=1.0; p=0.002). Flavour did not affect comparative harm perceptions (p values>0.418). MRTP claims increased use intention (p=0.032) and perceptions of pouches as less harmful than cigarettes (p=0.011), but did not affect perceived harm relative to e-cigarettes (p=0.142). Flavour × MRTP claim interactions were not significant.

CONCLUSIONS

Flavoured (vs smooth) pouches were more appealing to YAs. MRTP claims reduced perceived harm of pouches compared with cigarettes; however, intentions to switch were low. To protect YAs' health, regulatory restrictions could target flavours and MRTP claims.