Search

Abstract: Background:: Nicotine polacrilex lozenges deliver1026 25% to 27% more nicotine compared with equivalent doses of nicotine polacrilex gum. The increased nicotine exposure from the lozenge has raised questions about the relative safety of the lozenge and gum. Objective:: The objective of this study was to compare 1026 the safety profiles of the 4-mg nicotine lozenge and 4-mg nicotine gum in smokers with selected label-restricted diseases. Methods:: This was a multicenter, randomized, open-label 1026 study in adult smokers with heart disease, hypertension not controlled by medication, and/or diabetes mellitus. Patients were randomized in a 1:1 ratio to receive the 4-mg nicotine lozenge or 4-mg nicotine gum. Safety assessments were made at baseline and at 2, 4, 6, and 12 weeks after the start of product use. Results:: Nine hundred one patients were randomized1026 to treatment, 447 who received the lozenge and 454 who received the gum (safety population). The majority were women (52.7%). Patients'' mean age was 53.9 years, their mean weight was 193.9 pounds, and they smoked a mean of 25.2 cigarettes per day at baseline. Five hundred fifty-three patients, 264 taking the lozenge and 289 taking the gum, used the study product for ≥4 days per week during the first 2 weeks (evaluable population). The nicotine lozenge and nicotine gum were equally well tolerated, despite increased nicotine exposure from the lozenge. The incidence of adverse events in the 2 groups was similar during the first 2 weeks of product use (evaluation population: 55.3% lozenge, 54.7% gum), as well as during the entire study (safety population: 63.8% and 58.6%, respectively). Stratification of patients by sex, age, extent of concurrent smoking, extent of product use, and severity of adverse events revealed no clinically significant differences between the lozenge and gum. The most common adverse events were nausea (17.2% and 16.1%; 95% CI, −3.7 to 6.0), hiccups (10.7% and 6.6%; 95% CI, 0.5 to 7.8), and headache (8.7% and 9.9%; 95% Cl, −5.0 to 2.6). Serious adverse events were reported in 11 and 13 patients in the respective groups. Fewer than 6% of patients in either group were considered by the investigator to have a worsening of their overall disease condition during the study. The majority of patients (>60%) experienced no change in their disease status from baseline. Conclusion:: The 4-mg nicotine lozenge and 4-mg1026 nicotine gum had comparable safety profiles in these patients with label-restricted medical conditions. [Copyright &y& Elsevier]

To assess the influence of unsuccessful past quit attempts using pharmacological treatment on smoking cessation when using a new nicotine lozenge. A double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled trial. Fifteen sites in the United Kingdom and the United States. A total of 1818 smokers seeking smoking cessation treatment; 1145 had had previous pharmacological treatment with nicotine polacrilex lozenge. Lozenge, 2 mg or 4 mg (or matched placebo); a higher dose was assigned to smokers who smoked their first cigarette of the day within 30 minutes, a sign of dependence. Smokers received minimal instruction and counseling. Outcome was 28-day, CO-verified continuous abstinence at 6 weeks. Past use of medications was ascertained by self-report. Lozenge was efficacious among smokers with prior pharmacotherapy as well as among those without such history. The effect of lozenge (versus placebo) was significantly greater among those with previous treatment experience, because previous treatment was associated with significantly poorer outcome on placebo, and active lozenge treatment corrected this imbalance. Lozenge efficacy was similar whether smokers had previously tried patch or acute forms of nicotine replacement therapy (gum, inhaler and spray), and also similar for past use of Zyban (bupriopion). Smokers with a history of past failure of pharmacological treatment have lower success rates without pharmacological treatment, but equally good outcomes with active lozenge treatment. Smokers who previously tried pharmacological treatments but resumed smoking should be encouraged to try quitting again with the new nicotine lozenge. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

To evaluate the pharmacokinetic characteristics of the 2-mg and 4-mg nicotine polacrilex lozenges, the following four separate studies were conducted in healthy adult smokers: (a) A single-dose, four-way crossover (replicate design) study to compare the 4-mg lozenge and the 4-mg nicotine polacrilex gum, (b) a single-dose, two-way crossover study to compare the 2-mg lozenge and the 2-mg gum, (c) a multiple-dose, four-way crossover study to compare the lozenges administered every 90 min and the gums administered every 60 min at 2- and 4-mg dose levels, and (d) a single-dose, three-way crossover study to compare the pharmacokinetic profiles of the 4-mg lozenge when administered in three different ways: (i) Used as directed, (ii) chewed and immediately swallowed, and (iii) chewed, retained in the mouth for 5 min, and then swallowed. The single-dose studies consistently demonstrated 8%-10% higher maximal plasma concentrations and 25%-27% higher AUC values (area under the concentration-time curve) from the lozenges compared with the gums at the 2- and 4-mg dose levels, probably owing to the residual nicotine retained in the gum. The multiple-dose study applying different dosing intervals (i.e., every 90 min for the lozenges and every 60 min for the gums) resulted in approximately 30% lower AUC(0-t) values for the lozenges compared with those for the gums. Administration of the lozenge contrary to the label-specified instructions for use did not lead to a faster or higher absorption of nicotine. These pharmacokinetic characteristics should allow the lozenge to become an effective and safe therapeutic alternative for smoking cessation. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article presents the authors' response to a commentary on their studies about the interaction between gender and nicotine replacement therapy. The authors said that their paper addressed the statistical power of the studies as a limitation and noted that the studies and their confidence intervals constrained the size of the effect likely to be observed even with larger studies. The authors also said that they reported a closer analysis of the data on gender and lozenge efficacy similarly suggest more complex interactions, specifically an interaction between gender and nicotine dependence. Data that shows the 6-month continuous quit rates of males and females treated with active or placebo lozenges and segmented by the dependence test is presented.