Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
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.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Choi et al. (2003) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: