Nicotine pouches are becoming a more common part of smoking quit attempts in Great Britain, although their effectiveness as a cessation aid remains uncertain.
A new University College London study, published as a medRxiv preprint in October 2026, examined how nicotine pouch use has changed since 2021 and whether people using them during quit attempts were more likely to stop smoking.
Drawing on data from 7,995 adults who had attempted to quit smoking, the researchers found a substantial increase in pouch use, particularly among younger adults and men. The findings offer new insight into how nicotine pouches are being used in practice, while highlighting important gaps in the evidence.
Nicotine Pouch Use Has Nearly Tripled
The study analysed monthly Smoking Toolkit Study survey data collected between June 2021 and July 2026.
Among adults who had attempted to quit smoking, the estimated proportion using nicotine pouches increased from 2.4% to 6.7% over the five-year period. Growth was particularly pronounced among younger adults. Among 18–24-year-olds, pouch use during quit attempts rose from 2.2% to 18.9%, while among men it increased from 1.8% to 11.0%. The researchers also found that nicotine pouches were frequently used alongside other cessation aids. Nearly half of pouch users reported using e-cigarettes during the same quit attempt, while 37.9% used over-the-counter nicotine replacement therapy.
This suggests that pouches are increasingly part of how some adults approach smoking cessation, often in combination with other products.
What the Findings Say About Quit Success
At first glance, the results suggested higher quit success among nicotine pouch users. Approximately 33.5% reported remaining smoke-free following their quit attempt, compared with 27.0% of those who did not use pouches.
However, this difference became statistically uncertain after researchers adjusted for demographic characteristics, other cessation aids and factors associated with quitting.
An additional analysis identified a potentially important distinction. Among participants who did not use e-cigarettes during their quit attempt, nicotine pouch use was associated with higher odds of quitting successfully. The researchers did not find clear evidence of a similar association among those who also used e-cigarettes.
These findings warrant further investigation, but they do not establish that nicotine pouches caused higher quit success. The study relied on self-reported survey data, and participants were assessed at different intervals after their quit attempts.
Implications for Nicotine Regulation
The research arrives as the UK develops its regulatory approach to nicotine pouches under the Tobacco and Vapes Act 2026. The growing use of pouches during quit attempts raises questions about how future product requirements may affect adults who smoke, particularly those seeking alternatives to combustible cigarettes. However, nicotine pouches are not licensed smoking cessation medicines, and evidence of their effectiveness remains limited.
The authors emphasise the need for randomised controlled trials to determine whether pouches improve cessation outcomes, which populations may benefit and whether they offer additional value alongside established cessation aids.
For GINN, the findings reinforce the importance of considering real-world consumer behaviour when developing proportionate nicotine regulation. Policies should account for the potential role of non-combustible alternatives while maintaining appropriate safeguards against youth uptake and nicotine dependence.
The central finding is that nicotine pouches are already being used during smoking quit attempts. Whether that growing use translates into improved long-term cessation outcomes remains an important question for future research.
Source
Jackson, S. E., Tattan-Birch, H., Sun, H., Cox, S., Oldham, M., & Brown, J. (2026). Nicotine pouch use for smoking cessation in Great Britain: real-world effectiveness, trends, and user characteristics, 2021–2026. medRxiv preprint, posted 23 October 2026. Not peer-reviewed. https://doi.org/10.64898/2026.10.21.26366107
