Jump to comment:

• Health effects of heated tobacco products remain unknown.
  Sophie Braznell, Amber VD Akker, Jamie Hartmann-Boyce and Chris Metcalfe
  Published on: 19 April 2024
• Authors make broad-reaching conclusions that are not supported by the facts
  Gizelle Baker, Maurice Smith, Annie Heremans and Moira Gilchrist
  Published on: 19 April 2024

• Published on: 19 April 2024

  Health effects of heated tobacco products remain unknown.

  • Sophie Braznell, PhD Student Tobacco Control Research Group, University of Bath
  • Other Contributors:
    • Amber VD Akker, PhD Student
    • Jamie Hartmann-Boyce, Associate Professor
    • Chris Metcalfe, Professor

  NOT PEER REVIEWED
  We appreciate the interest of the world’s largest transnational tobacco company, PMI,1 in our recent systematic review and would like to follow up on the points raised in Dr Baker’s rapid response.

  Our review did not seek to assess the harms or benefits of HTPs. As public health researchers we are most interested in the quality of studies according to whether they give reliable evidence of the health outcomes and public health impact of HTPs. We sought to critically appraise the quality of clinical trials on HTPs and lay out for Tobacco Control readers all aspects of their design which may have implications for interpretation, especially in regard to the potential impacts of HTPs.

  We decided to explore overall risk of bias when excluding the blinding of participants and personnel domain because we wanted to differentiate between studies. This is a really important domain. We excluded it because so few studies were judged to be at low risk of bias in this domain. Performance bias (which blinding if done well can guard against) remains an important source of bias that can influence study results, and one which was present in all of PMI's studies submitted to the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA).1 As we explain in our risk of bias assessments, the consequences of this bias could have been minimised had the control intervention been active. Likewise, PMI’s withdrawal of its carbon-heated tobacco product from the market, which o...

  Show More

  NOT PEER REVIEWED
  We appreciate the interest of the world’s largest transnational tobacco company, PMI,1 in our recent systematic review and would like to follow up on the points raised in Dr Baker’s rapid response.

  Our review did not seek to assess the harms or benefits of HTPs. As public health researchers we are most interested in the quality of studies according to whether they give reliable evidence of the health outcomes and public health impact of HTPs. We sought to critically appraise the quality of clinical trials on HTPs and lay out for Tobacco Control readers all aspects of their design which may have implications for interpretation, especially in regard to the potential impacts of HTPs.

  We decided to explore overall risk of bias when excluding the blinding of participants and personnel domain because we wanted to differentiate between studies. This is a really important domain. We excluded it because so few studies were judged to be at low risk of bias in this domain. Performance bias (which blinding if done well can guard against) remains an important source of bias that can influence study results, and one which was present in all of PMI's studies submitted to the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA).1 As we explain in our risk of bias assessments, the consequences of this bias could have been minimised had the control intervention been active. Likewise, PMI’s withdrawal of its carbon-heated tobacco product from the market, which occurred after our first literature searches, does not excuse the substandard aspects of these trials, including selective reporting of study results.

  We are perplexed by Dr Baker's argument that PMI’s clinical studies were designed to meet specific FDA requirements and “are not designed to assess the overall impact of HTPs on public health”. In its assessment the FDA aims to "evaluat[e] the benefit to health of individuals and of the population as a whole" (pg 8)2. As Dr Baker explains, PMI included its clinical studies as evidence on the relative risks of IQOS in its application to the FDA. While we concur no one study could wholly assess the impact of HTPs on public health, each clinical study indirectly or directly assesses this to some extent, whether it be assessing the impact of HTPs on exposure to harmful chemicals or on health outcomes. In the words of PMI's Chief Life Sciences Officer, PMI conducts "biomarker, clinical outcome and real-world evidence studies to demonstrate individual clinical and public health benefit of our smoke-free products."3

  On the one hand, PMI suggests its clinical studies are appropriate evidence in establishing whether HTPs are beneficial to public health. Yet, Dr Baker's response contradictorily indicates PMI's studies were never designed to address this question and, in fact, agrees with our conclusion that they are therefore inadequate in assessing whether HTPs are beneficial to public health.

  Our review found the existing HTP clinical trials provide evidence on exposure to toxicants compared to cigarettes, but fall short of what is needed to determine whether HTPs reduce the risks of tobacco-related diseases and whether they are beneficial to public health in real-world settings. This is in line with the FDA’s conclusions that PMI "has not demonstrated that, as actually used by consumers, the products sold or distributed with the proposed modified risk information will significantly reduce harm and the risk of tobacco‐related disease to individual tobacco users and benefit the health of the population as a whole, taking into account both users of tobacco products and persons who do not currently use tobacco products" (pg8, emphasis in original)1. We agree with the FDA, as quoted by Dr Baker, that subsequent studies are needed to establish the public health impact of HTPs.

  Our review focused on clinical trials as giving the best evidence of a causal effect, but we read the two longer term observational studies Dr Baker points us to with interest. We do note that neither study is able to separate the population health effects of different cigarette alternatives or cessation interventions. We agree longer clinical and epidemiological studies are required to determine the harms or benefits of HTPs. We are pleased such studies are emerging in the literature and we look forward to reading the results of PMI's ongoing studies referenced by Dr Baker. We hope that despite the FDA’s MRTP authorisation for IQOS, PMI will remain incentivised to publish these new longer-term studies with clinical outcomes, as well as the observational study it has already completed.4

  We are glad our review provided useful insight to PMI for areas of improvement. Improving future clinical research was fundamental in our desire to conduct this review. PMI's application to the FDA was a valuable source of data which have not been published in traditional academic literature. For future reviewers, the full-length reports provide a greater depth and breadth of clinical data, including data on outcomes yet to be reported in journal articles. The full reports included in the FDA application have been uploaded to PMI's data sharing website, INTERVALS.5 Unfortunately, PMI has not yet made full reports available for all its clinical studies. We encourage PMI to not only publish its study results in a timelier manner, but also to publish the full clinical study reports, which provide far greater detail and results than its journal publications.

  With regards to our own funding and conflicts of interest, we accurately declared these as per Tobacco Control's policies. We note, once again, that no funders had any role or input in the design, conduct or reporting of our study.

  References
  1. Tobacco Tactics. Philip Morris International. 2022. Available: https://tobaccotactics.org/wiki/philip-morris-international/ [accessed 9th December 2022].
  2. US Food & Drug Administration. Scientific Review of Modified Risk Tobacco Product Application (MRTPA) Under Section 911(d) of the FD&C Act -Technical Project Lead 2020. Available: https://www.fda.gov/media/139796/download [accessed 9th December 2022].
  3. Insuasty, J. A letter from our Chief Life Sciences Officer. PMI Science. Available: https://www.pmiscience.com/en/about/welcome-to-pmi-science/ [accessed 9th December 2022].
  4. Sponsiello-Wang Z, Langer P, Prieto L, et al. Household Surveys in the General Population and Web-Based Surveys in IQOS Users Registered at the Philip Morris International IQOS User Database: Protocols on the Use of Tobacco- and Nicotine-Containing Products in Germany, Italy, and the United Kingdom (Greater London), 2018-2020. JMIR Res Protoc. 2019; 8(5):e12061. doi: 10.2196/12061. PMID: 31094340; PMCID: PMC6532333.
  5. INTERVALS. 2022. Available: https://intervals.science/homepage [accessed 9th December 2022].

  Show Less

  Conflict of Interest:
  None declared.

  • Back to top
• Published on: 19 April 2024

  Authors make broad-reaching conclusions that are not supported by the facts

  • Gizelle Baker, Vice President Global Scientific Engagement Philip Morris Products, S.A.
  • Other Contributors:
    • Maurice Smith, Sr. Scientific Advisor
    • Annie Heremans, Chief Medical Officer
    • Moira Gilchrist, Vice President Strategic and Scientific Communications

  NOT PEER REVIEWED
  The objective of the systematic review by Braznell et al. was “𝘵𝘰 𝘤𝘳𝘪𝘵𝘪𝘤𝘢𝘭𝘭𝘺 𝘢𝘴𝘴𝘦𝘴𝘴 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘮𝘦𝘵𝘩𝘰𝘥𝘰𝘭𝘰𝘨𝘪𝘤𝘢𝘭 𝘤𝘩𝘢𝘳𝘢𝘤𝘵𝘦𝘳𝘪𝘴𝘵𝘪𝘤𝘴 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘲𝘶𝘢𝘭𝘪𝘵𝘺 𝘰𝘧 𝘪𝘯𝘵𝘦𝘳𝘷𝘦𝘯𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯𝘢𝘭 𝘤𝘭𝘪𝘯𝘪𝘤𝘢𝘭 𝘵𝘳𝘪𝘢𝘭𝘴 𝘪𝘯𝘷𝘦𝘴𝘵𝘪𝘨𝘢𝘵𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘦𝘧𝘧𝘦𝘤𝘵𝘴 𝘰𝘧 𝘩𝘦𝘢𝘵𝘦𝘥 𝘵𝘰𝘣𝘢𝘤𝘤𝘰 𝘱𝘳𝘰𝘥𝘶𝘤𝘵𝘴 (𝘏𝘛𝘗𝘴).” ¹ The review was intended to examine the quality of HTP clinical trials “𝘣𝘦𝘧𝘰𝘳𝘦 𝘤𝘰𝘯𝘴𝘶𝘮𝘦𝘳𝘴 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘳𝘦𝘨𝘶𝘭𝘢𝘵𝘰𝘳𝘴 𝘮𝘢𝘬𝘦 𝘪𝘮𝘱𝘰𝘳𝘵𝘢𝘯𝘵 𝘥𝘦𝘤𝘪𝘴𝘪𝘰𝘯𝘴 𝘣𝘢𝘴𝘦𝘥 𝘰𝘯 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘳𝘦𝘴𝘶𝘭𝘵𝘴 𝘰𝘧 𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘴𝘦 𝘴𝘵𝘶𝘥𝘪𝘦𝘴.” We have three important observations in relation to Philip Morris International’s (PMI) clinical program, which impact the interpretation of the authors’ broad-reaching conclusions.

  (𝟭) 𝗥𝗲𝗴𝘂𝗹𝗮𝘁𝗼𝗿𝘆 𝗱𝗲𝗰𝗶𝘀𝗶𝗼𝗻𝘀 𝗵𝗮𝘃𝗲 𝗯𝗲𝗲𝗻 𝗺𝗮𝗱𝗲 𝗯𝗮𝘀𝗲𝗱 𝗼𝗻 𝗣𝗠𝗜’𝘀 𝗰𝗹𝗶𝗻𝗶𝗰𝗮𝗹 𝘀𝘁𝘂𝗱𝗶𝗲𝘀, 𝘄𝗵𝗶𝗰𝗵 𝘄𝗲𝗿𝗲 𝗷𝘂𝗱𝗴𝗲𝗱 𝘁𝗼 𝗯𝗲 𝗮𝘁 𝗹𝗼𝘄 𝗿𝗶𝘀𝗸 𝗼𝗳 𝗯𝗶𝗮𝘀
  Whilst we will only comment on the clinical studies performed by PMI, we were pleased to see the confirmation that the study designs in our clinical assessment program were not significantly associated with a risk of bias. The authors judged that all Tobacco Heating System (marketed as IQOS) clinical studies submitted to the United States Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and other regulators were at low risk of bias when the authors excluded “blinding of participants and personnel” to the product, due to the impracticality of concealing visually distinctive products. The authors also noted that the scoring was slightly improved when compared to a similar exercise performed as part of the recent Cochrane review. ²

  We agree that regulatory decisio...

  Show More

  NOT PEER REVIEWED
  The objective of the systematic review by Braznell et al. was “𝘵𝘰 𝘤𝘳𝘪𝘵𝘪𝘤𝘢𝘭𝘭𝘺 𝘢𝘴𝘴𝘦𝘴𝘴 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘮𝘦𝘵𝘩𝘰𝘥𝘰𝘭𝘰𝘨𝘪𝘤𝘢𝘭 𝘤𝘩𝘢𝘳𝘢𝘤𝘵𝘦𝘳𝘪𝘴𝘵𝘪𝘤𝘴 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘲𝘶𝘢𝘭𝘪𝘵𝘺 𝘰𝘧 𝘪𝘯𝘵𝘦𝘳𝘷𝘦𝘯𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯𝘢𝘭 𝘤𝘭𝘪𝘯𝘪𝘤𝘢𝘭 𝘵𝘳𝘪𝘢𝘭𝘴 𝘪𝘯𝘷𝘦𝘴𝘵𝘪𝘨𝘢𝘵𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘦𝘧𝘧𝘦𝘤𝘵𝘴 𝘰𝘧 𝘩𝘦𝘢𝘵𝘦𝘥 𝘵𝘰𝘣𝘢𝘤𝘤𝘰 𝘱𝘳𝘰𝘥𝘶𝘤𝘵𝘴 (𝘏𝘛𝘗𝘴).” ¹ The review was intended to examine the quality of HTP clinical trials “𝘣𝘦𝘧𝘰𝘳𝘦 𝘤𝘰𝘯𝘴𝘶𝘮𝘦𝘳𝘴 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘳𝘦𝘨𝘶𝘭𝘢𝘵𝘰𝘳𝘴 𝘮𝘢𝘬𝘦 𝘪𝘮𝘱𝘰𝘳𝘵𝘢𝘯𝘵 𝘥𝘦𝘤𝘪𝘴𝘪𝘰𝘯𝘴 𝘣𝘢𝘴𝘦𝘥 𝘰𝘯 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘳𝘦𝘴𝘶𝘭𝘵𝘴 𝘰𝘧 𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘴𝘦 𝘴𝘵𝘶𝘥𝘪𝘦𝘴.” We have three important observations in relation to Philip Morris International’s (PMI) clinical program, which impact the interpretation of the authors’ broad-reaching conclusions.

  (𝟭) 𝗥𝗲𝗴𝘂𝗹𝗮𝘁𝗼𝗿𝘆 𝗱𝗲𝗰𝗶𝘀𝗶𝗼𝗻𝘀 𝗵𝗮𝘃𝗲 𝗯𝗲𝗲𝗻 𝗺𝗮𝗱𝗲 𝗯𝗮𝘀𝗲𝗱 𝗼𝗻 𝗣𝗠𝗜’𝘀 𝗰𝗹𝗶𝗻𝗶𝗰𝗮𝗹 𝘀𝘁𝘂𝗱𝗶𝗲𝘀, 𝘄𝗵𝗶𝗰𝗵 𝘄𝗲𝗿𝗲 𝗷𝘂𝗱𝗴𝗲𝗱 𝘁𝗼 𝗯𝗲 𝗮𝘁 𝗹𝗼𝘄 𝗿𝗶𝘀𝗸 𝗼𝗳 𝗯𝗶𝗮𝘀
  Whilst we will only comment on the clinical studies performed by PMI, we were pleased to see the confirmation that the study designs in our clinical assessment program were not significantly associated with a risk of bias. The authors judged that all Tobacco Heating System (marketed as IQOS) clinical studies submitted to the United States Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and other regulators were at low risk of bias when the authors excluded “blinding of participants and personnel” to the product, due to the impracticality of concealing visually distinctive products. The authors also noted that the scoring was slightly improved when compared to a similar exercise performed as part of the recent Cochrane review. ²

  We agree that regulatory decisions should be based on a critical scientific review of the evidence available, taking into consideration the quality and source of the data. The U.S. FDA performed a rigorous multi-year review of the totality of evidence for IQOS which resulted in the granting of Modified Risk Tobacco Product orders with exposure modification claims for the product. They concluded “𝘵𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘢 𝘮𝘦𝘢𝘴𝘶𝘳𝘢𝘣𝘭𝘦 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘴𝘶𝘣𝘴𝘵𝘢𝘯𝘵𝘪𝘢𝘭 𝘳𝘦𝘥𝘶𝘤𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯 𝘪𝘯 𝘮𝘰𝘳𝘣𝘪𝘥𝘪𝘵𝘺 𝘰𝘳 𝘮𝘰𝘳𝘵𝘢𝘭𝘪𝘵𝘺 𝘢𝘮𝘰𝘯𝘨 𝘪𝘯𝘥𝘪𝘷𝘪𝘥𝘶𝘢𝘭 𝘵𝘰𝘣𝘢𝘤𝘤𝘰 𝘶𝘴𝘦𝘳𝘴 𝘪𝘴 𝘳𝘦𝘢𝘴𝘰𝘯𝘢𝘣𝘭𝘺 𝘭𝘪𝘬𝘦𝘭𝘺 𝘪𝘯 𝘴𝘶𝘣𝘴𝘦𝘲𝘶𝘦𝘯𝘵 𝘴𝘵𝘶𝘥𝘪𝘦𝘴, 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘪𝘴𝘴𝘶𝘢𝘯𝘤𝘦 𝘰𝘧 𝘢𝘯 𝘰𝘳𝘥𝘦𝘳 𝘪𝘴 𝘦𝘹𝘱𝘦𝘤𝘵𝘦𝘥 𝘵𝘰 𝘣𝘦𝘯𝘦𝘧𝘪𝘵 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘩𝘦𝘢𝘭𝘵𝘩 𝘰𝘧 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘱𝘰𝘱𝘶𝘭𝘢𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯 𝘢𝘴 𝘢 𝘸𝘩𝘰𝘭𝘦, 𝘵𝘢𝘬𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘪𝘯𝘵𝘰 𝘢𝘤𝘤𝘰𝘶𝘯𝘵 𝘣𝘰𝘵𝘩 𝘶𝘴𝘦𝘳𝘴 𝘰𝘧 𝘵𝘰𝘣𝘢𝘤𝘤𝘰 𝘱𝘳𝘰𝘥𝘶𝘤𝘵𝘴 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘱𝘦𝘳𝘴𝘰𝘯𝘴 𝘸𝘩𝘰 𝘥𝘰 𝘯𝘰𝘵 𝘤𝘶𝘳𝘳𝘦𝘯𝘵𝘭𝘺 𝘶𝘴𝘦 𝘵𝘰𝘣𝘢𝘤𝘤𝘰 𝘱𝘳𝘰𝘥𝘶𝘤𝘵𝘴.” ³

  (𝟮) 𝗖𝗹𝗶𝗻𝗶𝗰𝗮𝗹 𝘀𝘁𝘂𝗱𝗶𝗲𝘀 𝗶𝗻 𝗴𝗲𝗻𝗲𝗿𝗮𝗹, 𝗯𝘂𝘁 𝘀𝗽𝗲𝗰𝗶𝗳𝗶𝗰𝗮𝗹𝗹𝘆 𝗣𝗠𝗜’𝘀 𝗰𝗹𝗶𝗻𝗶𝗰𝗮𝗹 𝘀𝘁𝘂𝗱𝗶𝗲𝘀, 𝘀𝗵𝗼𝘂𝗹𝗱 𝗻𝗼𝘁 𝗯𝗲 𝗲𝘃𝗮𝗹𝘂𝗮𝘁𝗲𝗱 𝗮𝗴𝗮𝗶𝗻𝘀𝘁 𝗽𝗼𝘀𝘁 𝗵𝗼𝗰 𝗼𝗯𝗷𝗲𝗰𝘁𝗶𝘃𝗲𝘀
  Braznell et al. fail to acknowledge that almost all of PMI’s clinical studies were specifically designed to deliver the pre-market scientific evidence that regulatory agencies need to authorize modified risk tobacco products (see FDA’s “Modified Risk Tobacco Product Applications. Guidance for Industry” ). ⁴

  This means that the study duration, study populations, study endpoints, and analyses are selected to answer very specific research questions and are not designed to assess the overall impact of HTPs on public health by themselves. Some studies were of short duration (e.g., pharmacokinetic/ pharmacodynamic studies); some were performed in confinement because they were designed to provide evidence on the impacts of confirmed complete switching, and some with ambulatory study phases to better evaluate the impacts with a closer representation of real-world use. The ultimate real-world use studies are being conducted in the post-market setting.

  It is inappropriate to assess the quality of a diverse set of studies—studies that were specifically designed to answer a range of different scientific questions—against a broad post hoc scientific objective that none of the studies were intended or designed to address by themselves. It is, therefore, misguided for Braznell et al. to conclude that “many characteristics of the reported clinical trials, such as short duration, confined settings, and choice of comparator and participants, are not representative of real-world use and fail to adequately investigate whether HTPs reduce harm and are beneficial to public health.” What the authors describe as “inadequacies” are, in fact, crucial elements of the individual study design.

  As a follow-up to these pre-market studies, in 2022, PMI initiated three new clinical studies on IQOS—a 3-year chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) study (NCT05569005) ⁵, a 1-year cardiovascular disease study (NCT05566678) ⁶, and a cross-sectional study to assess reduced exposure, inflammation, and oxidative stress two years after switching compared to continued smoking (NCT05385055) ⁷—which will examine longer-term switching and clinically relevant health changes in adult smokers who have switched to IQOS. These studies should be reassuring for those who have expressed concern that the assessment of HTPs relies on short-term studies in the absence of long-term epidemiological studies. The authors may perhaps be unaware of more recent epidemiological studies in the published literature (by both PMI and independent researchers), which have assessed the potential impact of HTPs and other smoke-free alternatives in the real world. Choi et al., 2021 ⁸ looked 5.16 million South Korean adult men and concluded that smokers switching to smoke-free products were associated with a lower cardiovascular disease risk than those continuing to smoke cigarettes, although higher than cessation (no smoke-free product use). Van der Plas et al., 2022 ⁹ observed a significant reduction in the number of hospitalizations for COPD and a non-significant reduction in hospitalizations for COPD plus lower respiratory tract infections as well as ischemic heart disease following the introduction of HTPs in a time-trend analysis of the Japanese Medical Data Center (JMDC) database.

  (𝟯) 𝗔𝗿𝗲𝗮𝘀 𝗳𝗼𝗿 𝗶𝗺𝗽𝗿𝗼𝘃𝗲𝗺𝗲𝗻𝘁 𝗲𝘅𝗶𝘀𝘁 𝗳𝗼𝗿 𝗮𝗹𝗹 𝗽𝗮𝗿𝘁𝗶𝗲𝘀
  We recognize that our reporting on clinicaltrials.gov may not meet the expectations of today; however, at the time the clinical program was initiated, publishing smoking cessation studies was common; however, publishing tobacco and tobacco harm reduction studies in this database was not common; in fact, we were among the first to report these types of studies there and did so to increase our scientific transparency. The authors accurately reflect incomplete reporting on a small number of our clinical studies, including studies on a carbon-heated tobacco product. However, in 2021, we took a decision not to proceed with commercialization ¹⁰, meaning that, according to the authors’ exclusion criteria, this study should not have been part of their analysis. Additionally, we have two studies that have been completed. Although the data for the endpoints have been posted on clinicaltrials.gov and therefore are in the public domain, the study publications with additional secondary and exploratory endpoints have just been or are in the process of being published. Whilst we are actively working on publishing these studies, we acknowledge that this delay in publication is not ideal and must be improved in the future. We recognize the importance of publishing the results of our studies in peer-reviewed journals but also note that we often face significant challenges in achieving timely publication because a number of journals (including Tobacco Control) refuse to accept or even review such publications based purely on affiliation and not the quality of the research.

  Constructive criticism of our research is always welcome, but we reject the suggestion that PMI’s clinical studies “ 𝘸𝘦𝘳𝘦 𝘴𝘶𝘣𝘴𝘵𝘢𝘯𝘥𝘢𝘳𝘥 𝘪𝘯 𝘮𝘢𝘯𝘺 𝘳𝘦𝘴𝘱𝘦𝘤𝘵𝘴.” As mentioned above, the FDA conducted a substantive review of our studies, including inspection visits at our facilities and at some of our clinical research partners. FDA noted that their inspections of two U.S. clinical sites “𝘳𝘦𝘷𝘦𝘢𝘭𝘦𝘥 𝘯𝘰 𝘮𝘢𝘫𝘰𝘳 𝘉𝘐𝘔𝘖 [𝘉𝘪𝘰𝘳𝘦𝘴𝘦𝘢𝘳𝘤𝘩 𝘔𝘰𝘯𝘪𝘵𝘰𝘳𝘪𝘯𝘨] 𝘪𝘴𝘴𝘶𝘦𝘴 𝘰𝘳 𝘤𝘭𝘪𝘯𝘪𝘤𝘢𝘭𝘭𝘺-𝘴𝘪𝘨𝘯𝘪𝘧𝘪𝘤𝘢𝘯𝘵 𝘱𝘳𝘰𝘵𝘰𝘤𝘰𝘭 𝘥𝘦𝘷𝘪𝘢𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯𝘴 𝘵𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘸𝘰𝘶𝘭𝘥 𝘤𝘰𝘮𝘱𝘳𝘰𝘮𝘪𝘴𝘦 𝘥𝘢𝘵𝘢 𝘷𝘢𝘭𝘪𝘥𝘪𝘵𝘺 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘪𝘯𝘵𝘦𝘨𝘳𝘪𝘵𝘺.” In addition, the results of the authors’ own review confirm the appropriate design and conduct of our studies (i.e., low risk of bias). Therefore, the authors’ non-scientific statement that their failure to find significant differences in the risks of bias between the trials from different affiliations should only be interpreted as “𝘢𝘣𝘴𝘦𝘯𝘤𝘦 𝘰𝘧 𝘦𝘷𝘪𝘥𝘦𝘯𝘤𝘦, 𝘯𝘰𝘵 𝘦𝘷𝘪𝘥𝘦𝘯𝘤𝘦 𝘰𝘧 𝘢𝘣𝘴𝘦𝘯𝘤𝘦” is pure speculation and has no basis in fact in regard to PMI’s studies.

  In the spirit of constructive criticism, we note that whilst the authors were investigating the possibility of bias in PMI’s studies, it is possible that their own bias may be affecting their interpretation of results. When disclosing their competing interests, they fail to note that their own affiliation with, and funding from, Bloomberg Philanthropies’ “𝘚𝘛𝘖𝘗: 𝘚𝘵𝘰𝘱𝘱𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘛𝘰𝘣𝘢𝘤𝘤𝘰 𝘖𝘳𝘨𝘢𝘯𝘪𝘻𝘢𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯𝘴 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘗𝘳𝘰𝘥𝘶𝘤𝘵𝘴” could create a risk of bias. In fact, that potential for bias is plain since the lead author has previously written that “𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘳𝘦 𝘪𝘴 𝘭𝘪𝘵𝘵𝘭𝘦 𝘳𝘰𝘭𝘦 𝘧𝘰𝘳 𝘩𝘦𝘢𝘵𝘦𝘥 𝘵𝘰𝘣𝘢𝘤𝘤𝘰 𝘱𝘳𝘰𝘥𝘶𝘤𝘵𝘴 𝘢𝘵 𝘦𝘪𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘳 𝘪𝘯𝘥𝘪𝘷𝘪𝘥𝘶𝘢𝘭 𝘰𝘳 𝘱𝘰𝘱𝘶𝘭𝘢𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯 𝘭𝘦𝘷𝘦𝘭” and that “𝘩𝘦𝘢𝘵𝘦𝘥 𝘵𝘰𝘣𝘢𝘤𝘤𝘰 𝘱𝘳𝘰𝘥𝘶𝘤𝘵𝘴 𝘩𝘢𝘷𝘦 𝘯𝘰 𝘱𝘶𝘣𝘭𝘪𝘤 𝘩𝘦𝘢𝘭𝘵𝘩 𝘳𝘰𝘭𝘦.” ¹¹ This potential conflict was not made clear to readers. The reference by Bero ¹² used by the authors in their introduction states that “𝘤𝘰𝘯𝘴𝘪𝘥𝘦𝘳𝘢𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯 𝘴𝘩𝘰𝘶𝘭𝘥 𝘣𝘦 𝘨𝘪𝘷𝘦𝘯 𝘵𝘰 𝘢𝘧𝘧𝘪𝘭𝘪𝘢𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯 𝘰𝘳 𝘪𝘯𝘵𝘦𝘳𝘦𝘴𝘵 𝘨𝘳𝘰𝘶𝘱 𝘣𝘪𝘢𝘴.” Bero notes that “[𝘢]𝘯 𝘪𝘯𝘵𝘦𝘳𝘦𝘴𝘵 𝘨𝘳𝘰𝘶𝘱 𝘪𝘴 𝘢𝘯 𝘰𝘳𝘨𝘢𝘯𝘪𝘻𝘦𝘥 𝘨𝘳𝘰𝘶𝘱 𝘸𝘪𝘵𝘩 𝘢 𝘯𝘢𝘳𝘳𝘰𝘸𝘭𝘺 𝘥𝘦𝘧𝘪𝘯𝘦𝘥 𝘷𝘪𝘦𝘸𝘱𝘰𝘪𝘯𝘵, 𝘸𝘩𝘪𝘤𝘩 𝘱𝘳𝘰𝘵𝘦𝘤𝘵𝘴 𝘪𝘵𝘴 𝘱𝘰𝘴𝘪𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯 𝘰𝘳 𝘱𝘳𝘰𝘧𝘪𝘵𝘴. 𝘛𝘩𝘦𝘴𝘦 𝘨𝘳𝘰𝘶𝘱𝘴 𝘢𝘳𝘦 𝘯𝘰𝘵 𝘦𝘹𝘤𝘭𝘶𝘴𝘪𝘷𝘦𝘭𝘺 𝘣𝘶𝘴𝘪𝘯𝘦𝘴𝘴 𝘨𝘳𝘰𝘶𝘱𝘴 𝘣𝘶𝘵 𝘤𝘢𝘯 𝘪𝘯𝘤𝘭𝘶𝘥𝘦 𝘢𝘭𝘭 𝘬𝘪𝘯𝘥𝘴 𝘰𝘧 𝘰𝘳𝘨𝘢𝘯𝘪𝘻𝘢𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯𝘴 𝘵𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘮𝘢𝘺 𝘢𝘵𝘵𝘦𝘮𝘱𝘵 𝘵𝘰 𝘪𝘯𝘧𝘭𝘶𝘦𝘯𝘤𝘦 𝘨𝘰𝘷𝘦𝘳𝘯𝘮𝘦𝘯𝘵𝘴. 𝘐𝘯𝘵𝘦𝘳𝘦𝘴𝘵 𝘨𝘳𝘰𝘶𝘱𝘴 𝘤𝘢𝘯 𝘣𝘦 𝘦𝘹𝘱𝘦𝘤𝘵𝘦𝘥 𝘵𝘰 𝘤𝘰𝘯𝘴𝘵𝘳𝘶𝘤𝘵 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘦𝘷𝘪𝘥𝘦𝘯𝘤𝘦 𝘢𝘣𝘰𝘶𝘵 𝘢 𝘩𝘦𝘢𝘭𝘵𝘩 𝘳𝘪𝘴𝘬 𝘵𝘰 𝘴𝘶𝘱𝘱𝘰𝘳𝘵 𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘪𝘳 𝘱𝘳𝘦𝘥𝘦𝘧𝘪𝘯𝘦𝘥 𝘱𝘰𝘭𝘪𝘤𝘺 𝘱𝘰𝘴𝘪𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯.” We encourage the authors to transparently disclose that their own funding from, and affiliation with, “𝘚𝘛𝘖𝘗: 𝘚𝘵𝘰𝘱𝘱𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘛𝘰𝘣𝘢𝘤𝘤𝘰 𝘖𝘳𝘨𝘢𝘯𝘪𝘻𝘢𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯𝘴 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘗𝘳𝘰𝘥𝘶𝘤𝘵𝘴”—an interest group that actively campaigns against HTPs, the tobacco industry, and PMI—presents a potential conflict of interest.

  (𝟰) 𝗖𝗼𝗻𝗰𝗹𝘂𝘀𝗶𝗼𝗻
  There are legitimate concerns about bringing any new nicotine or tobacco product to the market, but these concerns should be considered against the backdrop of the science that is known about smoking. People who smoke and regulators will best be served by informing them of the relative risks of such products compared to continuing to smoke. This requires an unbiased review of the existing science whilst continuing to study the impact on individual and public health. Such actions will help and inform those who currently smoke to transition away from cigarettes and non-smokers not to start to use any nicotine or tobacco product.

  (𝟱) 𝗥𝗲𝗳𝗲𝗿𝗲𝗻𝗰𝗲
  1.) Braznell S, Van Den Akker A, Metcalfe C, et alCritical appraisal of interventional clinical trials assessing heated tobacco products: a systematic review. Tobacco Control Published Online First: 08 November 2022. doi: 10.1136/tc-2022-057522
  2.) Tattan-Birch_H, Hartmann-Boyce_J, Kock_L, Simonavicius_E, Brose_L, Jackson_S, Shahab_L, Brown_J. Heated tobacco products for smoking cessation and reducing smoking prevalence. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 2022, Issue 1. Art. No.: CD013790.
  https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD013790.pub2
  3.) Food and Drug Administration (2020) Scientific Review of Modified Risk Tobacco Product Application (MRTPA) STNs MR0000059 - MR0000061, MR0000133 -Technical Project Lead Document (https://www.fda.gov/media/139796/download)
  4.) Food and Drug Administration (FDA) (2012): Modified Risk Tobacco Product Applications. Guidance for Industry (https://www.fda.gov/media/83300/download).
  5.) NCT05569005 (https://www.clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT05569005?spons=Philip+Morris&...)
  6.) NCT05566678 (https://www.clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT05566678?spons=Philip+Morris&...)
  7.) NCT05385055 (https://www.clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT05385055?spons=Philip+Morris&...)
  8.) Choi, S., Lee, K., Park, S.M., (2021) Combined associations of changes in noncombustible nicotine or tobacco product ad combustible cigarette use habits with subsequent short-term cardiovascular disease risk among South Korean men. Circulation, 144: 1521-1538. doi: 10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.121.054967
  9.) van der Plas A, Antunes M, Romero-Kauss A, Hankins M and Heremans A (2022) Ischemic Heart Disease and Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease Hospitalizations in Japan Before and After the Introduction of a Heated Tobacco Product. Front. Public Health 10:909459. doi: 10.3389/fpubh.2022.909459
  10.) Philip Morris International 2021 Annual Report (p42) published on 24.03.2022
  11.) Gilmore A B, Braznell S. US regulator adds to confusion around heated tobacco products BMJ 2020; 370 :m3528 doi: 10.1136/bmj.m3528
  12.) Bero LA. Tobacco industry manipulation of research. Public Health Rep 2005;120:200–8. doi: 10.1177/003335490512000215

  Show Less

  Conflict of Interest:
  MS is a consultant to Philip Morris Products S.A.; and GB, MG, and AH are full-time employees of Philip Morris Products S.A.
  

  • Back to top