eLetters

493 e-Letters

  • In Response to Clive D Bates' Comments "By ignoring the impact of a vaping tax on smoking, the paper misses the most important point"

    NOT PEER REVIEWED

    We appreciate the comments from Bates and the opportunity for us to respond and clarify.

    First, Bates' argument heavily relies on the assumption that e-cigarettes and combustible cigarettes are substitutes, which is theoretically possible as some consider vaping as a harm reduction alternative to combustible cigarettes. Empirically, however, there have been mixed findings about whether e-cigarettes and combustible cigarettes are substitutes (or complements). Bates cited Pesko et al. (2020) that concludes e-cigarettes and combustible cigarettes are substitutes, whereas other studies have shown that they are complements. For example, Cotti et al. (2018) found that higher cigarette excise taxes, in fact, decrease sales of both e-cigarettes and combustible cigarettes, suggesting that they are complements. Such mixed results abate Bates' argument that taxing ENDS could lead to more use of combustible cigarettes.

    Second, Bates might have ignored that our study focused on young adults aged 18-24 years rather than general adults when examining the effect of vaping product tax on e-cigarette use. Although Pesko et al. (2020) suggests that e-cigarettes and combustible cigarettes are substitutes, the findings are based on the general adult population (average age: 55 years) which may not be generalizable to the young adult population. In fact, one study conducted by Abouk and Adams (2017) indicates that e-cigarettes and combustible ci...

    Show More
  • Scientific Concerns

    NOT PEER REVIEWED
    I have a number of concerns with the paper as currently written.

    1) The authors write: “Besides, none of the previous studies except Pesko et al (15) that examined the associations between vaping product excise tax adoption and ENDS use has accounted for the clustering of respondents within the same localities…” This is not accurate, as citation 19 also clusters standard errors at the locality level in all specifications.

    2) The authors write: "A working paper reported reduced ENDS sales, but not ENDS use prevalence or behaviours, after implementation of a vaping product excise tax policy. (19)” This is not accurate, as the cited study uses the magnitude of e-cigarette tax values, rather than an indicator variable for tax implementation. States have adopted e-cigarette taxes of different magnitudes and a number of them (such as California) have changed the magnitudes of these taxes after adoption. All of this variation is used in citation 19, contrary to the current study’s description. It's also unclear from the sentence whether citation 19 studied use and found imprecise estimates, or did not study use. It's the latter and this should be clarified. It's also unclear why the authors did not use magnitude of e-cigarette taxes themselves in the current paper, as has been commonly done in the referenced literature.

    3) Authors write they use a “nationally representative sample of US young adults.” I do not beli...

    Show More
  • Omission of reporting characterizing flavour bans

    NOT PEER REVIEWED
    This article does not distinguish between characterizing flavour (menthol) bans that were implemented in Canadian provinces between 2015 and 2017 and the implementation of a national ban on menthol additives in Canada in October 2017. Although unreported, the analysis was performed exclusively on provincial characterizing flavour bans. This significant distinction should be reported to ensure that researchers and policy makers are aware of the potential impact of a characterizing flavour ban and to ensure that this policy measure is not dismissed or discounted.

  • By ignoring the impact of a vaping tax on smoking, the paper misses the most important point

    NOT PEER REVIEWED
    I would like to make three comments by way of a brief post-publication review.

    1. The impacts of vaping tax on smoking have been completely overlooked

    For a study of e-cigarette taxation to have any public health relevance, it must consider the impact of e-cigarette prices on *cigarette* demand. Cigarettes and e-cigarettes are economic substitutes. The demand for one responds to changes in the price of the other, an idea well understood in economics and quantified through the concept of cross-elasticity. The paper appears to pay no regard to the impact of vaping taxes on cigarette demand, Yet such effects might easily overwhelm any benefits from reduced e-cigarette use - in fact, impact on demand for other tobacco products and the development of informal markets are by far the most important impacts of a vaping tax. By way of example, a 2020 paper by Pesko et al. [1] concluded:

    "Our results suggest that a proposed national e-cigarette tax of $1.65 per milliliter of vaping liquid would raise the proportion of adults who smoke cigarettes daily by approximately 1 percentage point, translating to 2.5 million extra adult daily smokers compared to the counterfactual of not having the tax."

    2. The case for reducing adult vaping by taxation has not been made

    The authors have based their paper on an unexamined assumption that it is a justifiable goal of policy to lower rates of adult e-cigarette use. Why should...

    Show More
  • Authors’ Response Reveals Several New and Serious Issues

    NOT PEER REVIEWED
    Replication attempts are one of the self-correcting mechanisms of science, and we thank the Authors for their response to our concerns and their attempt to replicate aspects of their study [1]. Regrettably, they have failed to adequately address the central point raised in our letter of 23rd April 2021, namely that the title and conclusions of their original Article are patently invalid and have no basis in fact or evidence [2]. Instead of strengthening their argument in support of the Article’s findings and conclusions, the Authors’ response considerably weakens them. Strikingly, the Authors reveal several new and serious issues and yet maintain that their “principle finding is unchanged”.

    Methodological Problems:

    The Authors acknowledge that they were unable to replicate an important aspect of their original analysis, namely that a Philip Morris International (PMI) News Article [3] published on its website (falsely described as a “press release”) was “republished […] in 14 additional news outlets”. In their response, they note that “Our original assertion that there were 14 duplicate articles is not supported by our replication analysis”. This failure to replicate a key finding—in their own proprietary database, which several of them co-developed—is concerning. The Authors provide no explanation for the irregularity. Notably, on 20th April 2021, we were able to source these 14 articles in Tobacco Watcher since they were clearly mar...

    Show More
  • The authors' response to criticisms suggests White Hat Bias

    NOT PEER REVIEWED
    The authors’ response published on 14 July 2021 is far from satisfactory and implausibly asserts that “Our original findings and conclusions remain plausible” [1]

    The original study [2] uses a media analysis to make a claim that a statement made by the tobacco company Philip Morris International (PMI) about an outbreak of lung disease in the US [3] was a marketing ploy for its heated tobacco product, iQOS. At the time, the lung injury outbreak was falsely attributed by many to nicotine vaping. Heated tobacco products are an alternative to nicotine vaping for smokers looking for a low-risk alternative to smoking.

    I will now list some of the problems with this claim.

    1. The research findings do not support the headline claim

    The study title contains a strong and unqualified assertion of cynical opportunism on the part of the company. The new formulation that findings "remain plausible" does not justify the confidence in the assertion made in the title. "Plausible" is a reasonable basis for choosing a hypothesis to investigate, but a far from sufficient basis for drawing an aggressive conclusion. The authors do not seem to dispute the technical or factual accuracy of the statement about iQOS and EVALI made by PMI. Their allegation is about malign motives and, as such, it should be a cause for caution and a high standard of evidence.

    2. No specific articles were provided to substantiate the...

    Show More
  • Our original findings and conclusions remain plausible

    NOT PEER REVIEWED

    We thank Dr. Moira Gilchrist (1) for her careful attention to our work (2). Gilchrist argues our principal findings were erroneous and any change in news coverage of IQOS and the e-cigarette, or vaping, product use associated lung injury (EVALI) outbreak were confounded by other Philip Morris International (PMI) media materials and not those specifically discussing EVALI and IQOS (3) which we attributed our findings to. However, a deeper inspection of this argument suggests our original findings and conclusions remain plausible.

    Tobacco Watcher is a dynamic resource with continuous data collection and processing. Thus, the results of analyses on the platform can vary over time. On June 10, 2021 we replicated our analysis. After correcting an error that the PMI’s materials on EVALI and IQOS (3) was initially published on 24 September 2021 (not 25 September) the principal finding is unchanged. News coverage mentioning both “IQOS” and EVALI (i.e., including the terms ‘vaping’ and ‘illness’) reached an all-time high immediately after PMI published materials about EVALI and IQOS on their website. Thirty days prior to PMI posting this material (August 25th through September 23rd) 2.0 news stories per day matched our search compared to 12.8 for the 30 days after their publication (September 24th through October 23rd), with 384 news reports matching our keyword search for the latter period. Our original assertion that there were 14 duplicate articl...

    Show More
  • Review of this study suggests its findings are based on a major confounding error

    NOT PEER REVIEWED

    A review of this study has been published by the target of its criticism, the tobacco company Philip Morris International (PMI), via the post-publication review server Qeios [1]

    The main finding of this study, and the allegation raised in its title, is that PMI cynically used an outbreak of lung injuries in the United States (initially but incorrectly attributed to nicotine vaping) to promote its heated tobacco product, iQOS. Heated tobacco products are one alternative to vaping for those looking for a safer alternative to smoking. On 24th September 2019, PMI published an information notice about its products in response to the lung injury outbreak. The authors assert that PMI was trying to gain commercial publicity from a health crisis: a serious allegation. But the allegation appears to be based on a major error by the authors.

    The study used a "fully automated media analysis engine" to count stories that mention iQOS around that time, showing that there were considerably more than usual. On this basis, the authors concluded that PMI's unethical promotional gambit had worked. However, the day after PMI allegedly disreputably sought publicity for iQOS, the company also issued a press release disclosing that merger negotiations with the American tobacco company, Altria, had ceased. PMI and Altria have a joint marketing agreement for iQOS in the United States. The end of merger talks would be big news in the business pre...

    Show More
  • Response to “E-cigarette manufacturers’ compliance with clinical trial reporting expectations: a case series of registered trials by Juul Labs.”

    NOT PEER REVIEWED

    I write on behalf of Juul Labs in response to “E-cigarette manufacturers’ compliance with clinical trial reporting expectations: a case series of registered trials by Juul Labs.” We appreciate the public health community’s interest in understanding the Company’s research. However, we want to clarify the article’s reporting on Juul Labs’ research program and publications to date, as well as our legal obligations to report the results of clinical investigations.

    First, our studies were conducted in anticipation of our submission of a Premarket Tobacco Product Application (PMTA) to the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA). As such, raw data, results, and statistical code underlying our analyses of all ten registered Juul Labs studies referenced in the Tobacco Control paper have been submitted to FDA (1)

    In addition, we have been working on sharing our data in publications and posters. In fact, by the end of this month, we will have published or presented data on nine of the ten studies, in addition to having provided the clinical results to FDA. Of our ten registered studies, we have published the results of four (2, 3, 4, 5) submitted the results of an additional two studies for peer review, presented the results of two as posters (6,7) and have the results of one accepted for presentation this summer. We appreciate that the authors of the Tobacco Control paper may have drafted their article months ago, but note that there...

    Show More
  • Trials Transparency in E-cigarette Research

    NOT PEER REVIEWED

    On behalf of my co-authors, we thank Dr. Mishra for taking the time to comment on our paper examining reporting of trials registered by Juul Labs Inc.

    We do not doubt that Juul has submitted the results from all of these studies to the FDA as part of their Premarket Tobacco Product Application (PMTA). Unfortunately, this step does not ensure the full results of these trials will be made available to the public, clinicians, and other key stakeholders.

    We also acknowledge and appreciate that since conducting our analysis in August 2020, two additional studies, of the five we examined, have appeared in the peer reviewed literature (published in December 2020 and January 2021)[1,2] and additional results may become available through other methods. We understand that these publications may contain additional outcome reporting compared to the posters we assessed. We welcome any and all additional results disclosures from Juul Labs. That said, we believe the risk of outcome reporting bias remains and is, unfortunately, not addressed in Juul’s comment despite being a major facet of our paper. The one publication that was available as of our analysis date excluded 4 of the 19 prespecified secondary outcomes without comment and another 5 outcomes had clear issues in their reporting compared to the registered outcomes. While we have not conducted a detailed assessment of the two new publications, it is apparent that journal publication does no...

    Show More

Pages