OPEN SCIENCE, FEBRUARY 2021

      How can smoke-free products contribute to public health outcomes?

      In this Open Science event, we explored how scientifically substantiated smoke-free products can contribute to public health outcomes. Emphasizing that nonsmokers should never start and current smokers should quit, we highlighted the positive difference that scientifically assessed smoke-free products can make for those who would otherwise continue to smoke cigarettes.

      Why cigarettes are bad for health

      Many people believe that nicotine or tar are the biggest problems with smoking, but that’s not correct. It’s the thousands of chemicals contained in cigarette smoke, largely formed when tobacco is burned, that are the biggest issue. Among the 6,000 chemicals produced in a burning cigarette, around 100 of these are associated with smoking-related diseases. They’re present in high concentrations in the cigarette smoke and inhaled, and their damage to the body builds up over time, leading to disease. The more smokers who develop smoking-related diseases, the bigger the impact on public health.

      Reducing this negative impact on public health requires fewer people to start smoking, and more people to quit smoking altogether. However, according to current trends, approximately 1 billion people will continue to smoke cigarettes in the foreseeable future.

       

      How smoke-free products can make a difference

      Two things need to happen for smoke-free products to make a difference. First, the product needs to be developed and scientifically assessed to be sure whether the product is less harmful than cigarettes. Second, men and women who smoke cigarettes should be encouraged to switch to such a product, if they would otherwise continue to smoke cigarettes. A product that presents less risk than cigarettes, with a high level of acceptance and switching among adults who would otherwise continue to smoke, can have a dramatic impact on public health. An impact for the better.

      It sounds simple, but there's a lot of work and scientific research involved, as our scientists described in this virtual conference.

      EVENT DETAILS

      Live from the Cube

      Our latest Open Science webinar focused on Core Concepts on February 17, 2021.

       

      This session, hosted by Dr. Gizelle Baker, VP Global Scientific Engagement, included three presentations, listed below. Choose one of the links below to read read the summaries of the posters presented by our scientists, or to watch the videos of their presentations:

      During the Q&A sessions, we also welcomed the expertise of Dr. Matthew Hankins, Global Head Real-World Evidence, Epidemiology, and Data Science.

      Public Health Impact

      The harm reduction equation explained

      In this video, Dr. Mikael Franzon walks us through how smoke-free products can positively contribute to population harm reduction. In doing so, he presents the harm reduction equation, which states that: 1) making products available that present reduced risks versus cigarettes, and 2) if adult smokers who would otherwise continue to smoke switch to these reduced-risk products, this will lead to public health benefits. The more adult smokers who choose the lower risk options instead of continuing to smoke, the bigger the impact can be on reducing population harm. So, the overall goal is to develop smoke-free alternatives that present significantly less risk of harm than continued smoking, and that are acceptable to current adult smokers, while generally not attractive to smokers who would otherwise quit, nor to youth, nonsmokers, or former smokers.

      Hi, I’m Mikael Franzon, a Psychologist by training with a PhD in Neuroscience. I have worked as a scientific advisor for PMI (Philip Morris International) for 5 years. Before PMI I worked in the pharma industry for over 25 years, for companies like Pharmacia, Johnson and Johnson, and Pfizer - developing medicinal nicotine products as well as working with Varenicline for tobacco harm reduction.

      Today, I’m going to talk to you about whether smoke-free products can positively contribute to public health. What are the underlying thoughts? What are the necessary requirements?

      We all know that smoking is harmful. It is addictive, and the health risks of smoking are well established. But what is the root cause behind this? Looking in the smoking literature we see mentioning of tar and nicotine. Let’s take a closer look how they relate to risk.

      So, what is tar? It is simply the total weight of solid and liquid residue in cigarette smoke after the weight of nicotine and water has been subtracted. Scientists call it Nicotine Free Dry Particulate Matter (NFDPM). Tar does not consider what is in the residue or inform on how many harmful chemicals are actually part of it.

      Nicotine is addictive and it is not risk free. However, leading authorities, including the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and the U.K. Royal College of Physicians agree that nicotine, while addictive, is not the primary cause of smoking-related diseases.

      When you burn tobacco, physical and chemical reactions occur. Over 6’000 chemicals are emitted, and around 100 of them are linked to smoking-related diseases. These around 100 harmful and potentially harmful constituents are inhaled in the smoke. The more a smoker smokes, the higher his or her exposure to these chemicals. This exposure causes the disruption of biological mechanisms, leading to changes at the cellular and tissue level.

      Finally, an accumulation of these changes over time leads to the development of smoking-related diseases. Finally, the more people develop smoking-related diseases, the bigger the impact on public health.

      Since cigarettes are legally produced, sold, and consumed, the way to improve public health is that we need to reduce the number people who consume cigarettes. Which is why most current tobacco control strategies are focused on:

      • Minimizing initiation: If you don’t smoke, don’t start.
      • Encouraging cessation: If you smoke, quit.

      If, over time, more smokers successfully quit smoking than start or relapse using cigarettes, the number of smokers declines. Despite the fact that over the last three decades, we have seen declines in the smoking prevalence, the global population is growing. The combined effect is that there will be 1 billion smokers in 2025 – which is basically unchanged compared to the year 2010.

      By definition, the best thing a smoker can do to reduce this risk of developing smoking-related disease, is to quit tobacco and nicotine altogether. But we all know that many won’t. Would encouraging those smokers to switch to less harmful alternatives improve individual and public health?

      In other words, we could supplement existing tobacco control strategies for smokers who would otherwise continue to smoke by promoting switching to less harmful alternatives. If you don’t quit, change.

      For these alternatives to be able to reduce population harm, they must be scientifically substantiated to:

      •  Avoid combustion, and emit significantly fewer and lower levels of toxicants than products that burn tobacco, and
      •  Reduce the exposure to toxicants in smokers who switch completely to these products compared to those who continue to smoke cigarettes

      And this reduction in exposure should lead to a reduction in harmful health effects compared with continued smoking.

      Additionally, it will be important that smokers who would otherwise continue to smoke completely switch to these alternatives in big numbers. And that the unintended consequences are minimized. That is, low initiation with alternative and low relapse of former smokers.

      There is a simple equation to illustrate what I have been describing:

      Public Health Benefits = Product Risk Reduction X Smokers Switching.

      If we do nothing the status quo will continue. One billion people will continue to smoke cigarettes, and therefore the actual number of people at risk of developing smoking-related disease will also stay the same. But if we want to maximize the public health benefit, we need to address two fundamental challenges.

      The first, product risk reduction, is a technological challenge. We need to develop products which reduces the exposure to harmful and potentially harmful constituents, thereby offering the potential of reduced risk and harm.

      The second, smokers switching, now is a behavioral challenge. This is linked to the acceptance of the product. Simply put: the more smokers who switch, the bigger the public health benefit. But it is not quite this simple. It is also important to encourage smokers to switch completely and to stick with it. And equally as important: we need to minimize use by unintended users such as never-smokers, former-smokers, and youth.

      We could develop the perfect technology but if no one wants to use it the public health benefit will be zero. I am convinced that smoke-free products can positively contribute to population harm reduction, which is the reason that I decided to join PMI.

      Now I am going to let my colleagues present to you some of the data and findings that demonstrate this. First, Andrea will present on product risk reduction and then Steve will present what we know about smokers switching.

      Thank you for joining us today.

      Tobacco heating system

      Tobacco heating system: findings to date explained

      In this video, Dr. Andrea Costantini provides insight into our leading heated tobacco product, the THS, marketed as IQOS in countries where it is available. Although not risk free, the THS is a better alternative than continuing to smoke for those adult smokers who otherwise would keep smoking. Dr. Costantini reviews in detail four key components of the scientific assessment of our leading heated tobacco product by presenting the findings on THS compared with cigarettes: the absence of combustion, the reduction in toxic emissions, the reduced exposure to harmful chemicals, and finally, the potential to reduce the risk of smoking-related diseases. Dr. Costantini shows that the totality of the available evidence today indicates that reduced-risk products, such as THS, could translate into a benefit for public health.  

      Hello, I’m Andrea Costantini, I’m a medical doctor specialized in clinical pharmacology and I work at PMI as Head of Scientific Engagement for the Latin America and Canada Region.

      First of all, I would like to thank Mikael for taking us through the equation that explains how to improve public health and, as mentioned by him, my presentation will focus on the product risk reduction using the results of our tobacco heating system demonstrated by science.

      When we look deeper at what science is needed to support reduced-risk products, we have identified four important components:

      1. Absence of combustion,
      2. Reduced toxic emission,
      3. Reduced exposure and
      4. Reduced disease.

      To begin, let’s look at absence of combustion.

      Combustion only occurs when the three main elements are combined: fuel, heat, and oxygen. When even one element is removed, combustion cannot occur. Putting it in the context of cigarettes, and specifically cigarette combustion, the tobacco is the fuel. By combining it with oxygen and igniting the cigarette, it generates energy, smoke, and ash. Let’s look in detail at what happens at the lit end of the cigarette.

      The tobacco ignites at temperatures above 400 °C, and it reaches temperatures above 800 °C during a puff, since oxygen is brought in to fuel the fire while inhaling.

      When heating tobacco in the tobacco heating system, maximum temperature reached by the tobacco is below 350 °C. Its temperature decreases during every puff, contrary to what we have seen in cigarettes, since fresh, cool air is being drawn into it. Once the heating system is turned off, tobacco temperature immediately decreases as there is no heating source. Finally, we have evaluated the performance of our system in different atmospheres with and without oxygen.

      We have found that the composition of the aerosol generated when it is operated in an atmosphere without oxygen is very similar to the one that is generated in the presence of it. All this is demonstrating that combustion does not occur in the tobacco heating system. Several internationally recognized experts in combustion have looked at the data and have confirmed the absence of combustion in our tobacco heating system.

      Now let’s move to reduced toxic emissions. As tobacco temperature goes up, the generation of harmful and potentially harmful constituents, or HPHCs as we call them for short, increases. And they significantly go up once combustion begins in tobacco.

      By eliminating the combustion in our system, the aerosol generated by heating the tobacco is fundamentally different to tobacco smoke. On average, it emits 90-95% less HPHCs compared to cigarette and no solid carbon-based nanoparticles. Several government authorities have tested the product independent of us, such us the U.S. Food and Drug Administration, the Japanese National Institute for Public Health, Public Health England amongst others, and they have verified that lower levels of HPHCs are emitted when heating tobacco instead of burning it.

      But showing a reduced generation of toxic emissions is not enough. It is necessary to evaluate whether this reduced generation of HPHCs correlates to a reduced exposure in those adult smokers switching from smoking cigarettes to using heated tobacco products. At first sight, this seems straight forward: if there are less harmful compounds coming out of the heating tobacco system, why would not less toxicants enter the body?

      But what we need to consider is that individuals use products differently. There are differences in how many times people use a product during the day, and on top, they can inhale shallow or deep, long or short among other variables.

      We evaluated the exposure to several HPHCs in studies conducted in adult smokers not willing to quit. We divided smokers into three groups: the first one kept on smoking, the second one stopped smoking for the duration of the study, and the third one switched to the tobacco heating system. Over a period of 90 days, we measured participant’s exposure to 15 selected harmful chemicals such as carbon monoxide, acrolein, and nitrosamines, among others.

      As you can see in the following graphics, exposure to carbon monoxide and acrolein, for example, was significantly reduced in those subjects switching to heated tobacco (who are represented by the yellow lines) compared to those who kept smoking cigarettes (represented by red lines), approaching to the values seen in those subjects who were in smoking abstinence (illustrated by green lines). The same findings were found for the 15 different HPHCs evaluated in this study. In all the cases, throughout the study the levels of exposure to the evaluated HPHCs in the subjects who switched to heated tobacco remained significantly below compared to those observed in smokers who continued smoking.

      This study shows that switching completely to our heating tobacco system achieves almost 95% of the reduction in exposure that is achieved by smoking abstinence. Once again, several internationally recognized experts support our findings such us the U.S. Food and Drug Administration, the German Federal Institute for Risk Assessment, Public Health England among others.

      And last, but not least, we evaluated the potential of switching to our heated tobacco system to reduce disease, which is the fourth component of the reduce-risk term from the equation presented by Mikael.

      Smoking-related diseases take a long time to develop, many variables are involved, and measuring any long-term effect will take decades. In the absence of long-term studies, we can still measure what happens along the disease pathway.

      Toxicological assessment tells us about how much damage to the body of an organism the aerosol from heated tobacco may cause compared to cigarette smoke. And if that damage is likely to activate biological mechanisms, that may result in the onset of tobacco-related diseases.

      Toxicity of heated tobacco aerosol exposure was evaluated in vitro studies: cytotoxicity and genotoxicity were significantly reduced compared to tobacco smoke and no mutagenicity was observed, showing that reduction in toxicity compare to cigarette smoke is in line with the 90-95% reduction in toxic emissions.

      In vivo study conducted on Apoe-/- knock-out mice, a model that spontaneously develops atherosclerotic plaque and emphysema caused by its genetic alteration, showed that those individuals switched to heated tobacco (represented by yellow bars) reduced reduced atherosclerotic plaque formation and emphysema development, compared to those exposed to tobacco smoke (illustrated by red bars). Also, the slow disease progression seen in those switched to heated tobacco aerosol approached the ones observed in those in smoking cessation (represented by green bars).

      A clinical study conducted in 984 adult healthy smokers not willing to quit, who were randomly assigned to one of two arms—one who kept smoking cigarettes and another one who switched to heated tobacco—showed favorable favorable changes in those smokers who switched regarding the biomarkers of potential harm evaluated, which are linked to smoking related diseases, compared to those who continued smoking. Biomarkers of potential harms included were early signs of an increased risk of developing cardiovascular disease, cancer, or COPD.

      Once again, several international regulatory bodies, such as the U.S. FDA, support that disease data take times, but more data across multiple lines of evidence are encouraging and warrant further research.

      The totality of the available evidence today strongly indicates that switching to our heated tobacco system, although it is not risk free, is a much better alternative than continuing to smoke for those adult smokers who otherwise would keep smoking. For this to translate into a benefit for public health, we need to maximize the number of smokers who do not quit switching instead of continuing to smoke. And we must minimize unintended consequences of introducing an alternative, such as initiation or relapse.

      Perception and Behavior

      Product acceptance and use explained

      In this video, Steve Roulet sheds some light on our consumer research studies on smoke-free products. Behavioral changes from smokers, combined with the availability of reduced-risk products, form the basis for what it is known as the harm reduction equation which is an intuitive way to understand the potential benefits of smoke-free products for public health. Using data from Japan, Steve Roulet shows the impact of introducing the THS. In addition, PMI’s cross-sectional studies show that initiation with the THS among nonsmokers and former smokers is very low. Importantly, independent third-party studies also indicate that the prevalence of use of heated tobacco products was low among youth. Heated tobacco products have a significant potential in transitioning adult cigarette smokers away from combustible tobacco use.  

      Hello, my name is Steve Roulet, and I’m the Global Head Behavioral Research Insight at Philip Morris International. As my colleagues illustrated previously, minimizing tobacco-related harm at the population level through less harmful alternatives depends not only on the degree of risk reduction of the product, but also on its adoption by smokers. It is important that smokers give up smoking completely, and that the use of the product by nonsmokers and ex-smokers is minimized. In the next few minutes, I will present high-level evidence on the acceptance and use of our Tobacco Heating System (THS), commercialized under the brand name IQOS.

      If we look at the population as a whole, in order to maximize public health benefits, smokers who would otherwise continue to smoke need to switch to those alternatives in big numbers while product initiation by nonsmokers needs to be minimized.

      Let’s see how our THS compares against this objective using our own as well as external data. First, let’s examine the adoption of heated tobacco products in adults. Or, in other words, are heated tobacco products in general and THS specifically able to transition large numbers of smokers away from combustible cigarette use?

      Japan is probably the best place to start for two main reasons:

      First, Japan is the country with the highest prevalence of heated tobacco products in the world. It is also the country where our THS was first introduced in late 2014 and remains by far the most popular heated tobacco product.

      Second, Japan is one of the few countries, if not the only one, where the public health authorities have recently started measuring prevalence of cigarette smoking separately from the use of heated tobacco products.

      The data from the government’s National Health and Nutrition Survey show that while the trend in overall prevalence of tobacco use in Japan remains unchanged, the introduction of heated tobacco products in the Japanese market in 2014 – which were measured for the first time in the national survey separately from cigarettes in 2018 – appears to have contributed to the accelerated decline in combustible cigarette smoking. In fact, Japan’s smoking rate is now among the lowest in the developed world.

      Here, the overall tobacco use in 2018 and 2019 is broken down by tobacco product category. The bottom portion of the bar shows the proportion of Japanese adults who only smoke combustible cigarettes. Above are those who only use heated tobacco products and do not smoke. The proportion above are those who use both cigarettes as well as heated tobacco products. And at the top are respondents who selected “other” tobacco use.

      The most frequent pattern of use of heated tobacco products in Japan is exclusive use, with over 70% of heated tobacco product users who do not smoke cigarettes any longer. In fact, we observe similar conversion rates in our own post-market surveys not only in Japan, but also in other countries where our heated tobacco product is available.

      In less than 6 years since the introduction of the product on the market, the THS was used by more than 17 million adults at the end of 2020. More than 70% of them have stopped smoking and switched to THS.

      In conclusion, it appears that the THS has a significant potential in transitioning cigarette smokers away from combustible tobacco use.

      Now let’s explore the question of initiation, both in adults as well as in youth. Cross-sectional studies are a key component of Philip Morris International’s post market monitoring and surveillance program. We have been conducting repeated cross-sectional surveys within large national representative samples of randomly selected participants coupled with web-based surveys in THS users since 2016, which is the year the THS reached national distribution in Japan.

      This slide shows the rate of initiation of tobacco and nicotine products in the past 12 months prior to the survey in adult never tobacco and nicotine product users in Japan, Italy, and Germany. What we observe is a very low to non-existing initiation with the THS on a population level.

      A similar picture emerges when looking at the smoking status at the time of starting using the THS. Among current THS users who had a history of regular tobacco and nicotine-containing product use, Philip Morris’s cross-sectional survey data from the THS users sample show that about 98% of current THS users were smoking cigarettes when they started to use THS. In other words, they switched from cigarettes to THS. At the same time, only 1 to 2% of current THS users relapsed or re-initiated tobacco use with the THS.

      In conclusion, THS use in adults remains mostly confined to those who were already smoking, while initiation with the THS in nonsmokers and former smokers is very low.

      Now, let’s explore the use of the THS among youth. I’d like to emphasize that Philip Morris International has not conducted any studies in youth. Therefore, the data that follows comes from external studies who have examined the question of tobacco product use in youth.

      Let’s now take a look at one of the available independent studies. An analysis by Kuwabara et al. in Japan shows that the prevalence of use of heated tobacco products was low [among youth]. The study data shows that the prevalence of use of heated tobacco products in the last 30 days [preceding the study] was 0.5% among people aged 12 to 15 years old, and 0.9% among people aged 15 to 18 years old. Similar findings from Germany and Switzerland have been recently published, all indicating a low level of use of heated tobacco product in youth.

      In Germany, the analysis by Orth and Merkel shows that the prevalence of ever use of heated tobacco products among youth and young adults is low. In fact, the past 30-day use among 12-17-year olds was almost non-existent. In Switzerland, the the analysis by Delgrande et al. also shows that the prevalence of use of heated tobacco products was low with a prevalence of heated tobacco product use in the past 30 days of 1.1% among people aged 15 years old. In short, external data from Japan, Germany, and Switzerland, shows that the prevalence of use in youth is low.

      In conclusion, we have observed that the THS has the potential to transition many adult smokers away from combustible cigarette use, which is the most harmful use of tobacco. These transition patterns are starting to emerge at a population level in Japan, the country with the highest prevalence of heated tobacco product use to date.

      Almost every THS user has a history of tobacco or nicotine-containing product use before starting using the THS. In fact, THS users rarely initiated or re-started tobacco or nicotine use with heated tobacco products. Publicly available data indicates low prevalence of heated tobacco product use among youth.

      Looking ahead, we believe that it is important that research instruments adapt to the new, more complex tobacco and nicotine-containing product environment. We also believe that it will be difficult to reach any meaningful conclusions about the impact of new tobacco and nicotine products on public health without properly designed surveys that provide consistent, reliable, and accurate data—in particular prevalence and use patterns data for each tobacco or nicotine-containing product category.

      For the last half hour, my colleagues and I gave an overview about how a smoke-free product could improve public health. We shared data supporting our view that THS is a better alternative than continuing to smoke. We pointed out that currently available data shows evidence that adult smokers are switching to the THS in large numbers, and that unintended consequences such as initiation and relapse with the THS are minimal.

      On behalf of all of us, I would like to thank you very much for joining, and I look forward to the Q&A session.