Heated tobacco products for smoking cessation and reducing smoking prevalence

Heated Tobacco Products and Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease: A Narrative Review of Peer-Reviewed Publications

An estimated 65 million people worldwide have moderate or severe chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), an umbrella term used to describe a group of progressive lung diseases that obstruct airflow such as emphysema and chronic bronchitis. Smoking contributes to an estimated 90% of COPD cases, as the harmful chemicals produced during tobacco combustion damage the lungs and airways. Although smoking cessation is the only intervention shown to improve COPD prognosis in smokers, many patients who try to quit continue to smoke. The continued use of conventional cigarettes exacerbates COPD symptoms, and globally more than 3 million people die from the disease every year. The last two decades have seen the introduction of combustion-free nicotine delivery alternatives that produce significantly lower levels of the harmful components in cigarette smoke, and researchers have begun to assess the impact of switching from cigarettes to these products. Several studies have examined how patients with COPD use e-cigarettes as assistance for quitting, but few have examined how heated tobacco products (HTP) may reduce risk. This narrative review summarises results from pre-clinical, clinical, and real-world evidence studies showing possible harm reduction benefits for patients with COPD who switch to HTPs rather than continuing to smoke cigarettes. Epidemiological studies, real-world data analyses, and randomised clinical trials must be conducted to determine whether switching from cigarettes to HTPs can improve health outcomes in patients with COPD who would otherwise continue to smoke combustible cigarettes.

Reasons for Initiation and Regular Use of Heated Tobacco Products among Current and Former Smokers in South Korea: Findings from the 2020 ITC Korea Survey

South Korea is the world's second-largest heated tobacco product (HTP) market after Japan. HTP sales in South Korea have increased rapidly since May 2017, accounting for 10.6% of the total tobacco market in 2020. Despite this, little is known as to why HTP consumers who were current and former smokers started using HTPs and used them regularly. We analyzed cross-sectional data for 1815 adults (aged 19+) who participated in the 2020 International Tobacco Control (ITC) Korea Survey, of whom 1650 were HTP-cigarette consumers (those who reported smoking cigarettes and using HTPs ≥ weekly) and 165 were exclusive HTP consumers (using HTPs ≥ weekly) who were former or occasional smokers (smoking cigarette < weekly). Respondents were asked to report the reason(s) they used HTPs, with 25 possible reasons for HTP-cigarette consumers and 22 for exclusive HTP consumers. The most common reasons for initiating HTP use among all HTP consumers were out of curiosity (58.9%), family and friends use HTPs (45.5%), and they like the HTP technology (35.9%). The most common reasons for regularly using HTPs among all HTP consumers were that they were less smelly than cigarettes (71.3%), HTPs are less harmful to own health than cigarettes (48.6%), and stress reduction (47.4%). Overall, 35.4% of HTP-cigarette consumers reported using HTPs to quit smoking, 14.7% to reduce smoking but not to quit, and 49.7% for other reasons besides quitting or reducing smoking. In conclusion, several common reasons for initiating and regularly using HTPs were endorsed by all HTP consumers who were smoking, had quit smoking completely, or occasionally smoked. Notably, only about one-third of HTP-cigarette consumers said they were using HTPs to quit smoking, suggesting that most had no intention of using HTPs as an aid to quit smoking in South Korea.

A Decision-Theoretic Public Health Framework for Heated Tobacco and Nicotine Vaping Products

Markets for nicotine vaping products (NVPs) and heated tobacco products (HTPs) have grown as these products became positioned as harm-reduction alternatives to combusted tobacco products. Herein, we present a public health decision-theoretic framework incorporating different patterns of HTP, NVP, and cigarette use to examine their impacts on population health. Our framework demonstrates that, for individuals who would have otherwise smoked, HTP use may provide public health benefits by enabling cessation or by discouraging smoking initiation and relapse. However, the benefits are reduced if more harmful HTP use replaces less harmful NVP use. HTP use may also negatively impact public health by encouraging smoking by otherwise non-smokers or by encouraging initiation or relapse into smoking. These patterns are directly influenced by industry behavior as well as public policy towards HTPs, NVPs, and cigarettes. While substantial research has been devoted to NVPs, much less is known about HTPs. Better information is needed to more precisely define the health risks of HTPs compared to cigarettes and NVPs, the relative appeal of HTPs to consumers, and the likelihood of later transitioning to smoking or quitting all products. While our analysis provides a framework for gaining that information, it also illustrates the complexities in distinguishing key factors.

Heated tobacco products for smoking cessation and reducing smoking prevalence

BACKGROUND

Heated tobacco products (HTPs) are designed to heat tobacco to a high enough temperature to release aerosol, without burning it or producing smoke. They differ from e-cigarettes because they heat tobacco leaf/sheet rather than a liquid. Companies who make HTPs claim they produce fewer harmful chemicals than conventional cigarettes. Some people report stopping smoking cigarettes entirely by switching to using HTPs, so clinicians need to know whether they are effective for this purpose and relatively safe. Also, to regulate HTPs appropriately, policymakers should understand their impact on health and on cigarette smoking prevalence.

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the effectiveness and safety of HTPs for smoking cessation and the impact of HTPs on smoking prevalence.  SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Tobacco Addiction Group's Specialised Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, and six other databases for relevant records to January 2021, together with reference-checking and contact with study authors and relevant groups.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) in which people who smoked cigarettes were randomised to switch to exclusive HTP use or a control condition. Eligible outcomes were smoking cessation, adverse events, and selected biomarkers.  RCTs conducted in clinic or in an ambulatory setting were deemed eligible when assessing safety, including those randomising participants to exclusively use HTPs, smoke cigarettes, or attempt abstinence from all tobacco. Time-series studies were also eligible for inclusion if they examined the population-level impact of heated tobacco on smoking prevalence or cigarette sales as an indirect measure.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We followed standard Cochrane methods for screening and data extraction. Our primary outcome measures were abstinence from smoking at the longest follow-up point available, adverse events, serious adverse events, and changes in smoking prevalence or cigarette sales. Other outcomes included biomarkers of harm and exposure to toxicants/carcinogens (e.g. NNAL and carboxyhaemoglobin (COHb)). We used a random-effects Mantel-Haenszel model to calculate risk ratios (RR) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for dichotomous outcomes. For continuous outcomes, we calculated mean differences on the log-transformed scale (LMD) with 95% CIs. We pooled data across studies using meta-analysis where possible.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 13 completed studies, of which 11 were RCTs assessing safety (2666 participants) and two were time-series studies. We judged eight RCTs to be at unclear risk of bias and three at high risk. All RCTs were funded by tobacco companies. Median length of follow-up was 13 weeks. No studies reported smoking cessation outcomes.  There was insufficient evidence for a difference in risk of adverse events between smokers randomised to switch to heated tobacco or continue smoking cigarettes, limited by imprecision and risk of bias (RR 1.03, 95% CI 0.92 to 1.15; I2 = 0%; 6 studies, 1713 participants). There was insufficient evidence to determine whether risk of serious adverse events differed between groups due to very serious imprecision and risk of bias (RR 0.79, 95% CI 0.33 to 1.94; I2 = 0%; 4 studies, 1472 participants). There was moderate-certainty evidence for lower NNAL and COHb at follow-up in heated tobacco than cigarette smoking groups, limited by risk of bias (NNAL: LMD -0.81, 95% CI -1.07 to -0.55; I2 = 92%; 10 studies, 1959 participants; COHb: LMD -0.74, 95% CI -0.92 to -0.52; I2 = 96%; 9 studies, 1807 participants). Evidence for additional biomarkers of exposure are reported in the main body of the review. There was insufficient evidence for a difference in risk of adverse events in smokers randomised to switch to heated tobacco or attempt abstinence from all tobacco, limited by risk of bias and imprecision (RR 1.12, 95% CI 0.86 to 1.46; I2 = 0%; 2 studies, 237 participants). Five studies reported that no serious adverse events occurred in either group (533 participants). There was moderate-certainty evidence, limited by risk of bias, that urine concentrations of NNAL at follow-up were higher in the heated tobacco use compared with abstinence group (LMD 0.50, 95% CI 0.34 to 0.66; I2 = 0%; 5 studies, 382 participants). In addition, there was very low-certainty evidence, limited by risk of bias, inconsistency, and imprecision, for higher COHb in the heated tobacco use compared with abstinence group for intention-to-treat analyses (LMD 0.69, 95% CI 0.07 to 1.31; 3 studies, 212 participants), but lower COHb in per-protocol analyses (LMD -0.32, 95% CI -1.04 to 0.39; 2 studies, 170 participants). Evidence concerning additional biomarkers is reported in the main body of the review. Data from two time-series studies showed that the rate of decline in cigarette sales accelerated following the introduction of heated tobacco to market in Japan. This evidence was of very low-certainty as there was risk of bias, including possible confounding, and cigarette sales are an indirect measure of smoking prevalence.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

No studies reported on cigarette smoking cessation, so the effectiveness of heated tobacco for this purpose remains uncertain. There was insufficient evidence for differences in risk of adverse or serious adverse events between people randomised to switch to heated tobacco, smoke cigarettes, or attempt tobacco abstinence in the short-term. There was moderate-certainty evidence that heated tobacco users have lower exposure to toxicants/carcinogens than cigarette smokers and very low- to moderate-certainty evidence of higher exposure than those attempting abstinence from  all tobacco. Independently funded research on the effectiveness and safety of HTPs is needed.  The rate of decline in cigarette sales accelerated after the introduction of heated tobacco to market in Japan but, as data were observational, it is possible other factors caused these changes. Moreover, falls in cigarette sales may not translate to declining smoking prevalence, and changes in Japan may not generalise elsewhere. To clarify the impact of rising heated tobacco use on smoking prevalence, there is a need for time-series studies that examine this association.