Conflicts of interest in research on electronic cigarettes

Assessing conflict of interest reporting and quality of clinical trials on infant formula: a systematic review

OBJECTIVES

This study aims to assess the quality, risk of bias, and conflicts of interest (COIs) of clinical trials conducted on the effects of fortified infant formula.

STUDY DESIGN AND SETTTING

Systematic review including all randomized clinical trials targeting healthy children and using three arms: fortified infant formula; standard formula; and breastfeeding. We performed a descriptive analysis of the studies reviewed, assessed their quality using the "Risk of Bias 2- RoB 2" tool, and identified COIs.

RESULTS

A total of 40 studies were included. All showed a high overall risk of bias, with this being especially noteworthy in the "deviations from intention to treat" and "missing outcome data" domains. Of the total included studies, 29 reported conclusions in favor of the fortified formula; 15 studies reported multiple conclusions that were either contradictory or not in line with the results. COIs with industry were identified in 33 studies, and in 17 studies, these conflicts were not declared in the appropriate section.

CONCLUSION

From a methodological perspective, studies on fortified infant formula display low quality, made evident by the high risk of bias. Additionally, there are frequent COIs. These aspects must be considered by health professionals and the population when drawing up recommendations for the use of this product.

Impact of electronic cigarette and heated tobacco product on conventional smoking: an Italian prospective cohort study conducted during the COVID-19 pandemic

OBJECTIVE

Debate continues about whether electronic cigarettes (e-cigarettes) and heated tobacco products (HTP) reduce or increase the probability of smoking, with many studies compromised by stated or unstated conflicts of interest. We undertook a longitudinal study in Italy.

METHODS

3185 Italian participants aged 18-74 years provided baseline (April-May) and follow-up (November-December) responses in 2020, reporting smoking status and use of e-cigarettes and HTP. We tracked transitions over that period and reported risk ratios (RR) and corresponding 95% CIs for changes in smoking in relation to baseline use of e-cigarettes and HTPs.

RESULTS

Never cigarette smokers who used e-cigarettes at baseline were much more likely to start smoking (compared with never users, RR 8.78; 95% CI: 5.65 to 13.65) and current HTP users (RR 5.80; 95% CI: 3.65 to 9.20). Among ex-smokers, relapse (17.2%) at follow-up was more likely among e-cigarette (RR 4.25; 95% CI: 2.40 to 7.52) and HTP users (RR 3.32; 95% CI: 2.05 to 5.37). Among current smokers at baseline, those who had continued smoking at follow-up were 85.4% overall. These were more frequently current novel product users (compared with non-users, RR 1.10; 95% CI: 1.02 to 1.19 for e-cigarette users; RR 1.17; 95% CI: 1.10 to 1.23 for HTP users).

CONCLUSIONS

Both e-cigarette and HTP use predict starting smoking and relapse, and appear to reduce smoking cessation. Due to the limited sample size within specific strata, the association with quitting smoking should be confirmed by larger prospective studies. These findings do not support the use of e-cigarettes and HTPs in tobacco control as a consumer product, at least in Italy.

Conflicts of Interest in the Assessment of Chemicals, Waste, and Pollution

Pollution by chemicals and waste impacts human and ecosystem health on regional, national, and global scales, resulting, together with climate change and biodiversity loss, in a triple planetary crisis. Consequently, in 2022, countries agreed to establish an intergovernmental science-policy panel (SPP) on chemicals, waste, and pollution prevention, complementary to the existing intergovernmental science-policy bodies on climate change and biodiversity. To ensure the SPP's success, it is imperative to protect it from conflicts of interest (COI). Here, we (i) define and review the implications of COI, and its relevance for the management of chemicals, waste, and pollution; (ii) summarize established tactics to manufacture doubt in favor of vested interests, i.e., to counter scientific evidence and/or to promote misleading narratives favorable to financial interests; and (iii) illustrate these with selected examples. This analysis leads to a review of arguments for and against chemical industry representation in the SPP's work. We further (iv) rebut an assertion voiced by some that the chemical industry should be directly involved in the panel's work because it possesses data on chemicals essential for the panel's activities. Finally, (v) we present steps that should be taken to prevent the detrimental impacts of COI in the work of the SPP. In particular, we propose to include an independent auditor's role in the SPP to ensure that participation and processes follow clear COI rules. Among others, the auditor should evaluate the content of the assessments produced to ensure unbiased representation of information that underpins the SPP's activities.

E-Cigarettes and the Multiple Responsibilities of the FDA

This paper considers the responsibilities of the FDA with regard to disseminating information about the benefits and harms of e-cigarettes. Tobacco harm reduction advocates claim that the FDA has been overcautious and has violated ethical obligations by failing to clearly communicate to the public that e-cigarettes are far less harmful than cigarettes. We argue, by contrast, that the FDA's obligations in this arena are more complex than they may appear at first blush. Though the FDA is accountable for informing the public about the health risks and benefits of products it regulates, it also has other roles (and attendant responsibilities) that inform when and how it should disseminate information. In addition to being a knowledge purveyor, it is also a knowledge producer, an advisor to the public, and a practical agent shaping the material conditions in which people make health-related choices. In our view, those other roles call for caution in the way the FDA interprets and communicates the available evidence.

Financial Conflicts of Interest and Stance on Tobacco Harm Reduction: A Systematic Review

Background. Tobacco companies have actively promoted the substitution of cigarettes with purportedly safer tobacco products (e.g., smokeless tobacco, e-cigarettes) as tobacco harm reduction (THR). Given the tobacco, e-cigarette, and pharmaceutical industries' substantial financial interests, we quantified industry influence on support for THR. Objectives. To analyze a comprehensive set of articles published in peer-reviewed journals assessing funding sources and support for or opposition to substitution of tobacco or nicotine products as harm reduction. Search Methods. We searched PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, and PsycINFO with a comprehensive search string including all articles, comments, and editorials published between January 1, 1992, and July 26, 2016. Selection Criteria. We included English-language publications published in peer-reviewed journals addressing THR in humans and excluded studies on modified cigarettes, on South Asian smokeless tobacco variants, on pregnant women, on animals, not mentioning a tobacco or nicotine product, on US Food and Drug Administration-approved nicotine replacement therapies, and on nicotine vaccines. Data Collection and Analysis. We double-coded all articles for article type; primary product type (e.g., snus, e-cigarettes); themes for and against THR; stance on THR; THR concepts; funding or affiliation with tobacco, e-cigarette, pharmaceutical industry, or multiple industries; and each author's country. We fit exact logistic regression models with stance on THR as the outcome (pro- vs anti-THR) and source of funding or industry affiliation as the predictor taking into account sparse data. Additional models included article type as the outcome (nonempirical or empirical) and industry funding or affiliation as predictor, and stratified analyses for empirical and nonempirical studies with stance on THR as outcome and funding source as predictor. Main Results. Searches retrieved 826 articles, including nonempirical articles (21%), letters or commentaries (34%), editorials (5%), cross-sectional studies (15%), systematic reviews and meta-analyses (3%), and randomized controlled trials (2%). Overall, 23.9% disclosed support by industry; 49% of articles endorsed THR, 42% opposed it, and 9% took neutral or mixed positions. Support from the e-cigarette industry (odds ratio [OR] = 20.9; 95% confidence interval [CI] = 5.3, 180.7), tobacco industry (OR = 59.4; 95% CI = 10.1, +infinity), or pharmaceutical industry (OR = 2.18; 95% CI = 1.3, 3.7) was significantly associated with supportive stance on THR in analyses accounting for sparse data. Authors' Conclusions. Non-industry-funded articles were evenly divided in stance, while industry-funded articles favored THR. Because of their quantity, letters and comments may influence perceptions of THR when empirical studies lack consensus. Public Health Implications. Public health practitioners and researchers need to account for industry funding when interpreting the evidence in THR debates.