Elsevier

Preventive Medicine

Volume 117, December 2018, Pages 88-97
Preventive Medicine

Managing nicotine without smoke to save lives now: Evidence for harm minimization

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ypmed.2018.06.010Get rights and content

Highlights

  • Harm reduction can both protect youth and speedily save millions of smokers lives.

  • Products that do not burn tobacco are substantially less harmful than deadly smoke.

  • E-cigarettes do help smoker's switch or quit smoking especially if used daily.

  • Youth use of e-cigarettes is experimental and not a gateway to lifetime smoking.

  • If over 10 years smokers switch to vaping then 6+ million deaths will be averted.

Abstract

Tobacco control has made strides in prevention and cessation, but deaths will not decline rapidly without massive behavior change. Currently, inhaled smoke from combusting tobacco is chiefly responsible for prematurely killing 7.2 million people worldwide and 530,000 in the United States annually. An array of noncombustible nicotine products (NNPs) has emerged and has disrupted the marketplace. Saving lives more speedily will require societal acceptance of locating a “sweet spot” within a three-dimensional framework where NNPs are simultaneously: 1. Less toxic, 2. Appealing (can reach smokers at scale), and 3. Satisfying (adequate nicotine delivery) to displace smoking. For this harm minimization framework to eliminate smoking, a laser focus on “smoking control” (not general tobacco control) is needed. By adopting these economically viable NNPs as part of the solution, NNPs can be smoking control's valued ally. Synthesis of the science indicates that policy and regulation can sufficiently protect youth while speeding the switch away from smoking. Despite some risks of nicotine dependence that can be mitigated but not eliminated, no credible evidence counters the assertion that NNPs will save lives if they displace smoking. But scientific evidence and advocacy has selectively exaggerated NNP harms over benefits. Accurate communication is crucial to dispel the misperception of NNPs harms and reassure smokers they can successfully replace smoking cigarettes with NNPs. Saving more lives now is an attainable and pragmatic way to call for alignment of all stakeholders and factions within traditional tobacco control rather than perpetuate the unrealized and unrealizable perfection of nicotine prohibition.

Introduction

We often attribute smoking's incredible toll on public health to tobacco products in general. However, the overwhelming majority of tobacco-related deaths are caused by inhaling lethal smoke chiefly from cigarettes as well as from all types of cigars, hookah, roll your own, pipes and bidis. In 2017, smoking prematurely killed over 7 million people worldwide.(World Health Organization, 2017) At this rate, over 1 billion premature deaths will accrue globally during the 21st century.(World Health Organization, 2008) In the United States (US), 530,000 smokers per year die prematurely, and about 16 million more smokers suffer debilitating chronic disease burdens (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 2017). Despite 50 years of concerted and successful tobacco control efforts to eliminate all tobacco products, the death caused by smoking persists at unacceptable levels (Abrams et al., 2015). Several endgame strategies have been proposed to stay the course, eliminate all tobacco use, and destroy the tobacco industry (Warner, 2013). The stay-the-course framework strives to protect non-users, especially youth at any costs, and also expects all smokers to quit in this Utopian vision of a world without nicotine. But the implementation of this endgame is slow, difficult to attain and remains unrealized.

There have been enormous changes in the tobacco and nicotine product landscape over the last decade, culminating in a fundamental re-thinking of the role of nicotine and tobacco in society. In July 2017, the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) announced a new national comprehensive nicotine management strategy: “The FDA agency's new tobacco strategy has two primary parts: reducing the addictiveness of combustible cigarettes while recognizing and clarifying the role that potentially less harmful tobacco products could play in improving public health…The availability of potentially less harmful tobacco products could reduce risk while delivering satisfying levels of nicotine for adults who still need or want it [emphasis added].” (Gottlieb and Zeller, 2017) (p.1). Strategies to reduce the addictiveness of combustible tobacco products are discussed in detail elsewhere (Benowitz and Fraiman, 2017; Benowitz et al., 2017), but it is important to note that the two parts are complementary. Reduced risk noncombustible nicotine products (NNPs) can provide smokers with an alternative source of enjoyable nicotine and preferably some time before introducing a product standard for reducing addictiveness in combustibles to accelerate a mass-migration away from smoked tobacco/cigarettes (Benowitz et al., 2017; Benowitz, 2017).

The last 10 years have witnessed other unprecedented changes in the nicotine and tobacco product marketplace (Abrams, 2014a). New innovations in electronic cigarettes, heat-not-burn tobacco products and other substantially less harmful products are emerging. The world has not seen such technology-driven disruption in nicotine delivery since the 1880’s, with the invention of the cigarette rolling machine (Abrams et al., 2015; Brandt, 2007).

Another recent development is the emergence of the new field of tobacco and nicotine regulatory science (Wipfli et al., 2017; Ashley et al., 2014), which focuses on research directly relevant to informing policy and regulation of tobacco and nicotine products. Regulation of tobacco-derived nicotine (both medicinal cessation therapy and consumer products for adult recreational use) by the US FDA (U.S. Food and Drug Administration, n.d.) is now a critical part of any reframing of nicotine and tobacco use in society. In 2018, Public Health England (PHE) (McNeill et al., 2018) and the US National Academies of Sciences, Engineering and Medicine (NASEM) (National Academies of Sciences Engineering, and Medicine, 2018) updated and synthesized the science base. There was increasing convergence in the science with some differences in emphasis derived from different predisposing ideological conviction (i.e., stay-the-course or harm reduction) in the interpretation of some of the scientific data. Warner summarized differences as being possibly driven more by emotion rather than rationality in his Doll-Winder Public Health Theme Address: How to Think - Not Feel - about Tobacco Harm Reduction (Warner, 2018).

Rapid technological innovation in the nicotine and tobacco product marketplace, the new regulatory climate, and the stronger science focus is on maximizing benefits and minimizing harms for public health at a population level.

A troubling divisiveness has emerged about rethinking the tobacco control framework. When disruptive change occurs, diffusion of innovation (theory about how new technologies spread) involves multiple streams of influence (e.g., Kingdon's model where policy, politics, and problem focus converge in a “window of opportunity” (Kingdon, 2003)). During the early stages of responding to disruption, hypothetical fears about unknown consequences abound, coupled with an instinctive resistance to changing course (Kuhn, 2012; Abrams and Niaura, 2015). Over 400 years ago, Sir Francis Bacon warned about divisiveness based on prior ideological beliefs of the types being experienced by the tobacco/nicotine community today: (Bacon, 1960)

“The human understanding when it has once adopted an opinion draws all things else to support and agree with it. And though there be a greater number and weight of instances to be found on the other side, yet these it either neglects and despises, or else by some distinction sets aside and rejects, in order that by this great and pernicious predetermination the authority of its former conclusion may remain inviolate.”

As scientific evidence accumulates, reason prevails over emotional attachment to prior preconceived ideology. Tobacco control's struggle with change is no different than in other fields.

Divisiveness and uncertainty aside, the opportunity lost by not changing course must also be considered. In light of the dramatic changes in the product landscape, by not taking some risks to speed the demise of deadly smoked tobacco, then worldwide over the next century the lives of a billion smokers are ultimately at stake. While all agree that saving lives from smoked tobacco is paramount, the tactics of how to move forward are unclear as long as the differences in the core underlying framework remain unresolved (McNeill et al., 2018; National Academies of Sciences Engineering, and Medicine, 2018). The deep question boils down to whether one can accept that NNPs are less harmful, can displace smoked tobacco and that the makers and marketers of NNPs can profit from a legal product provided they comply with reasonable rules of the road (e.g., are regulated, sell to adults only, do not sell or engage in marketing to underage youth). In the next sections we explore what specific frameworks and scientific evidence provide a roadmap for maximizing the benefits and minimizes the risks of NNPs.

Section snippets

Overview

In considering a new framework for harm minimization, some prior tobacco control strategies will be continued, others modified, and some abandoned as iatrogenic. For example, effective policies such as taxing cigarettes, smoke free indoor air laws and reimbursement of pharmacotherapies for cessation treatment would remain. But if smokers receive deceptive information about exaggerated NNP harms or that all products are harmful (absolute risk) without direct comparison to the much greater

Making a population impact: modeling state transitions to characterize benefits over harms

As stated previously, the core principle for the alignment of stakeholders is that regulatory, other strategies and tactics and communications are made proportional to the relative harms of each class of products and every NNP product is always compared with deadly smoking. The FDA's Center for Tobacco Products' public health standard implies an integrated consideration of product benefits and harms at the individual and population levels (including likelihoods of initiation and cessation).

Proactively communicating accurate, evidence-based information to the public

Public education must ensure consumers of nicotine containing products are accurately informed about differential harms compared to deadly smoking (relative risk) and not simply compared to no use (absolute risk) (Abrams et al., 2018). A related need is to sharpen the language describing similarities and differences between combustible and noncombustible tobacco and NNPs along the harm continuum. Because nicotine is primarily derived from the tobacco plant, legal definitions of tobacco products

Conclusions: reaffirming harm minimization and smoking control as the new tobacco control

Charting a new course in tobacco control via harm reduction must be seriously considered. Innovations in technology and accelerating adoption of NNPs have taken the “tobacco control” community, policymakers and cigarette companies by storm and surprise (Abrams, 2014a; Abrams et al., 2018). In many other areas, technological advances transform behaviors at the population level. New products consistently, although not always predictably, make old ones obsolete. In light of NNPs, which themselves

Disclosure statement

The authors are not aware of any affiliations, memberships, funding, or financial holdings that might be perceived as affecting the objectivity of this review.

Acknowledgments

ACV was supported by the Centers of Biomedical Research Excellence P20GM103644 award from the National Institute of General Medical Sciences. The content is solely the responsibility of the author and does not necessarily represent the official view of the National Institutes of Health.

References (145)

  • L. Kozlowski et al.

    Softening of monthly cigarette use in youth and the need to harden measures in surveillance

    Prev. Med. Rep.

    (2014)
  • L.T. Kozlowski et al.

    Withholding differential risk information on legal consumer nicotine/tobacco products: the public health ethics of health information quarantines

    Int. J. Drug Policy

    (2016)
  • L.T. Kozlowski et al.

    Adolescents and e-cigarettes: objects of concern may appear larger than they are

    Drug Alcohol Depend.

    (2017)
  • B.A. Majeed et al.

    Changing perceptions of harm of e-cigarettes among U.S. adults, 2012–2015

    Am. J. Prev. Med.

    (2017)
  • D.B. Abrams

    Promise and peril of e-cigarettes: can disruptive technology make cigarettes obsolete?

    JAMA

    (2014)
  • D.B. Abrams

    Potential and pitfalls of e-cigarettes—reply

    JAMA

    (2014)
  • D.B. Abrams et al.

    The importance of science-informed policy and what the data really tell us about e-cigarettes

    Isr J Health Policy Res.

    (2015)
  • D.B. Abrams et al.

    Cigarettes: the rise, decline but not the demise of the greatest behavioral health disaster of the 20th century

  • D.B. Abrams et al.

    Harm minimization and tobacco control: reframing societal views of nicotine use to rapidly save lives

    Annu. Rev. Public Health

    (2018)
  • K. Adriaens et al.

    Effectiveness of the electronic cigarette: an eight-week Flemish study with six-month follow-up on smoking reduction, craving and experienced benefits and complaints

    Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health

    (2014)
  • M.S. Amato et al.

    How to define e-cigarette prevalence? Finding clues in the use frequency distribution

    Tob. Control.

    (2016)
  • D.L. Ashley et al.

    Tobacco regulatory science: research to inform regulatory action at the Food and Drug Administration's Center for Tobacco Products

    Nicotine Tob. Res.

    (2014)
  • S. Babb et al.

    Quitting smoking among adults - United States, 2000–2015

    MMWR Morb. Mortal. Wkly Rep.

    (2017)
  • A.M. Bachand et al.

    Assessing the likelihood and magnitude of a population health benefit following the market introduction of a modified-risk tobacco product: enhancements to the dynamic population modeler, DPM(+1)

    Risk Anal.

    (2018)
  • F. Bacon

    The New Organon and Related Writings

    (1960)
  • K. Baicker et al.

    Evidence-based health policy

    N. Engl. J. Med.

    (2017)
  • J.L. Barrington-Trimis et al.

    E-cigarettes and future cigarette use

    Pediatrics

    (2016)
  • L. Bauld

    The Evidence Keeps Piling up: E-cigarettes are Definitely Safer than Smoking

  • E. Beard et al.

    New pharmacological agents to aid smoking cessation and tobacco harm reduction: what has been investigated, and what is in the pipeline?

    CNS drugs

    (2016)
  • N.L. Benowitz

    Re: Vaporised Nicotine Products Bill 2017. Letter to Senate Community Affairs Legislation Committee

    (2017)
  • N.L. Benowitz et al.

    Cardiovascular effects of electronic cigarettes

    Nat. Rev. Cardiol.

    (2017)
  • N.L. Benowitz et al.

    Reduced nicotine content cigarettes, e-cigarettes and the cigarette end game

    Addiction

    (2017)
  • L. Biener et al.

    A longitudinal study of electronic cigarette use among a population-based sample of adult smokers: association with smoking cessation and motivation to quit

    Nicotine Tob. Res.

    (2015)
  • M. Birge et al.

    What proportion of people who try one cigarette become daily smokers? A meta analysis of representative surveys

    Nicotine Tob. Res.

    (2017)
  • A.M. Brandt

    The Cigarette Century: The Rise, Fall, and Deadly Persistence of the Product that Defined America

    (2007)
  • J. Britton et al.

    Commentary on WHO Report on Electronic Nicotine Delivery Systems and Electronic Non-Nicotine Delivery Systems

  • L.S. Brose et al.

    Is the use of electronic cigarettes while smoking associated with smoking cessation attempts, cessation and reduced cigarette consumption? A survey with a 1-year follow-up

    Addiction

    (2015)
  • P. Caponnetto et al.

    EffiCiency and Safety of an eLectronic cigAreTte (ECLAT) as tobacco cigarettes substitute: a prospective 12-month randomized control design study

    PLoS One

    (2013)
  • R.S. Caraballo et al.

    Quit methods used by US adult cigarette smokers, 2014–2016

    Prev. Chronic Dis.

    (2017)
  • Centers for Disease Control and Prevention

    Smoking & Tobacco Use: Fast Facts - Diseases and Death

  • F.J. Chaloupka et al.

    Differential taxes for differential risks—toward reduced harm from nicotine-yielding products

    N. Engl. J. Med.

    (2015)
  • S.T. Cherng et al.

    Modeling the effects of e-cigarettes on smoking behavior: implications for future adult smoking prevalence

    Epidimiology

    (2016)
  • N.K. Cobb et al.

    The FDA, e-cigarettes, and the demise of combusted tobacco

    N. Engl. J. Med.

    (2014)
  • C.O. Cobb et al.

    Markov modeling to estimate the population impact of emerging tobacco products: a proof-of-concept study

    Tob. Regul. Sci.

    (2015)
  • S.M. Colby et al.

    Development and reliability of the lifetime interview on smoking trajectories

    Nicotine Tob. Res.

    (2012)
  • L.K. Collins et al.

    Frequency of youth e-cigarette, tobacco, and poly-use in the United States, 2015: update to Villanti et al., "frequency of youth e-cigarette and tobacco use patterns in the United States: measurement precision is critical to inform public health"

    Nicotine Tob. Res.

    (2017)
  • C.D. Delnevo et al.

    Patterns of electronic cigarette use among adults in the United States

    Nicotine Tob. Res.

    (2016)
  • E.C. Donny et al.

    Randomized trial of reduced-nicotine standards for cigarettes

    N. Engl. J. Med.

    (2015)
  • K. Fagerstrom et al.

    E-cigarettes: a disruptive technology that revolutionizes our field?

    Nicotine Tob. Res.

    (2015)
  • A.L. Fairchild et al.

    The renormalization of smoking? E-cigarettes and the tobacco "endgame"

    N. Engl. J. Med.

    (2014)
  • Cited by (69)

    • Risk perception of IQOS™ and cigarettes: Temporal and cross-country comparisons

      2022, SSM - Population Health
      Citation Excerpt :

      It is widely acknowledged that minimizing tobacco-related harm at the population level depends not only on the degree of risk reduction of smoke-free tobacco and nicotine products (TNP), such as heated tobacco products and e-cigarettes, but also on their adoption by adults who would otherwise continue to smoke (Abrams et al., 2018; Beaglehole et al., 2019; Smith et al., 2016).

    View all citing articles on Scopus
    View full text