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

Abstract

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.

Human Biomarker Exposure From Cigarettes Versus Novel Heat-Not-Burn Devices: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

“…47,48 reduction. 49 Post-marketing surveillance of the spread and uptake of HNB devices is also needed to identify key population groups exposed to these devices such as adolescents, who may have altered pharmacokinetic profiles for HPHCs compared to the adult participants in this review. Adverse event data was also minimal in these studies due to the short duration of exposure, and long-term safety data would need to include comparative adverse event profiles between HNB and conventional tobacco products.…”

Association between financial links to indoor tanning industry and conclusions of published studies on indoor tanning: systematic review

“…More than 20 years ago, scientists documented that affiliation of authors with the tobacco industry was highly associated (odds ratio 88.4) with a conclusion that passive smoking is not harmful, even after control for article quality, peer review status, article topic, and year of publication 26. A recent systematic review reached a similar conclusion when examining conflicts of interest in the tobacco harm reduction literature (use of e-cigarettes, smokeless tobacco, etc), which found that 80.9% of articles funded by the tobacco industry endorsed these alternatives, compared with only 41.1% of non-industry funded articles 23. A study by Kearns et al showed the sugar industry’s role in downplaying the importance of sugar as a cause of coronary heart disease, as well as the sugar industry’s failure to disclose its role in funding high impact research on the topic 2728.…”

“…Examples of studies included in each category with relevant quotes are shown in appendix 2. Other studies have used this method for systematic reviews examining mixed sets of article types to assess article stance—for example, a recent systematic review examining conflicts of interest in the tobacco harm reduction literature 23…”

The cardiovascular effects of electronic cigarettes: A systematic review of experimental studies

“…Whilst disclosing conflicts of interest is good practice, it does not negate the influence of said conflict, as even acknowledged financial support appears to influence outcomes. 114,115 In the light of such findings, the British Medical Journal, American Thoracic Society, Tobacco Control and PLOS Medicine have already decided they will not publish tobacco industry-funded research. 116…”