Conflicts of interest in e-cigarette research: A public good and public interest perspective

Development processes for e-cigarette public health recommendations lacked transparency in managing conflicts of interest

OBJECTIVES

To investigate how guideline development groups collect and manage conflicts of interest (COI) when producing electronic cigarette (e-cigarette) recommendations.

STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING

Public health bodies that had produced e-cigarette recommendations were identified from four purposively selected jurisdictions (World Health Organization, United Kingdom, Australia, and United States). We analysed their COI policies and conducted 15 interviews with guideline methodologists, policymakers, and academics in guideline development groups.

RESULTS

Only five of 10 public health bodies had a publicly available COI policy. Participants discussed the importance of those involved in the development process declaring COI. However, there were differences in who had to report COI, the time period asked about, and what and how declarations are made. COI policies and participants discussed a range of approaches for managing COI, from limiting involvement to disqualification from the recommendation development process. Participants considered the current processes for collecting and managing COI insufficient due to their open interpretation and possibility for partial declarations of interest.

CONCLUSION

The management of COI varies across public health bodies, with little standardization and lack of transparency. To improve the collection and management of COI, and ultimately increase the trustworthiness of recommendations, guideline development groups should draw upon a comprehensive and accessible COI policy.

Analysis of mainstream emissions, secondhand emissions and the environmental impact of IQOS waste: a systematic review on IQOS that accounts for data source

OBJECTIVE

To highlight the general features of IQOS literature focusing on the chemical analysis of IQOS emissions.

DATA SOURCES

PubMed, Web of Science and Scopus databases were searched on 8 November 2021 using the terms 'heated tobacco product', 'heat-not-burn', 'IQOS' and 'tobacco heating system' with time restriction (2010-2021). The search yielded 5480 records.

STUDY SELECTION

Relevant publications on topics related to IQOS assessment were retrieved (n=341). Two reviewers worked separately and reached agreement by consensus.

DATA EXTRACTION

Data on author affiliation and funding, article type and date of publication were extracted. Publications were categorised depending on their focus and outcomes. Data on IQOS emissions from the chemical analysis category were extracted.

DATA SYNTHESIS

Of the included publications, 25% were published by Philip Morris International (PMI) affiliates or PMI-funded studies. PMI-sponsored publications on emissions, toxicology assessments and health effects were comparable in number to those reported by independent research, in contrast to publications on IQOS use, market trends and regulation. Data on nicotine yield, carbonyl emissions, other mainstream emissions, secondhand emissions and IQOS waste were compared between data sources to highlight agreement or disagreement between PMI-sponsored and independent research.

CONCLUSIONS

Our analysis showed agreement between the data sources on nicotine yield from IQOS under the same puffing conditions. Also, both sources agreed that IQOS emits significantly reduced levels of some emissions compared with combustible cigarettes. However, independent studies and examination of PMI's data showed significant increases in other emissions from and beyond the Food and Drug Administration's harmful and potentially harmful constituents list.

Where Does Open Science Lead Us During a Pandemic? A Public Good Argument to Prioritize Rights in the Open Commons

During the 2020 COVID-19 pandemic, open science has become central to experimental, public health, and clinical responses across the globe. Open science (OS) is described as an open commons, in which a right to science renders all possible scientific data for everyone to access and use. In this common space, capitalist platforms now provide many essential services and are taking the lead in public health activities. These neoliberal businesses, however, have a problematic role in the capture of public goods. This paper argues that the open commons is a community of rights, consisting of people and institutions whose interests mutually support the public good. If OS is a cornerstone of public health, then reaffirming the public good is its overriding purpose, and unethical platforms ought to be excluded from the commons and its benefits.