Tag: British American Tobacco

SRNT Urged to Undo Industry Exclusion

David O’Reilly (Photo: BAT)
BAT has asked the board of directors of the Society for Research on Nicotine and Tobacco (SRNT) to reverse its decision to ban employees of the tobacco industry from attending the society’s annual conference in 2022.
“We share in SRNT’s stated commitments to the open dissemination of rigorous, peer-reviewed nicotine and tobacco science, with the ultimate goal of reducing public health impact of tobacco use,” wrote BAT Director of Scientific Research David O’Reilly in a letter to the SRNT.
“However, your recent exclusion of employees of the tobacco industry and the contributions of tobacco industry scientists to dialogue at the annual meeting is contrary to your code of conduct and guiding principles.”
Exclusion, O’Reilly noted, impedes “the generation and dissemination of new knowledge concerning nicotine and tobacco.” “In an FDA-regulated market, the industry must routinely provide FDA regulators with scientific evidence about its products. As a result, some of the best science in the tobacco and nicotine space is being generated from tobacco companies,” he wrote.
Exclusion also undercuts the SRNT’s commitment to “open science without bias,” “promoting scientific dialogue” and “empowering members to make their own informed decisions,” according to O’Reilly. “The board’s decision contradicts the evidence-based principles that underpin the U.S. policy approach, which prioritizes science, irrespective of the source,” O’Reilly wrote.
“In light of our concerns, we respectfully request that the SRNT board reconsider its decision and reaffirm that ‘SRNT is committed to nicotine and tobacco researchers around the world.’”
August 2, 2021
Clearing the Smoke

James Murphy (Photos: RAI)
Reynolds’ James Murphy discusses the challenges and
opportunities for tobacco harm reduction.
By Stefanie Rossel
In September 2020, James Murphy took over as executive vice president of research and development at Reynolds American Inc. (RAI), a subsidiary of British American Tobacco and the second-largest tobacco company in the U.S. Tobacco Reporter caught up with Murphy to discuss the challenges and opportunities he faces in his position.
Tobacco Reporter: Upon assuming your position, you conducted a poll among 2,000 U.S. consumers. What were the main findings, and what do you make of them?
James Murphy: We did a poll of 21-plus adults to examine issues related to tobacco harm reduction [THR] because it is an incredibly important priority for us. The results were consistent with other published research; there is confusion about whether innovative products—such as e-cigarettes—present less risk, and in particular, the role of nicotine as a cause of harm.
A similarly large proportion misunderstand nicotine as a cause of smoking-related diseases. Many adult smokers simply do not know that the toxicants generated from tobacco combustion—rather than nicotine or tobacco itself—is the leading cause of smoking-related health harm. Lack of information creates steep barriers for adult smokers to consider a switch to smoke-free tobacco and nicotine alternatives that are potentially less harmful to their health.
Misunderstandings about innovative alternative products, and nicotine itself, are a hurdle toward shared progress. The good news is that reducing harm from combustible tobacco products was considered an important public health priority by more than two-thirds—70 percent—of the adults we surveyed. Thus, there is strong public recognition of the need for innovative solutions to the harms caused by smoking.
This data underscores our commitment and focus on building productive working relationships with legislators and regulators around the country in pursuit of our common goal: reducing smoking rates, keeping tobacco products away from teenagers and ultimately reducing the harm from smoking in America.
Advertisement
Amid all restrictions on tobacco industry communications, what can the sector do to change consumers’ misperceptions on these issues and encourage smokers’ movement to less hazardous products?
This is a significant issue, and we are engaging with policymakers and legislators—many of whom share such misunderstandings—and the larger scientific and regulatory community. Misunderstanding of nicotine impairs harm reduction, and it must be addressed. As is well studied and understood, the toxicants from the combustion of tobacco drive smoking-related morbidity and mortality.
Yet behavioral research confirms consumer confusion on this point, and recent population-level data published by the Society for Research on Nicotine and Tobacco (SRNT) highlight that up to 80 percent of U.S. adults incorrectly believe that nicotine is responsible for most of the cancer caused by smoking.
Similarly, misunderstanding vapor and vapor flavors can lead to detrimental policies banning products, flavors and even categories of products, whose removal from market could create the unintended consequence of indirectly pushing adults and minors toward cigarettes. We saw this recently in the Yale School of Public Health study regarding San Francisco’s ban on flavored products, where the author found that it was associated with a significant increase in youth smoking there but not in other jurisdictions without the ban.
Regulatory policy should be based on the relative risks of tobacco products. We are committed advocates for a legislative and regulatory framework that recognizes the continuum of risk and includes risk-proportionate policies on taxation, public use and flavors and other aspects of the product that are important to encouraging adult smokers unwilling to quit to switch from cigarettes. Where regulation is based on scientific evidence and not opinion, public policy will benefit public health and contribute to better understandings of these important products.

RAI’s R&D center
During your recent presentation at the GTNF In Focus event, you hinted at the challenge of assessing the risk profiles of other next-generation products, such as modern oral nicotine, for which no epidemiological data are available yet. Can you elaborate?
The FDA is carefully vetting these products, and I have every confidence that their assessment is science-driven and made against the rigorous statutory standard of “appropriate for the protection of public health.” For newer products, such as THP and modern oral nicotine pouches, like vapor with less than a decade on the market, epidemiological data is still in progress.
In the absence of epidemiology, we use a weight-of-evidence approach comprised of laboratory, clinical and real-world population level studies. In our studies, we include both smokers and smokers who quit smoking as epidemiological gateposts and compare clinical and population outcomes for smokers who switch to the next-generation products (NGPs) against these two smoker statuses.
Consider snus usage in Sweden as a strong illustration of THR in action. Smokers have switched to using snus over several decades, and the country now has the lowest lung cancer rates in the whole of the EU. This epidemiological data is the cornerstone of substantiating the beneficial population health impacts of products like snus in countries like Sweden but also within the USA.
In studies we have conducted and published to date, we have demonstrated that users switching to NGPs have similar biological outcomes to smokers who quit. As quitting has known favorable epidemiological outcomes, we can bridge the switch to NGP to quitting and conclude that both will have similar epidemiological outcomes, which would benefit population health in the long run.
The FDA has announced plans to ban menthol as a characterizing flavor in combustible cigarettes and has suggested that the agency may also reduce the nicotine content in cigarettes. Do you consider such measures as a sufficient incentive for smokers to switch to less harmful alternatives? What else needs to be done?
My concern is that any risk-based product standards on cigarettes will lead to confusion in the marketplace. For example, if a menthol product standard is introduced, smokers might wrongly perceive nonmenthol cigarettes as less risky. We know already that the general population misperceives the risks of nicotine when administered in a combustible product versus a noncombustible product and that there are misperceptions regarding the relative risks of vaping compared to smoking. THR presents a better way of reducing the harms from combustible tobacco use. Today in the U.S., millions of smokers have switched to products like vapor or nicotine pouch products. I have spent my career focused on THR and believe we must enable the introduction of satisfying, reduced harm alternatives that will facilitate the switching of smokers down the risk continuum while at the same time ensuring that adequate safeguards are in place against youth usage.
The FDA has recently spoke of finding this “sweet spot,” and ideally, all stakeholders in the THR debate will collaborate to make that happen.

Advertisement
What are your current research priorities?
Topline, we’re focused on reducing the health impact of our business based on scientifically substantiated reduced-risk products. These products will improve public health and ensure we have a sustainable future. That means establishing and supporting the weight of scientific evidence that appropriately stewarded noncombustion tobacco and nicotine products manufactured to high-quality standards have a role in THR.
In the U.S., we believe that the FDA will play a key role with their stewardship of the PMTA process to ensure that products which are appropriate for the protection of public health remain on market. This regulatory verification will improve smokers’ confidence in these products and facilitate the mass migration of smokers down the risk continuum. There is a large and growing body of evidence—including from Reynolds’ scientists—to support the reduced-risk potential of these categories.
We take two approaches for assessing the risk profile of noncombustible products: if a product has robust epidemiological data, then that data is used as a basis for risk assessment, but for newer products, in the absence of epidemiology—such as THP, vapor and modern oral products—we use a three-stage assessment of emissions, exposure and risk.
Judging from the results of your poll and from recent FDA moves, such as the proposed ban on menthol and planned maximum, nonaddictive nicotine levels in combustible cigarettes, which direction is THR taking in the U.S.?
We believe our broad portfolio of alternatives to combustible cigarettes can accelerate the population-level health benefits supported by the Family Smoking Prevention and Tobacco Control Act and envisioned by the FDA in its consistent endorsement of a comprehensive nicotine regulatory framework.
Potentially less harmful products must be able to compete effectively with the most harmful products, thus moving smokers down the risk continuum of nicotine products. Vaping bans and high taxes on alternatives that may present less risk than cigarettes will not help us reduce the harm from cigarette smoking.

Advertisement
What are the gaps in THR science from your point of view?
The biggest gap in THR science is caused by an ongoing boycott by various scientific conferences to publicize and share the latest THR research. The recent news from SRNT banning the tobacco industry from future conferences is particularly disappointing. The largest U.S. scientific conference on nicotine and tobacco research banning industry scientists seems counterintuitive. Moreover, the learning process is not merely what we share, but what we can learn from others. Personally, some of the most valuable professional insights I have received were from other U.S.-based academics commenting on our research during SRNT poster sessions.
Science—particularly science that underpins such important public health goals—deserves to be debated on its merits, particularly when the science on those same products is under scientific review by the FDA.
There is room for more consistent methodologies to ensure the consistent assessment of products as there is sometimes conflicting data published on both sides of the THR debate. There is also a gap in evidence for assessing THR products in that we do not have epidemiological data for newer products like THP, vapor [and] modern oral, which have only been on market for five [years] to ten years. That data gap points to a need for agreed proxies to assess individual risk reduction, such as biomarkers of potential harm and quality-of-life measurements, and other real-world evidence which may play a role.
Stefanie Rossel is Tobacco Reporter’s editorial contributor. An experienced trade journalist, she combines sharp reporting skills with in-depth knowledge of the tobacco and vapor industries. Prior to joining Tobacco Reporter, Stefanie was editor-in-chief at Tobacco Journal International, where she worked for a decade. Fluent in English, German and French, Stefanie covers tobacco news around the world. She is based in Germany.

August 1, 2021
IQOS Pauses Expansion After Patent Ruling

Photo: Kuznietsov Dmitriy
Philip Morris USA has paused U.S. expansion of its IQOS heat-not-burn (HnB) cigarettes following an unfavorable U.S. International Trade Commission (ITC) ruling, reports The Winston-Salem Journal, citing the company’s second-quarter report.
In April 2020, British American Tobacco subsidiaries R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co., RAI Strategic Holdings and R.J. Reynolds Vapor Co. filed a patent infringement lawsuit against Philip Morris USA.
The complaint focuses on three HnB technology patents held by the company. An additional two patents are involved in a separate legal proceeding before the patent and trademark office.
In May, an ITC administrative law judge found that the IQOS system infringes two of the plaintiff’s patents and recommended imposition of a ban on the importation of the IQOS system.
On July 27, the ITC accepted review of the administrative law judge’s findings and recommendations on certain issues, including issues relating to the patent infringement claims and potential remedies, including a ban on the importation of the IQOS electronic device, Marlboro HeatSticks and component parts into the United States and on the sale of any such products previously imported into the United States.
The ITC’s ultimate order is subject to review by the U.S. Trade Representative and federal court. Due to this uncertainty, PM USA has delayed further expansion of IQOS and Marlboro HeatSticks.
IQOS is the only HnB product authorized for sale in the U.S., where it is sold by Altria. Last year, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration allowed the company to market IQOS as reducing consumers’ exposure to harmful chemicals found in cigarettes.
The IQOS products debuted in test markets in Atlanta, Georgia, in October 2019 and Richmond, Virginia, in November 2019.
During the second quarter, PM USA expanded retail distribution of Marlboro HeatSticks into the Triad and other metro areas of North Carolina as well as northern Virginia and Georgia.
The expansion contributed to Marlboro HeatSticks’ retail sales volume jumping by nearly 40 percent, including reaching a 0.8 percent market share for overall cigarettes in Atlanta as well as 0.5 percent in Charlotte.
July 30, 2021
BAT Invests in Bangladesh

Photo: Piotr Pawinski
BAT is investing BDT322 crore ($38 million) in its Savar, Bangladesh, factory to help meet growing demand from abroad, reports the Daily Star.
It’s the company’s second local investment in six months. In February, the cigarette manufacturer announced an investment of BDT192.50 crore to increase its manufacturing capacity.
Commercial operations at the plant are expected to start in October.
BAT Bangladesh in recent months sent products to China, the Maldives and other countries despite the challenges of the pandemic, according to company Secretary Azizur Rahman.
Net revenue from BAT’s Bangladeshi operations rose 25 percent to BDT3,841 crore. During the same period, its profits rose 43 percent to BDT862 crore.
Performance was driven by growth in volume offset by growth in operating expenses.
July 30, 2021
Growth in New Category Sales for BAT

Photo: BAT
BAT reported revenue of £12.18 billion ($16.89 billion) for the six months that ended June 30, down 0.8 percent (up 8.1 percent on an adjusted basis) from the comparable 2020 period. Revenue from new categories increased by more than 50 percent to £883 million. Profit from operations totaled £4.91 billion, down 3.7 percent (up 5.4 percent on an adjusted basis) from the comparable six months a year earlier.
“This has been an exciting period of growth in new categories, with new category constant currency revenue up by 50 percent in the first half,” said BAT CEO Jack Bowles in a statement. “We added 2.6 million consumers—our highest ever increase—to our noncombustible product consumer base to reach 16.1 million. This demonstrates our accelerating transformation driven by our multi-category portfolio, with continued key market share gains in all three new categories.
“We are building strong, global brands of the future with Vuse, Velo and Glo. These are underpinned by industry-leading multi-category consumer insights and science with increasing digitalization. We have invested a further incremental £346 million in the first half, funded by continued value growth from combustibles and expect to reach our £1 billion Quantum savings target 12 months early. We have now increased our savings target to £1.5 billion by 2022.
“Our rapid growth in new categories is driving significant scale benefits and 2021 is shaping up to be a pivotal year in our journey toward ‘A Better Tomorrow.’”
July 28, 2021
BAT Highlights Vuse’s Carbon Neutral Status
Photo: BAT
BAT’s Vuse e-cigarette celebrated its position as the first global carbon neutral vape brand with a carbon neutral voyage down the Thames in London, home of BAT’s global headquarters.
The event was organized to underscore Vuse’s commitment to carbon neutrality and its various supporting initiatives. For instance, in utilizing substantial sea freight as part of its global supply chain, BAT aims to move the majority of Vuse’s global shipments by sea freight by the end of next year.
“I am proud of the way that Vuse is playing its part in delivering ‘A Better Tomorrow’ by reducing its impact on the environment,” said Kingsley Wheaton, chief marketing officer at BAT, in a statement.
“Vuse is a leading global brand with ever-increasing scale, which allows us to drive global supply chain efficiencies and effectiveness. I am delighted that, in Vuse, we are demonstrating the kind of purposeful behavior expected from leading brands of the world. This commitment will play a part in our vision of ‘A Better Tomorrow’ becoming a reality.”
Research conducted on behalf of BAT’s R.J. Reynolds Vapor Co. subsidiary found that nearly half (46 percent) of consumers said they would prefer using a vapor product from a company that was successful in becoming carbon neutral. A brand’s environmental priorities and impact are increasingly important to consumers in considering their purchasing choices, with nearly a third of consumers broadly viewing a brand more favorably based on their environmental initiatives, according to Reynolds.
Vuse’s carbon neutrality status and ambition to increase sea freight is part of BAT’s bigger ambition to become an environmentally sustainable vape brand with initiatives including:
An ambition to transport the majority of international shipments by sea by the end of 2022 and 100 percent of its consumable pods by the end of 2023
A global device and pod collection scheme; through the “Drop the Pod” campaign, approximately 200,000 pods were collected since the start of the pilot in 2020
Cutting single use plastics from packaging; the “Cut the Wrap” campaign has saved 100 tons of plastic, or the equivalent of 4 million plastic bottles, in 2020
BAT’s sustainability efforts and commitment have received notable independent recognition. These include appearing in the Dow Jones Sustainability Indices for 19 consecutive years (the only tobacco company to be listed in the prestigious World Index in 2020), a MSCI rating of BBB and CDP A-List status for climate change.
July 23, 2021
Call for Inquiry into Illicit Tobacco Market

Photo: Tobacco Reporter archive
British American Tobacco has called for an inquiry into South Africa’s tobacco market following a new report showing surging sales of illicit cigarettes.
The number of shops selling illegal cigarettes in the Eastern Cape has more than doubled in the four months since the last time results were released, according to a recent Ipsos report. In KwaZulu-Natal, the rate has shot up by one-third. Two out of three shops in the hotspot provinces of Free State, Gauteng and Western Cape sell illegal cigarettes, and illegal cigarettes are on sale in nearly half (41 percent) of all shops nationwide.
Five times as many outlets on petrol forecourts now sell illegal cigarettes since the last time results were released, according to BAT. Illegal cigarettes are being sold for as little as ZAR6 ($0.42) per pack, a fraction of the Minimum Collectible Tax (MCT) rate of ZAR21.60 per pack of 20.
“This research is damning proof that authorities have failed to bring South Africa’s colossal criminal market in cigarettes under control,” said BATSA General Manager Johnny Moloto in a statement. “Tax-evading manufacturers who exploited last year’s lockdown ban are now running rampant and costing South Africans huge sums of money at a time when every cent is a lifesaver. It is nothing short of a national emergency that demands a full-scale inquiry into the whole industry.”
According to BAT, brands owned or licensed by members of the Fair-Trade Independent Tobacco Association feature prominently on the black market. The FITA in the past has rejected suggestions that its members are involved in the illicit trade.
The latest Ipsos fieldwork was carried out from June 15–22, 2021, and follows similar studies in March and February of this year.
Moloto urged the government to introduce of a minimum retail sales price of ZAR28 for a pack of 20, ratify the World Health Organization’s illicit trade protocol and introduce a track-and-trace system, among other measures to fight the illegal cigarette trade.
July 7, 2021
Study Confirms HnB Harm Reduction
Photo: BAT
New research published today in Internal and Emergency Medicine provides the first real-world evidence that people switching from cigarettes to exclusive use of glo, BAT’s flagship tobacco-heating product (THP), can significantly reduce their exposure to certain toxicants and indicators of potential harm related to several smoking-related diseases compared with continuing to smoke.
The results, recorded at six months of a 12-month study, showed that switching completely to glo resulted in statistically significant changes across a range of “biomarkers of exposure” (BoE) and indicators of potential harm, known as “biomarkers of potential harm” (BoPH), compared with continuing to smoke.
For most biomarkers measured, the reductions seen in people using glo were similar to those in participants who stopped smoking completely.
Based on the toxicants measured, glo users showed a:
Significant reduction in a biomarker for lung cancer risk;
Significant reduction in white blood cell count, an inflammatory marker indicative of cardiovascular disease (CVD) risk and other smoking-related diseases;
Improvement in HDL cholesterol associated with reduced risk of CVD;
Improvements in two key indicators of lung health; and
Improvement in a key indicator of oxidative stress, a process implicated in several smoking-related diseases, such as CVD and hypertension.
“These are exciting results as they allow us to understand the potential for reduction of risk that switching completely to glo can deliver,” said David O’Reilly, director of scientific research at BAT, in a statement. “The study shows that smokers switching to glo can reduce their exposure to certain toxicants, which reduces their risk of developing certain smoking-related diseases.
“To have shown a significant reduction in measures of BoPH, some comparable to quitting completely, is very encouraging and provides further scientific substantiation of the harm reduction potential of glo and how it supports our ambition to build ‘A Better Tomorrow’ by reducing the health impact of our business.”
Read more about BAT’s glo trial in Tobacco Reporter’s July 2021 issue.
July 1, 2021
Milestone Study

Photos: BAT
A long-term, randomized, controlled trial of BAT’s glo tobacco-heating product lends credibility to the harm reduction potential of the entire category.
By Oliver Porritt
A landmark new clinical study has shown that the health risks of cigarette smoking may be reduced in smokers who completely switch to using tobacco-heating products (THPs).
The research, carried out by BAT, analyzed the changes in a range of biomarkers of exposure (BoE) and biomarkers of potential harm (BoPH). These biomarkers are linked to oxidative stress, cardiovascular and respiratory diseases and cancer, and they were used to compare the potential long-term effects of smoking cigarettes versus THPs and cessation.
Published in the Journal Internal and Emergency Medicine, the results suggest that smokers who switch from cigarettes to exclusive use of BAT’s flagship THP, glo, may benefit from a similar reduction in the risk of developing a number of smoking-related diseases as those who stopped smoking entirely.
To find out more about the study and its implications, Tobacco Reporter caught up with BAT’s director of scientific research, David O’Reilly, whose team led the work.

Advertisement
Speaking from Liverpool, where he was attending this year’s Global Forum on Nicotine (GFN), O’Reilly said the paper represented a significant moment for both his company and the product category as a whole. “This is a milestone event because this groundbreaking study is the first time the world has seen a successful long-term, randomized, controlled trial of any tobacco-heating product. Until now, no one else has been able to demonstrate over a sustained period that when you switch from cigarette smoking to exclusive use of a THP like glo, the biomarkers of potential harm are reduced to levels similar to that of cessation. This study was long in the planning, and it required careful execution, but when we reviewed the results, we were delighted,” said O’Reilly.
“The biomarkers of exposure go down rapidly, so we weren’t expecting to see any substantial improvements between the positive results we published in an earlier paper, featuring our three-month data, and what we found at six months. But with BoPH, you need to conduct longer studies for beneficial changes to occur. That’s why the six-month data was more important to us than either the three month or even the twelve month time slots. In fact, we aren’t really expecting it to change significantly beyond this point. By the time you get to six months, the cohorts have stabilized in their BoPH. We would anticipate that the 12-month data will provide further validation of this set of results, but the halfway point is therefore absolutely pivotal in this year-long study, and we are very pleased with what we’ve seen,” O’Reilly noted.

While this study focused on our flagship THP, glo, we would be the first to say that this research also importantly supports the category of tobacco-heating products as a whole.
David O’Reilly, director of scientific research, BAT
“Every one of the studies we’ve done on glo, and indeed the work we’ve carried out on our other platforms, is important because they all add to the evidence base for these products, further demonstrating that, while they are not risk-free and are addictive, they are reduced risk if individuals quit smoking and move to them completely. But some types of evidence carry more weight than others, and a long-term, clinical, randomized, controlled study assessing BoPH carries a lot of weight indeed.
“I think this study, along with many others that we and others have published, also adds to the evidence that tobacco harm reduction should be adopted as a tobacco control and public health policy because it’s likely to contribute to the reduction in morbidity and mortality from cigarette smoking.”
He added, “This has been a very successful project, but we have also learned a lot of things that we’ll take into our upcoming studies. Over the next three years, we have around 30 clinical trials planned, and we anticipate that in the future these could be executed in a shorter time period. This is really important because the sooner we obtain this kind of data, the sooner we can engage with external stakeholders and give governments and consumers the confidence that for smokers who would otherwise continue to smoke, switching to these products is a positive thing to do.”

This clinical study was carried out at four sites in the U.K. (Belfast, London, Leeds and Merthyr Tydfil). The participants were healthy smokers or never-smokers of both sexes, aged 23–55, who could go about their day-to-day lives, visiting a clinic just once a month for samples, including blood and urine, to be collected.
The volunteer smokers who did not want to quit were randomly selected to either continue smoking their usual brand of cigarettes or switch to the exclusive use of glo for the duration of the study. A control group of smokers who did want to quit smoking was offered nicotine-replacement therapy (NRT) and/or varenicline provision if requested, together with cessation counselling, while the never-smokers acted as a control. Across these four groups, a total of 339 participants completed the study to six months.
Various BoE and BoPH were assessed at baseline and monthly up to 180 days (six months), and this paper presents the results at the halfway point of the full 12-month study. The use of BoPH, in particular, gives researchers the ability to assess the potential health risks of novel tobacco products in the absence of long-term epidemiological evidence. These newer products have simply not been around long enough to evaluate their impact on clinical outcomes such as cancer, cardiovascular disease and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. These are conditions that can take decades to develop, but BoPH can provide crucial indicators for these events. Indeed, according to the Institute of Medicine’s 2001 report Clearing the Smoke, BoPH are defined as the “measurement of an effect due to exposure; these include early biological effects, alterations in morphology, structure or function, and clinical symptoms consistent with harm.”
The data from this study show that while the BoE and BoPH remained stable between baseline and six months for the group who continued to smoke, the levels of most BoE reduced significantly for the users of glo, becoming similar to those of the control groups who abstained from cigarette smoking.
More importantly, for those participants who exclusively switched to glo, the following BoPH also saw a favorable change versus continued cigarette smoking: HDL, WBC, FEV1%pred, sICAM, 11-dTx B2, 8-epi-PGF, FeNO and NNAL, and, with the exception of FeNO and NNAL, these changes were comparable to cessation.

Advertisement
To make sure these results were both reliable and meaningful, the team at BAT told participants about the importance of exclusively using the products they had been assigned, for both the cigarette and glo groups, or abstaining from any nicotine products, other than NRT, in the quitting or never-smoker cohorts. But to ensure the glo users were not smoking cigarettes during the study, the clinics also measured a compound called CEVal. This is a hemoglobin adduct of acrylonitrile (N(2cyanoethyl) valine and, as it is only found in cigarette smoke, O’Reilly says it proved to be a very useful biomarker of compliance.

“In these longer-term studies,” he said, “one of the main challenges has always been knowing whether or not the smokers who have either quit smoking or switched to your test product are compliant because if they’re not, it dilutes the effect of switching in the study and the potential long-term harm reduction associated with switching. To encourage smokers to switch to noncombustible products, you need to have really reliable clinical evidence showing that a complete switch is likely to reduce the risks of developing smoking-related diseases as long as they successfully stay with the product and don’t return to smoking.
“So another breakthrough of this study is the fact we can now use CEVal to ensure compliance among our study participants. Indeed, more people were compliant in this study than we expected, and it is possible that was at least partly down to the fact they were told we would be using CEVal. So going forward, we think CEVal is a really useful tool that we are contributing to the scientific community, and we would recommend others to use it in their future studies to ensure compliance.”

Advertisement
O’Reilly also said that while this study’s findings were an important step forward, they represented just one aspect of BAT’s stated ambition to build “A Better Tomorrow.” “Our purpose is to reduce the health impact of our business,” he said, “and we are doing that with our product portfolio transformation. So, while this study is part of a broader evidence base for glo, at the same time we’re publishing studies relating to our vaping product, Vuse, and our modern oral product, Velo.
“And while this study focused on our flagship THP, glo, we would be the first to say that this research also importantly supports the category of tobacco-heating products as a whole, and when we’ve completed similar studies on Velo and Vuse, those bodies of evidence will support each of the categories of vaping and modern oral. It’s a really important philosophy at BAT that we build trust in these categories, and that’s not just for our products and brands. With all the current transformation in the tobacco and nicotine landscape, perceptions are changing, but there’s still a long way to go. So I think the fact this study should not just be about one product, but the whole category, is a really important message.”

Oliver Porritt is freelance editorial contributor to Tobacco Reporter. Previously, he worked in the science communications department at BAT.
July 1, 2021
BAT: Modern Oral Comparable to NRT
New research published today indicates that BAT’s modern oral products in the form of tobacco-free nicotine pouches have a toxicant profile that is comparable to nicotine-replacement therapies (NRTs) and much lower than traditional oral snus, a category of products that when used as the sole nicotine product is already established as a reduced-risk product compared with cigarettes.
The study, published in Drug and Chemical Toxicology, analyzed four variants of one of BAT’s modern oral nicotine pouch products Lyft+, three snus products, and two different NRT products in a lozenge and a gum format. Each of these products was tested for a range of known harmful and potentially harmful constituents.
The results showed that the modern oral products had a comparable toxicant profile to NRTs, which are currently considered to be the least risky of all nicotine products. The study also estimated that users of the studied modern oral products are likely to be exposed to far fewer and significantly lower levels of toxicants than those who use snus.
According to BAT, the findings suggest that modern oral products, such as Lyft and Velo, should be placed close to NRTs at the lowest exposure end of the nicotine product toxicant delivery continuum.
“These results add to the growing body of evidence to support the reduced-risk potential of modern oral products compared to continuing to smoke,” said Aaron Williams, head of science and R&D, in a statement.
These results add to the growing body of evidence to support the reduced-risk potential of modern oral products compared to continuing to smoke.
Aaron Williams, head of science and R&D, BAT
“They provide important new evidence to support the role of modern oral products in tobacco harm reduction by demonstrating that they have far fewer and much lower levels of toxicants compared with cigarette smoke and even compared with Swedish-style snus, which is already well established as a reduced-risk product when used as the sole nicotine product.
“This means smokers looking for an alternative nicotine product have another alternative offering greatly reduced exposure to toxicants that comes in an oral format that some may find convenient and easy to use.”
June 16, 2021