Tag: PMTA

  • Perception and Intention Studies

    Perception and Intention Studies

    Photo: Darya Petrenko | Dreamstime.com

    The most confusing part of an FDA application explained

    By Cheryl K. Olson

    In October 2020, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration’s (FDA) Center for Tobacco Products issued draft guidance sharing “current thinking” about “principles for designing and conducting tobacco product perception and intention studies.” As a researcher, I raise a glass in celebration. Unlike toxicology, behavioral science is fuzzy and subject to interpretation. We need signposts to follow.

    The guidance applies to premarket tobacco product applications (PMTA), modified-risk tobacco product (MRTP) applications and substantial equivalence reports. If you understand why and how to do tobacco product perception and intention (TPPI) research, your application is more likely to be approved. Let’s stroll through the guidance, highlighting key points and noting ways to put the FDA’s suggestions into action.

    Why TPPI?

    Behavioral research is one type of evidence the FDA uses to decide if a new tobacco product is “appropriate for the protection of public health.” As the guidance notes, perceptions refers to “beliefs, attitudes, judgments and expectancies” about a tobacco product. In other words, how do you—a tobacco user or nonuser—understand what the label says, what the risks are or who this product is meant for?

    Why do we ask about intentions? As the guidance says, “intentions to use tobacco products may help predict future tobacco use behavior,” especially near-future actions. The FDA wants to know whether smokers will switch to your smokeless, electronic nicotine-delivery system (ENDS) or heat-not-burn product (a good thing) and whether nonsmokers or former smokers will take it up (a bad thing). But it’s seldom practical or affordable to follow people around to watch what they do or to survey them repeatedly.

    So, we fall back on measuring behavioral intentions as the next best thing. We compare smokers intending to quit—now or within the next six months—to smokers with no plans to quit. We measure whether smokers’ quit intentions change after reading about your product and seeing pictures of your packaging or advertising. 

    Advertisement

    TPPI study aims: your essential roadmap

    “[The] FDA recommends that you develop TPPI study aims (the overall goals of the study) prior to conducting the study.” This step is not a nice-to-have; it’s essential. Defining the aims of your study and turning them into answerable research questions creates a roadmap for everything you do. Just as important, study aims tell you what not to pay attention to. If you skip this step, you’ll end up wading through confusing piles of data, perhaps shoveling it all into your application and hoping the FDA can make sense of it.  

    As you write your survey questions, figure out your sample quotas and review your data tables, you will periodically get lost in the details and need a touchpoint. Referring to your study aims will reorient you and keep you moving in the right direction.

    Here’s another way to look at study aims. What product story do you want to tell the FDA? There are some research questions all PMTAs need to address, such as perceptions of risk (more on that later). Others will be specific to your product and your story.

    Perhaps your smokeless product appeals more to a particular group, such as female or lower income smokers, than competing products do; your story includes addressing the needs of that underserved group of smokers. Or your high-nicotine vape product is “appropriate for the protection of public health” in part because it attracts heavily nicotine-dependent smokers who, to use FDA-speak, perceive it as an acceptable substitute for cigarettes. If your less-toxic tobacco product appeals to smokers not intending to quit—who are discouraged or unmotivated—that’s a further public health win. If your product and its various flavors do not appeal disproportionately to youth or you have a solid method of restricting youth access, say so.

    From market research or conversations with customers, you might have a good idea of your story. But to tell that story to the FDA, you must design research questions and collect data to support it.

    Advertisement

    Study types (qualitative or quantitative) and methods

    Are you telling your story with words or numbers? When you don’t know a lot about perceptions and intentions (say, a new product or target population), start with focus groups or individual interviews. But qualitative doesn’t equal free-form; a structured set of questions, an unbiased interviewer and an analysis plan are a must if the FDA is going to take you seriously.

    Some research questions might be answered with experimental studies. For example, you could test effects of new labeling by seeing how subjects randomly assigned to view that labeling answer questions about product perceptions differently than a control group. Another option is an observational study: for example, watching a subject follow directions to operate or charge a new vaping device without prompting from researchers.

    Often, your behavioral research aims can be met entirely through cross-sectional quantitative studies: one-time surveys of people who’ve used your product and people who haven’t.

    You can get some of the benefits of a qualitative study by adding open-ended questions to your multiple-choice survey. Let’s say you’re surveying users of Vape A. You ask, “Why did you choose to try Vape A? (Select all that apply).” You then invite those who clicked on “To help me quit smoking cigarettes” to “Please tell us more about your experience using Vape A to cut down or quit.” This offers two benefits: It helps you better understand how people use Vape A. And, when paired with solid numbers, user quotes help make your case to FDA reviewers that Vape A deserves a spot on that continuum of risk.

    Study measures

    Your best bet is to adapt questions from research published in academic journals, especially studies by authors who work for the FDA or other government health agencies. Next best are validated measures from the industry—for example, Philip Morris International has tested questions on addiction and health risk perceptions. Note that your questions need to “be written or adapted in a manner that specifically refers to the product (by name) that is the subject of the study.”

    Perception questions should include risks to health and risk of addiction asked in several ways: the absolute risk of using your product; the relative risk as compared to other products in the category as well as cigarettes, nicotine-replacement therapies and no tobacco use; and the effects of dual use (health risks of sticking with smoking, partly substituting your product or switching completely). A good question will be direct, specific and unambiguous: Ask about perceived personal risk of specific types of serious illnesses or earlier death from using Vape A not generically about harm to health.

    Behavior intention questions include intent to buy, try, use or stop use of your product. Detailed questions, such as intent to partially or completely replace cigarettes with Vape A, are best left to surveys of Vape A users; it’s too much guesswork for people new to the product. (The guidance doesn’t cover “actual use” studies, but don’t forget to ask your customers about monthly and daily use, reasons for use and use situations.)

    Advertisement

    Participant sampling and recruitment

    Now that you know what to ask … who do you ask, and where do you find them?

    For the who part, you need a sampling plan and eligibility criteria. You want to show that Vape A appeals to intended users (smokers or users of other tobacco products) and not to unintended users (nontobacco users and former users, especially youth). Your sampling plan might call for equal numbers of smokers intending to quit, smokers not intending to quit, never-smokers and former smokers—making sure to include a disproportionate number of young adults and a minimum number of people with vaping experience.

    Eligibility criteria can be tricky; check the published research. For example, a “never-smoker” is often defined as someone who has smoked fewer than 100 cigarettes in their lifetime!

    As to the where … the FDA is open to a variety of modes of data collection (e.g., online, phone, in person) and subject recruitment methods (such as online panels and random-digit dialing). All methods will introduce some bias; online panels may have fewer low-literacy participants, for example. Have a scientific justification for the approach you choose. And phrase your screening questions carefully, so online panel members who just want the dollars can’t guess the “right” answers to join.

    Common TPPI mistakes

     

    • Not documenting your research methods (e.g., survey response rates, how you recruited)
    • Biased recruiting; for example, if you offer product coupons as an incentive to fill out your survey, people who don’t like your product won’t respond, and your study sample won’t be representative of the larger population. Use neutral incentives (like a choice of retailer gift cards).
    • Not enough people in your study—this might be a too-small total sample size or not enough members of important subgroups to detect between-group differences (e.g., women versus men).
    • Unclear questions or incomplete response options: Prevent confusion by pre-testing your survey with individuals from your target groups (including less-educated folks).
    • Generic questions—the FDA doesn’t want general perceptions of vapes or snus. They need to draw conclusions about your product, including any flavor or strength options.
    • Not protecting privacy of research subjects—document your “adequate procedures for human subjects protection;” that is, their “rights, safety and welfare.”
    • Treating TPPI studies like market research—the FDA asks that companies “select appropriate study personnel for TPPI studies … who have sufficient formal education, training and experience in conducting social or behavioral science research to ensure the study is designed or conducted appropriately.” Translation: We want to hear from academics like us who speak our lingo.
  • FDA Accepts Bantam Vape PMTA

    FDA Accepts Bantam Vape PMTA

    Photo: Bantam Vape

    The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has accepted the premarket tobacco product application (PMTA) submitted on Sept. 2, 2020, by Bantam Vape, a supplier of e-liquids based in North Carolina, USA.

    The filing letter signifies completion of FDA’s preliminary review of Bantam’s PMTA and the progression of its application into the formal substantive review phase. During this phase, FDA will conduct an in-depth evaluation of the scientific studies and other materials submitted in conjunction with Bantam’s application.

    “Bantam is pleased its PMTA has been formally filed and will be entering the scientific review phase of this process,” said Bantam spokesperson Anthony Dillon in a statement.

    “Bantam looks forward to engaging with FDA as it reviews the submission and scientific research provided in support of the filing. Bantam’s goal has always been to provide consumers with high-quality, science-based e-liquid products that can be enjoyed for years to come. News of the filing brings Bantam one step closer to reaching that goal.”

  • FDA Outlines Steps After PMTA deadline

    FDA Outlines Steps After PMTA deadline

    The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has outlined the next steps for products with a submitted premarket tobacco product application (PMTA) now that the Sept. 9 deadline has passed.
     
    According to the FDA, the process will consist of three phases. Phase one is acceptance of the application. Phase two is notification or filing, and phase three consists of review and action. The FDA website notes that “the PMTA process also includes a fourth phase for post-market reporting.”
     
    The FDA plans to prioritize enforcement against electronic nicotine-delivery system (ENDS) products that are still being sold and that don’t have PMTAs submitted as well as any other “deemed new tobacco product” that does not have a submitted PMTA.
     
    The FDA will not enforce the premarket review requirement for premium cigars.

  • Marketing Authorization Requested for Bidi Stick

    Marketing Authorization Requested for Bidi Stick

    Photo: Kaival Brands Innovation Group

    Bidi Vapor has submitted a premarket tobacco product application (PMTA) to the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for its Bidi Stick, according to Kaival Brands Innovations Group, the exclusive worldwide distributor of the Bidi Stick.
     
    The application details 11 flavored varieties with nicotine concentrations of 6 percent weight/volume as part of the company’s proprietary e-liquid formulation.
     
    Bidi Vapor’s application runs more than 285,000 pages, providing science-based evidence demonstrating that Bidi Sticks are “appropriate for the protection of public health.” The applications further support the public need to provide options to adult smokers of combustible tobacco products.
     
    “Both Kaival Brands and Bidi Vapor fully support proper regulation of the category so that all ENDS products meet the highest manufacturing, safety and marketing standards for adult smokers, with the ultimate goal of improving the public health,” said Niraj Patel, president and CEO of Kaival Brands. “We look forward to working with Bidi Vapor as they work with the FDA to construct its regulatory policy based on science and facts.”
     

  • FDA Accepts PMTA from AMV Holdings

    FDA Accepts PMTA from AMV Holdings

    Photo: Tobacco Reporter archive

    The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has accepted a premarket tobacco product application (PMTA) from AMV Holdings.

    Since receiving the notification, AMV has filed an additional 104 PMTA submissions accounting for more than 5,000 stock keeping units.  All these submissions reflect the same file and information structure as the PMTA for which AMV has already received its acceptance for review notification.

    Mark Kehaya

    “We are proud of our team and their achievement in completing a significant step in a rigorous regulatory process and look forward to the FDA’s review of all our products,” said Mark Kehaya, chairman of AMV Holdings, in a statement.

    “We view this multi-year effort as another milestone in leading with science and quality in the vapor industry. We hope that the FDA’s PMTA process will increase consumers’ trust in the industry and the products we offer give combustible tobacco users a reliable alternative.”

    AMV Holdings, which includes the brands Alohma, Kure, Madvapes, ELB Labs, and Wholesale Vaping Supply, is a leading manufacturer and retailer of electronic nicotine delivery systems in the United States and Europe.

    AMV currently operates 113 retail locations in the United States through a combination of corporately owned, franchised and licensed stores and a further seven stores in Germany and Ireland. AMV manufactures e-liquids through ELB Labs, to distribute to their brick and mortar vape stores, online (B2C) e-commerce platforms, and third-party vape stores for consumers who want to switch from smoking cigarettes to vaping/e-cigarettes.

    “It’s exciting to know that we will be able to continue to offer our guests Prime e-liquids in all our retail locations,” said Sam Salaymeh, president of AMV Holdings. “The process with the FDA has enabled us to document our philosophy of providing high-quality standards and superior chemistry of our Prime e-liquid line, that is something we are all proud of. We look forward to providing our guests with the best service and products in the industry for many years to come.”

  • Preparing for a Radically Different Landscape

    Preparing for a Radically Different Landscape

    Photo: PixaBay

    The U.S. market for nicotine products is set to change dramatically after the Sept. 9 deadline to submit premarket tobacco product applications (PMTAs) to the Food and Drug Administration (FDA).

    If a company does not submit a PMTA by the deadline, it must remove its products from the market. If the product was “verifiably” on the market prior to Aug. 8, 2016 (the FDA’s cutoff for new products) and submitted a PMTA application before Sept. 9, the product can stay on the market for up to a year or until the FDA approves or denies the PMTA. For any PMTA submitted after today’s deadline, a product may not be marketed until the FDA grants a marketing order, according to the FDA.

    Because the cost of complying with the regulations is staggeringly high, experts expect that many manufacturers will fail to clear the hurdle, and the e-cigarette market will be left largely to the tobacco giants.

    Although the FDA estimates a single PMTA costs anywhere from $117,000 to $466,000, those figures are considered low by the industry. The Rocky Mountain Smoke-Free Association estimates a single PMTA costs between $8.6 million and $11.1 million per stock keeping units. It forecasts 14,000 small vape businesses employing 166,000 workers will be destroyed, representing $24 billion in economic activity.

    Deep-pocketed Philip Morris International, by contrast, already has four separate PMTAs approved: one for its IQOS heated-tobacco device and three for flavors of its disposable HeatSticks.

    Vapor advocates have cautioned that millions of vapers who had used e-cigarettes to quit smoking will revert to combustible cigarettes, which are generally believed to be riskier than vapor products.

    The vapor industry is not dead, however, as several manufacturers have announced that their PMTA submissions have been accepted and filed by the FDA. Independent vapor business that have submitted PMTAs include Avail Vapor, Charlie’s Chalk Dust, Bidi Stick, E-Alternative Solutions, Innoken, Jarvis Vaping Supply, KangerTech, Nicopure Labs, Prism, Smok, Smoore/Vaporesso and Voom.

    As of Aug. 31, the FDA had received applications for around 2,000 deemed products, of which around 40 percent have been resolved, according to Mitch Zeller, director of the agency’s Center for Tobacco Products.

    Receiving a marketing authorization to sell vapor products isn’t the end of the process for manufacturers, as described by Broughton Nicotine Services’ Yvonne Wilding in Tobacco Reporter’s September issue. The FDA requires companies to conduct post-market surveillance and studies to determine the impact of the marketing orders on consumer perception, behavior and health, and to enable the FDA to review the accuracy of the determinations upon which the orders were based.

    These post-market requirements include a rigorous toxicity study using computer models to help predict potential adverse effects in users. The orders also require the company to monitor youth awareness and use of the products to help ensure that the marketing of the product does not have unintended consequences for youth use.

  • Turning Point Submits PMTAs for 250 Products

    Turning Point Submits PMTAs for 250 Products

    Photo: Bacho | Dreamstime

    Turning Point Brands (TPB) has submitted to the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) premarket tobacco product applications (PMTAs) for 250 products.

    The PMTAs cover a broad assortment of products in the vapor category including multiple proprietary e-liquid offerings in varying nicotine strengths, technologies and sizes. They also include proprietary replacement parts and components of open system tank devices, along with a closed system e-cigarette.

    According to TPB, the filings provide detailed scientific data to demonstrate that the products are “appropriate for the protection of public health,” as required by law.

    The applications are supported by five pharmacokinetics studies, a likelihood-of-use study, and a patterns-of-use study, in addition to a toxicological review. Data throughout the applications underline that TPB products do not appeal to never users, youth or former users; that an extremely small percentage of users are never users, youth, or former users; that a significant majority of users have completely ceased use of combustible cigarettes; that a low percentage of users engage in dual or poly use; and that the products are substantially less harmful than combustible cigarettes and comparable to other products in the vapor category.

    TPB has also provided a detailed marketing plan to illustrate how it will continue to prevent youth exposure to the products.

    “We look forward to engaging with the FDA as it reviews our submissions,” said Larry Wexler, president and CEO of TPB.

    The FDA deadline for submitting PMTAs is today.

  • Tobacco to Dominate Vapor Business Post-PMTA

    Tobacco to Dominate Vapor Business Post-PMTA

    Photo: Ethan Parsa from Pixabay

    Tomorrow’s deadline for the submission of premarket tobacco product applications (PMTAs) to the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) marks the start of a new era for the e-cigarette industry, according to an article published by The Motley Fool.
     
    Companies who fail to apply for marketing authorization by the deadline will be required to remove their hardware and e-liquids from store shelves, and The Motley Fool expects many e-cigarette companies to exit the business.
     
    Because the cost of complying with the regulations is staggeringly high, many manufacturers will not be able to make it over the hurdle, and the e-cigarette market will be left largely to the tobacco giants.
     
    Although the FDA estimates a single PMTA costs anywhere from $117,000 to $466,000, those figures are considered low by the industry. The Rocky Mountain Smoke-Free Association estimates a single PMTA costs between $8.6 million and $11.1 million per stock keeping units. It forecasts 14,000 small vape businesses employing 166,000 workers will be destroyed, representing $24 billion in economic activity.
     
    Deep-pocketed Philip Morris International, by contrast, already has four separate PMTAs approved: one for its IQOS heated-tobacco device and three for flavors of its disposable HeatSticks.
     
    As of Aug. 31, the FDA had received applications for around 2,000 deemed products, of which around 40 percent have been resolved, according to Mitch Zeller, director of the agency’s Center for Tobacco Products.

  • RAI Concludes PMTA filings for 2020

    RAI Concludes PMTA filings for 2020

    PHoto: RAI

    Reynolds American Inc. (RAI), has filed its final premarket tobacco product application (PMTA) submissions with the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to allow its Vuse and Velo brands to remain on the market in the United States.

    Submitted Sept. 4, the filing concludes an 11-month process for RAI. The company has filed six applications for its Vuse Solo, Vuse Ciro and Vuse Vibe vapor products, as well as for its Velo nicotine lozenge and modern oral pouch products. Across the six applications, more than 530,000 pages of scientific data and more than 8,600 scientific documents have been submitted as part of the filings.

    RAI parent company BAT says it is committed to reducing the health impact of its business with a multicategory approach that offers consumers a wide range of enjoyable and lower-risk alternatives to cigarettes. With noncombustible nicotine products now available in more than 40 countries, the group’s ambition is to exceed 50 million noncombustible consumers by 2030.

    Kingsley Wheaton

    “The U.S. is the world’s largest vaping market and so the completion of our PMTA filings is a really important step for us as we transform our organization, drive a step change in our ‘new categories’ business, and increase our non-combustible consumer base and revenues,” said Kingsley Wheaton, chief marketing officer of BAT.

    “Our transformation is progressing very well and in the first six months of 2020 we attracted an additional 2.7 million new noncombustible consumers compared to the same time last year. Globally, we now have nearly 12 million regular noncombustible consumers and the U.S. will play a large part of our ambition to grow this number to at least 50 million by 2030.

    “We remain fully committed to building a better tomorrow and reducing the health impact of our business by offering consumers a range of enjoyable and lower risk products including vapor, tobacco heating and modern oral nicotine products.”

    The FDA’s PMTA deadline is Sept. 9.

  • Vapor Firms Request Delay of PMTA Deadline

    Vapor Firms Request Delay of PMTA Deadline

    Keller and Heckman has asked the U.S. Food and Drug Administration to postpone its Sept. 9 deadline for filing premarket tobacco applications (PMTAs) by six months because of the Covid-19 pandemic.

    On behalf of a group of small vapor product manufacturers, retailers and trade associations, the law firm filed a citizen petition asking the FDA to postpone the PMTA due date until March 8, 2021.

    Many of Keller and Heckman’s clients have experienced delays in preparing their applications because of the coronavirus. Without an extension, small vapor companies will either have to file incomplete PMTAs or forego submission altogether, according to Keller and Heckman. This would force them to layoff thousands of employees, close their doors permanently, and remove from the market less risky vapor products that addicted adult smokers rely on to move away from cigarettes, the law firm said.

    The current PMTA deadline was set by a federal district court in Maryland as part of a lawsuit filed by anti-vaping groups challenging an earlier August 2022 deadline established by FDA through guidance issued in 2017.

    The petition specifically asks FDA to request from the district court an extension on the court-imposed deadline that would apply only to small manufacturers that demonstrate to the agency that they have been working in good faith to complete PMTAs by the Sept. 9, 2020 cutoff and have otherwise taken steps to ensure that their products will not contribute to underage use.