Talk:Heated tobacco product

Tobacco control

Has an impact factor of 5.9. Peer reviewed and a review of the current state of things. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 22:15, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

The claim that this journal is "below dailymail when it comes to MEDRS" Is bizarre. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 22:20, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

It is ridiculous to claim that a simple article like this written by a math & economics student meets the standard for medical claims and you know that. Don't we use reviews anymore? But as long as "they are with us" it's ok with you, right?--TMCk (talk) 22:43, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

It is a review published in a well respected journal. It is the best avaliable source on this topic.

What makes you say they are a "student". And even so why would that matter? It is more important that it is published by a journal known for reliability. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 23:45, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

It is not a review and this is the guy who wrote the article.--TMCk (talk) 23:56, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

Okay the person who wrote the article is still in University? So... Lots of research is published by university students (some of it without even their names on it).

Additionally this is not really a health claim but simple a comment on the lack of evidence. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 00:55, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

Renaming?

Hello, there is a serious issue with the renaming that occured over the week-end: IQOS is the current name of the device (just like Marlboro, Longbeach, whatever other brand there is out there). Heatstick was the old name of the the tobacco sticks when IQOS was first test-marketed around 2014 (now they are called Heets, although some markets could still have Marlboro Heatsticks, I'm not 100% sure). Unless someone plans to rename iPhone to "wireless telephone device", of which there are also "many", I do not think this renaming is appropriate (or makes sense). Also this article duplicates Heat Not Burn which is the correct product category. I can't change it back for some reason, so can someone please do it? Thank you, SimonDes (talk) 06:58, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

This is about the family of devices. We do this for health products. We do not have separate articles for each brand-name of a medication.

Thanks for pointing out Heat not burn. Will merge the two eventually. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 21:19, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

Merge done. Thanks for pointing this out. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 21:31, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

Corrections needed

Hello everyone, as indicated the merging the IQOS and heat not burn articles has brought a number of inaccuracies to the new article. Here's a first crack:

1. Infobox

   the caption should read IQOS (or iqos, iQOS, whatever - the writing has evolved and is now uppercase, but everyone seems to have a different way of typing it). It is not one of a number of brands - this would mean that different brands use the same device- but in the case at hand this is the only one that is marketed globally. The HnB product category by itself wildly varies in design, from cigarette-shape with a carbon tip (Premier, Eclipse) to electronic apparatus (iqos, glo) to a kind of e-cig look involving granulated tobacco capsules (ploom tech, ifuse).

   "Manufacturer" property. There is at best and to this day two, maybe three notable manufacturers that ever marketed their product nationwide at the retail level (and only one so far has gone nationwide in more than one market), so the use of "many" is also a bit much. Maybe use "several", or simply name BAT, JTI, PMI, and RJR?

2. use of the word "device"

   A device usually implies some form of mechanical or electrical action (quoting wiktionary here). While this is true for iqos, glo and maybe ploomtech, eclipse and premier were tobacco sticks with a carbon source at the tip, lit by fire and sold as cigarettes. Also the sentence uses a mix of plural and singular ("handheld devices that heats). I would suggest a simpler definition "Heat-not-burn (or heated) tobacco products employ heating, rather than burning, of tobacco. As it starts to heat the tobacco, an aerosol containing tobacco flavours and nicotine is delivered to the user.[1]"

3. "Manufacturers claim they are safer"

   (+the whole Tobacco Control reference, generally speaking; someone has already mentioned that the paper was authored by a grad student, with "internal review": I am only pointing this out again because the paper has a number of inaccuracies or apocryphal statements that should have been easy to verify)

   This is inaccurate: while Premier and Eclipse came with a set of health claims (for which RJR was later sued by the FDA), it wasn't the case for Accord/Heatbar (which was test-marketed in the US as Accord, Australia (Melbourne) and Switzerland (Zurich) as Heatbar): in the latter two countries health claims are strictly regulated; the only claim ever made for Heatbar was that of reduced side-stream smoke and ashes[2] - although I'm sure some enthusiastic journalist was quick to add to that claim). There is also a full quote further below in the "brands" section that iqos would be marketed in the US "without any claim". JT does not make any claim either, other than reduced ash or smoke for its Ploom Tech[3]. BAT does refer to "potentially less risky alternative" for its glo/ifuse products - potential/potentially is the term commonly used as per the US Institute of Medicine (see below). While still not 100% correct, it probably would be more appropriate to indicate that "The industry has claimed that the quantity of toxicants generated by these devices is significantly lower compared to standard cigarettes, convincing evidence has yet to be provided for the claims of risk reduction and health benefits" (as stated in WHO partial guidelines, note #5).

4. "Based on the popularity of electronic cigarettes"

   The last paragraph of the leade indicates that "Based on the popularity of electronic cigarettes a number of companies are attempting to market version again as of 2016" - the TC paper rather indicates that e-cigarettes are facing "decelerating growth" and that they fail in taste and nicotine delivery. Besides, iQos and Ploom were out earlier than 2016 (2014 and 2010, respectively). This needs to be rephrased (e.g. "Heat not burn products usually present themselves as an alternative to combustible cigarettes yet with a taste impact and nicotine delivery improved over electronic cigarettes"(same TC ref))

   Further to this assertion, I should note that electronic cigarettes first came out in 2004, yet the idea of assessing tobacco-based reduced risk products was formally described in Clearing the Smoke: Assessing the Science base for Tobacco Harm Reduction, a 2001 book from the US Institute of medicine [4]. I think the book is also the first one to use the word PREP (potentially reduced exposure products) and describe them as likely to be heat-based. So this part about copying the success of e-cigarettes should be taken with a grain of salt.

5. Health effects

   The first sentence indicates that "The devices are sold with a warning that the best option is to avoid tobacco use altogether". While this is the exact wording used for PMI products, it is not known (and not indicated in the source) that this is the case for other products and manufacturers.

   There is a missing statement over the (supposed, claimed) reduced level of toxicants[5].

6. History

   The quote from Reynolds' CEO saying that Premier tasted like isht is taken from a comedy and probably apocryphal, as indicated by Richard Kluger in Ashes to Ashes. Kluger helpfully suggests (p.603) more family-friendly comments from consumers, ranging from "as if you'd lighted from the wrong end" to "like burning tennis sneakers".

7. Brands

   This should probably be renamed "approaches" or "technologies" or "platforms"

   Premier-Eclipse: the carbon rod is not "internal" but at the tip (see image below). I don't think Revo needs to be mentioned as there is little evidence that this was more than rebranding of the same Eclipse platform. If you do mention it, then Steam Hot One (Japan) need also be mentioned, for the sake of being exhaustive. A similar yet different platform (carbon tip) from PMI named Teeps is about to be test-marketed [6][7].

   Heatbar-Iqos: it does not heat a cigarette but a reconstituted tobacco stick ("cigarette" usually has a very precise definition in most jurisdictions). Based on Premier and Eclipse (or any major cigarette brand), iqos should probably have its own separate article as it did before. As for the platform (electronic heating device), then one should probably add BAT's glo.

   3T (also comes from the banned editor) is an e-cigarette[8]. Why they wanted to or should be listed here is beyond me. Also they don't seem particularly notable, generally speaking.

   Ploom: there is a clear misunderstanding on the status of Ploom. There was a Ploom brand around 2010 that used propane to heat tobacco and... "botanical products". It has been discontinued, and came back as "Pax" (even more openly for "botanical consumption", apparently). Since it never went really far or isn't exactly a tobacco product, I am not sure it fits notability criteria. But either way, the brand name now belongs to Japan Tobacco, who released a Ploom Tech device in 2016[9]. It consists of a pen-like device at the end of which goes a capsule containing granulated tobacco. Vapour is generated that goes through the capsule. I do not think it is exactly heated tobacco, but industry analysts usually loop it in as it comes from a major tobacco company and, unlike, e-cigarettes, has tobacco in it. A similar technology has been test-marketed since 2015 in Romania by BAT as iFuse[10].

   Here is a proposed wording for this section

   In 2010 start-up Pax Labs launched Ploom, a butane-fired device used for the heating of "botanical products". After its initial partnership with Japan Tobacco was dissolved, the device became known as Pax. Later models an electric system replaced butane heating.
   The Ploom brand, however, remained with JT and the device itself has been replaced with a very different product called Ploom Tech, in which vapour passes through a capsule of granulated tobacco leaves. Initial test-marketing was positive and sales are being expanded throughout Japan. British American Tobacco (BAT) test-marketed a similar product called iFuse in Romania at the end of 2015.
   In 2014 Philip Morris International started test marketing iQOS in Japan and Italy. While it rests upon the same technological assumption than Heatbar of heating a stick made of reconstituted tobacco, iQOS benefits from a better design, appearing like a pen-like device into which the tobacco stick is also inserted. In 2016 BAT launched its own version of the technology called glo, also in Japan.

8. The whole paragraph after the product description "Philip Morris intends etc. etc."

   It is at best speculative (but at least there are references), at worst inaccurate or out of place. PMI has announced its intention to launch iqos in many other markets than the US, and already done so, so the weight given this particular country feels a bit undue (also: it will be licensed to Altria whereas all other markets are PMI's direct action). MRTP (link is missing) status request has already been filed with the FDA back in December 2016[11], so it does not "intend" to do it anymore (a premarketing notification has also been made at the end of March[12], but as indicated that's also the case for a dozen countries so nothing special here). The segment from ASH should go in the health effects, although I am not sure how one can "maintain" something that is readily admitted by the other party.

9. IQOS / Heatstick sections

   The IQOS/iQOS section would gain from being rearranged.

   Heatsticks, on the other hand, never existed as a distinct Heat not Burn product: this was the initial name for the tobacco sticks that are used with iqos (they are now called Heets, after a short period of being "Marlboro Heasticks" - no ref, that's just the way it is now in stores).

   Ref 33, which indicates that there are two plants in Italy, returns no results (and is incorrect, there is only one plant so far AFAIK, though capacity increases). The sentence should probably be removed (no article ever indicates how many plants are available for a given product).

   Heatbar is not related to Heatsticks either (the box of tobacco sticks for this device that sits on my desk says "Oasis") and has nothing to do there.

10. Regulations

    The only part that is correct is the one that says that heated tobacco product are regulated as tobacco products. The first reference (#38) given is embargoed until December 2017 - am I missing something there? The last two sentences discussing taxation make assertions that are not supported by the sources (#41, #43). The only reference (#42) that indicates that Ploom is taxed as pipe tobacco refers to the discontinued Ploom (launched Dec. 2013) and not Ploom tech (released in March 2016). It does not describe it as "advantageous" taxation, which is not surprising considering it is a JTI press release.

11. Images

    (This should come earlier but then I am not proficient enough with wiki code to not break the numbering).

    As indicated 3T does not belong here. I've been able to finds souvenirs from various colleagues and made a couple of pictures which I had posted in an earlier draft:

• Various heat not burn tobacco products
• 
  Steam Hot One, a japanese variant of the Eclipse cigarette manufactured by Japan Tobacco.
• 
  Philip Morris Heatbar. A tobacco stick was to be inserted at the end of the device (not shown) and heated by the battery-powered device.
• 
  Philip Morris iQOS device, charger and tobacco stick.

I could not put my hands on a Ploomtech but will ask again soon. In any case, thank you user:Quackguru for putting the gallery together.

I prefer listing things here before making any corrections myself, and I actually do not know how to take the discussion from there, but thanks to anyone willing to help! SimonDes (talk) 16:34, 18 May 2017 (UTC)