A critical appraisal of the harm reduction argument for heat-not-burn tobacco products

Abstract

Heat-not-burn products (HNBs) are efficient nicotine delivery devices that heat tobacco instead of burning it, as conventional cigarettes do. Since heating yields less carbon monoxide and other tobacco pyrolysis-derived toxicants, tobacco companies claim that HNBs are less harmful than conventional cigarettes are. Although this hypothesis is plausible, no long-term clinical trials and/or observational studies are available to corroborate it. To overcome barriers to the entry of tobacco products to the market, manufacturers of HNBs argue that they are a new wave of harm reduction alternatives. Nonetheless, even if HNBs were in fact less harmful than conventional cigarettes, they would still have the potential to cause nicotine addiction (a major health hazard) and other harms to smokers' health. HNBs deliver nicotine, provide users a tobacco aroma and flavor and some rituals of smoking, and are supposedly safer than conventional cigarettes. Owing to these features, HNBs are likely to enhance smoking appeal and initiation among young persons and discourage smokers' attempts to quit. In other words, if HNBs were freely available on the market, they would increase the prevalence of smoking. However, HNBs may constitute a harm reduction alternative for nicotine-dependent smokers who are unable or unwilling to quit smoking. Given these facts, approval of HNBs for use under medical supervision (prescription only), along with strict restrictions on advertising, is a balanced regulatory option that would reconcile the therapeutic needs of nicotine-addicted patients with the public heath goal of achieving a smoke-free generation in the near future.