Studies on HnB secondhand emissions and human use were heterogeneous and largely affiliated with the manufacturers. HnB exposed users and bystanders to toxicants, although at substantially lower levels than cigarettes.

HighlightsSome smokers also use e-cigarettes; many stop e-cigarette use but continue to smoke.Smokers using e-cigarettes are more motivated to stop smoking than other smokers.Smokers who discontinue using e-cigarettes have a higher dependence on smoking.

Objective: 'Heat-not-burn' tobacco products have recently come onto the market in several countries; existing research has been conducted mostly by the manufacturers. We aimed to estimate awareness and use in Great Britain. Methods: Data were derived from a national online survey of adults conducted in February-March 2017 (N = 12,696), weighted to be representative of the adult population in Great Britain. Awareness and use of heat-not-burn products were assessed using 2 question versions; combined figures were assessed by respondent characteristics using chi-square tests of independence and Cramer's V. Results: Combining the 2 question versions, 9.3% (95% CI: 8.8-9.8) reported awareness; this included 0.9% (95% CI: 0.8-1.1) who had tried or used the products in the past and 0.8% currently using (95% CI: 0.7-1.0). Use of heat-not-burn tobacco products differed (p ≤ .001) with age, sex, socioeconomic status, smoking, and e-cigarette use; however, the only association with at least a small effect was e-cigarette users reporting higher prevalence than non-users [χ 2 (9) = 674.1, p < .001; V = 0.133]. Conclusions: About 9% of adults in this national Great Britain survey reported being aware of heat-not-burn products, but less than 2% had ever tried them.

Background Heated tobacco products (HTPs) are designed to heat tobacco to a high enough temperature to release aerosol, without burning it or producing smoke. They differ from e‐cigarettes because they heat tobacco leaf/sheet rather than a liquid. Companies who make HTPs claim they produce fewer harmful chemicals than conventional cigarettes. Some people report stopping smoking cigarettes entirely by switching to using HTPs, so clinicians need to know whether they are effective for this purpose and relatively safe. Also, to regulate HTPs appropriately, policymakers should understand their impact on health and on cigarette smoking prevalence. Objectives To evaluate the effectiveness and safety of HTPs for smoking cessation and the impact of HTPs on smoking prevalence. Search methods We searched the Cochrane Tobacco Addiction Group's Specialised Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, and six other databases for relevant records to January 2021, together with reference‐checking and contact with study authors and relevant groups. Selection criteria We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) in which people who smoked cigarettes were randomised to switch to exclusive HTP use or a control condition. Eligible outcomes were smoking cessation, adverse events, and selected biomarkers.  RCTs conducted in clinic or in an ambulatory setting were deemed eligible when assessing safety, including those randomising participants to exclusively use HTPs, smoke cigarettes, or attempt abstinence from all tobacco. Time‐series studies were also eligible for inclusion if they examined the population‐level impact of heated tobacco on smoking prevalence or cigarette sales as an indirect measure. Data collection and analysis We followed standard Cochrane methods for screening and data extraction. Our primary outcome measures were abstinence from smoking at the longest follow‐up point available, adverse events, serious adverse events, and changes in smoking prevalence or cigarette sales. Other outcomes included biomarkers of harm and exposure to toxicants/carcinogens (e.g. NNAL and carboxyhaemoglobin (COHb)). We used a random‐effects Mantel‐Haenszel model to calculate risk ratios (RR) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for dichotomous outcomes. For continuous outcomes, we calculated mean differences on the log‐transformed scale (LMD) with 95% CIs. We pooled data across studies using meta‐analysis where possible. Main results We included 13 completed studies, of which 11 were RCTs assessing safety (2666 participants) and two were time‐series studies. We judged eight RCTs to be at unclear risk of bias and three at high risk. All RCTs were funded by tobacco companies. Median length of follow‐up was 13 weeks. No studies reported smoking cessation outcomes. There was insufficient evidence for a difference in risk of adverse events between smokers ...

Heated tobacco products for smoking cessation and reducing smoking prevalence (Protocol).