In Reply There is general agreement on the need for rigorous independent studies of IQOS that will accurately inform the public. When we began our research,1 Phillip Morris International (PMI) advertisements claimed IQOS produced “no smoke.” We thus designed our exploratory study to detect chemicals typical of pyrolysis, the presence of which defines an aerosol as “smoke.” We chose a comparison cigarette (a brand regularly smoked by millions) based on convenience, because the comparison was incidental, rather than the heart of the experiment. We did not set out to provide a benchmark for the regulatory industry, so comparison with a 3R4F standard cigarette was unnecessary. Tobacco content naturally varies, and differences may be compounded by process fluctuations in cigarette manufacture.2 Standard cigarettes reduce such variations, but they are no more representative of cigarettes used by smokers worldwide than any other single brand of cigarette. Because we were not benchmarking, using the more expensive standard cigarette and waiting for its delivery would have held up our real work, which was identifying the presence of harmful chemicals in IQOS smoke. Our validated and standardized analytical methods are not likely to have caused the wide standard deviation in our measures of IQOS smoke: variation in IQOS tobacco content is the likely explanation.
Auer R, Cornuz J, Berthet A. Perplexing Conclusions Concerning Heat-Not-Burn Tobacco Cigarettes—Reply. JAMA Intern Med. 2017;177(11):1699–1700. doi:10.1001/jamainternmed.2017.5861
Coronavirus Resource Center
Customize your JAMA Network experience by selecting one or more topics from the list below.
Create a personal account or sign in to: