Center for Tobacco Control Research and Education, Department of Medicine, University of California, San Francisco, San Francisco, California, USA.
PLoS Med. 2013;10(5):e1001450. doi: 10.1371/journal.pmed.1001450. Epub 2013 May 28.
Spurred by the creation of potential modified risk tobacco products, the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) commissioned the Institute of Medicine (IOM) to assess the science base for tobacco "harm reduction," leading to the 2001 IOM report Clearing the Smoke. The objective of this study was to determine how the tobacco industry organized to try to influence the IOM committee that prepared the report.
We analyzed previously secret tobacco industry documents in the University of California, San Francisco Legacy Tobacco Documents Library, and IOM public access files. (A limitation of this method includes the fact that the tobacco companies have withheld some possibly relevant documents.) Tobacco companies considered the IOM report to have high-stakes regulatory implications. They developed and implemented strategies with consulting and legal firms to access the IOM proceedings. When the IOM study staff invited the companies to provide information on exposure and disease markers, clinical trial design for safety and efficacy, and implications for initiation and cessation, tobacco company lawyers, consultants, and in-house regulatory staff shaped presentations from company scientists. Although the available evidence does not permit drawing cause-and-effect conclusions, and the IOM may have come to the same conclusions without the influence of the tobacco industry, the companies were pleased with the final report, particularly the recommendations for a tiered claims system (with separate tiers for exposure and risk, which they believed would ease the process of qualifying for a claim) and license to sell products comparable to existing conventional cigarettes ("substantial equivalence") without prior regulatory approval. Some principles from the IOM report, including elements of the substantial equivalence recommendation, appear in the 2009 Family Smoking Prevention and Tobacco Control Act.
Tobacco companies strategically interacted with the IOM to win several favored scientific and regulatory recommendations.
受潜在改良风险烟草制品问世的推动,美国食品和药物管理局(FDA)委托美国国家医学研究院(IOM)评估烟草“减害”的科学基础,由此产生了 2001 年的 IOM 报告《厘清迷雾》。本研究旨在确定烟草业是如何组织起来试图影响编写该报告的 IOM 委员会的。
我们分析了加利福尼亚大学旧金山分校(UCSF)烟草档案库中先前保密的烟草业文件,以及 IOM 公开访问文件。(该方法的局限性在于烟草公司扣留了一些可能相关的文件。)烟草公司认为该报告具有高监管风险。他们与咨询和法律公司合作制定并实施策略,以参与 IOM 程序。当 IOM 研究人员邀请公司提供有关暴露和疾病标志物、安全性和有效性临床试验设计以及启动和戒烟的影响的信息时,烟草公司的律师、顾问和内部监管人员塑造了公司科学家的演示文稿。尽管现有证据不允许得出因果关系的结论,并且 IOM 可能在没有烟草业影响的情况下得出相同的结论,但公司对最终报告表示满意,特别是关于分层声明系统(针对暴露和风险分别分层,他们认为这将简化符合声明的过程)和销售与现有传统香烟相当的产品的许可证(“实质等同”)无需事先监管批准。IOM 报告中的一些原则,包括实质等同建议的要素,出现在 2009 年的《家庭吸烟预防和烟草控制法案》中。
烟草公司与 IOM 进行了策略性互动,赢得了多项有利的科学和监管建议。