Micah L Berman1, Greg Connolly2, K Michael Cummings3, Mirjana V Djordjevic4, Dorothy K Hatsukami5, Jack E Henningfield6, Matthew Myers7, Richard J O'Connor8, Mark Parascandola4, Vaughan Rees9, Jerry M Rice10, Peter G Shields11. 1. The Ohio State University College of Public Health, Columbus, OH. 2. Northeastern University Bouvé College of Health Sciences, Boston, MA. 3. Medical University of South Carolina Hollings Cancer Center, Charleston, SC. 4. National Cancer Institute, Division of Cancer Control and Population Sciences, Bethesda, MD. 5. University of Minnesota Tobacco Use Research Center, Minneapolis, MN. 6. The Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Bethesda, MD. 7. Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids, Washington, DC. 8. Roswell Park Cancer Institute, Buffalo, NY. 9. Harvard School of Public Health, Boston, MA. 10. Georgetown University Lombardi Comprehensive Cancer Center, Washington, DC. 11. The Ohio State University Comprehensive Cancer Center, Columbus, OH.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Evidence-based tobacco regulation requires a comprehensive scientific framework to guide the evaluation of new tobacco products and health-related claims made by product manufacturers. METHODS: The Tobacco Product Assessment Consortium (TobPRAC) employed an iterative process involving consortia investigators, consultants, a workshop of independent scientists and public health experts, and written reviews in order to develop a conceptual framework for evaluating tobacco products. RESULTS: The consortium developed a four-phased framework for the scientific evaluation of tobacco products. The four phases addressed by the framework are: (1) pre-market evaluation, (2) pre-claims evaluation, (3) post-market activities, and (4) monitoring and re-evaluation. For each phase, the framework proposes the use of validated testing procedures that will evaluate potential harms at both the individual and population level. CONCLUSIONS: While the validation of methods for evaluating tobacco products is an ongoing and necessary process, the proposed framework need not wait for fully validated methods to be used in guiding tobacco product regulation today.
OBJECTIVE: Evidence-based tobacco regulation requires a comprehensive scientific framework to guide the evaluation of new tobacco products and health-related claims made by product manufacturers. METHODS: The Tobacco Product Assessment Consortium (TobPRAC) employed an iterative process involving consortia investigators, consultants, a workshop of independent scientists and public health experts, and written reviews in order to develop a conceptual framework for evaluating tobacco products. RESULTS: The consortium developed a four-phased framework for the scientific evaluation of tobacco products. The four phases addressed by the framework are: (1) pre-market evaluation, (2) pre-claims evaluation, (3) post-market activities, and (4) monitoring and re-evaluation. For each phase, the framework proposes the use of validated testing procedures that will evaluate potential harms at both the individual and population level. CONCLUSIONS: While the validation of methods for evaluating tobacco products is an ongoing and necessary process, the proposed framework need not wait for fully validated methods to be used in guiding tobacco product regulation today.
Authors: Dorothy K Hatsukami; Neal L Benowitz; Stephen I Rennard; Cheryl Oncken; Stephen S Hecht Journal: Nicotine Tob Res Date: 2006-04 Impact factor: 4.244
Authors: Vaughan W Rees; Jennifer M Kreslake; Richard J O'Connor; K Michael Cummings; Mark Parascandola; Dorothy Hatsukami; Peter G Shields; Gregory N Connolly Journal: Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev Date: 2009-12 Impact factor: 4.254
Authors: Dorothy K Hatsukami; Karen Hanson; Anna Briggs; Mark Parascandola; Jeanine M Genkinger; Richard O'Connor; Peter G Shields Journal: Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev Date: 2009-12 Impact factor: 4.254
Authors: John R Smethells; Andrew C Harris; Danielle Burroughs; Steven R Hursh; Mark G LeSage Journal: Drug Alcohol Depend Date: 2018-02-05 Impact factor: 4.492
Authors: Min-Ae Song; Neal L Benowitz; Micah Berman; Theodore M Brasky; K Michael Cummings; Dorothy K Hatsukami; Catalin Marian; Richard O'Connor; Vaughan W Rees; Casper Woroszylo; Peter G Shields Journal: J Natl Cancer Inst Date: 2017-12-01 Impact factor: 13.506
Authors: Peter G Shields; Micah Berman; Theodore M Brasky; Jo L Freudenheim; Ewy Mathe; Joseph P McElroy; Min-Ae Song; Mark D Wewers Journal: Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev Date: 2017-06-22 Impact factor: 4.254
Authors: Ping-Ching Hsu; Renny S Lan; Theodore M Brasky; Catalin Marian; Amrita K Cheema; Habtom W Ressom; Christopher A Loffredo; Wallace B Pickworth; Peter G Shields Journal: Mol Carcinog Date: 2016-08-22 Impact factor: 4.784
Authors: Micah L Berman; Warren K Bickel; Andrew C Harris; Mark G LeSage; Richard J O'Connor; Irina Stepanov; Peter G Shields; Dorothy K Hatsukami Journal: Nicotine Tob Res Date: 2018-09-25 Impact factor: 4.244
Authors: S Michael Ansari; Nicola Lama; Nicolas Blanc; Marija Bosilkovska; Christelle Haziza; Frank Lüdicke; Andrea Donelli; Patrick Picavet; Gizelle Baker Journal: JMIR Res Protoc Date: 2018-08-24