Figure 1.
Number of RF and/or RH indications and the likelihood of exclusive IQOS™ or HTP use_
| Number of RF and/or RH indications | Japan (N = 6257) | Italy (N = 8173) | Germany (N = 8474) | Russia (N = 7231) | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Exclusive HTP | Exclusive IQOS™ | Exclusive IQOS™ | Exclusive IQOS™ | Exclusive IQOS™ | |||||
| OR (95% CI) | OR (95% CI) | (n) | OR (95% CI) | (n) | OR (95% CI) | (n) | OR (95% CI) | (n) | |
| 0 | Reference (1.0) | Reference (1.0) | 1552 | Reference (1.0) | 5032 | Reference (1.0) | 1827 | Reference (1.0) | 1887 |
| 1 | 1.65 (1.44–1.89) | 1.12 (0.98–1.27) 1 | 904 | 1.48 (1.25–1.76) | 538 | 1.16 (1.03–1.31) 2 | 1129 | 1.73 (1.54–1.95) | 1189 |
| 2–5 | 2.28 (2.08–2.52) | 1.35 (1.23–1.48) | 1964 | 2.23 (1.98–2.51) | 1260 | 1.59 (1.47–1.72) | 2639 | 2.28 (2.08–2.49) | 2342 |
| 6–10 | 3.38 (2.94–3.89) | 1.47 (1.31–1.66) | 1138 | 2.55 (2.22–2.93) | 991 | 2.36 (2.14–2.61) | 1858 | 2.74 (2.42–3.10) | 1266 |
| 11–13 | 4.87 (4.00–5.94) | 1.89 (1.62–2.21) | 699 | 3.35 (2.61–4.29) | 352 | 3.48 (3.00–4.03) | 1021 | 3.05 (2.51–3.71) | 547 |
Baseline participant characteristics of IQOS™ user consumer cohort samples in Japan, Italy, Germany, and Russia_
| Number (n) and percentage (% [95% CI]) or mean (SD [range]) | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Japan | Italy | Germany | Russia | P | |
| Sex (n [%]) | |||||
| Male | 4784 (76%) | 5651 (69%) | 4969 (59%) | 4820 (67%) | < 0.0001 |
| Female | 1473 (24%) | 2522 (31%) | 3505 (41%) | 2411 (33%) | |
| Age (n [%]) | |||||
| LAS–29 | 284 (5%) | 1382 (17%) | 1191 (14%) | 1978 (27%) | < 0.0001 |
| 30–39 | 1251 (20%) | 2275 (28%) | 2180 (26%) | 3055 (42%) | |
| 40–49 | 2268 (36%) | 2493 (31%) | 2052 (24%) | 1528 (21%) | |
| 50+ | 2454 (39%) | 2023 (25%) | 3051 (36%) | 670 (9%) | |
| Mean (SD [range]) | 46.6 (9.9 [21–85]) | 42.7 (11.5 [19–85]) | 43.8 (12.2 [19–85]) | 36.0 (9.5 [19–85]) | < 0.0001 |
| Education1 (n [%]) | |||||
| Elementary School/Junior High School (1) | 245 (4%) | 683 (9%) | 2409 (31%) | 6 (0.1%) | < 0.0001 |
| High School/Old Junior High School (2) | 2161 (37%) | 3344 (42%) | 1202 (16%) | 340 (5%) | |
| Junior College/Higher Professional School (3) | 1138 (19%) | 1376 (17%) | 857 (11%) | 1077 (15%) | |
| College/University/Graduate School (4) | 2235 (38%) | 2539 (32%) | 2338 (30%) | 5538 (79%) | |
| None of these (5) | 73 (1%) | 0 (0.0%) | 960 (12%) | 32 (0.5%) | |
| Living Situation (n [%]) | |||||
| Living at home with parents | 898 (15%) | 1116 (14%) | 304 (4%) | 529 (8%) | < 0.0001 |
| Living with friends/housemates | 91 (2%) | 159 (2%) | 302 (4%) | 220 (3%) | |
| Living by yourself | 1019 (17%) | 1043 (14%) | 1503 (19%) | 988 (15%) | |
| Living with partner/spouse (no child) | 979 (17%) | 1867 (24%) | 2609 (33%) | 1899 (30%) | |
| Single parent living with children | 192 (3%) | 267 (3%) | 267 (3%) | 166 (3%) | |
| Family with children living at home | 2328 (39%) | 2741 (36%) | 2183 (28%) | 1735 (27%) | |
| Empty nesters (children have left home) | 272 (5%) | 398 (5%) | 785 (10%) | 564 (9%) | |
| Others | 117 (2%) | 109 (32%) | 175 (2%) | 286 (4%) | |
| Employment status2 (n [%]) | |||||
| Housewife/Homemaker | 294 (5%) | N/A | 174 (2%) | 224 (3%) | < 0.0001 |
| Student/Apprentice | 48 (1%) | N/A | 533 (6%) | 266 (4%) | |
| Retired/Pensioner | 98 (2%) | N/A | 347 (4%) | 84 (1%) | |
| Unemployed | 163 (3%) | N/A | 79 (1%) | 297 (4%) | |
| In employment/Self-employed | 5017 (80%) | N/A | 6123 (72%) | 6360 (88%) | |
| Other income3 (n [%]) | 637 (10%) | N/A | 1218 (14%) | 0 (0.0%) | |
| (1) | 278 (7%) | N/A | 240 (5%) | 868 (19%) | N/A4 |
| (2) | 659 (17%) | N/A | 982 (19%) | 825 (18%) | |
| (3) | 852 (22%) | N/A | 1245 (25%) | 701 (15%) | |
| (4) | 710 (18%) | N/A | 1163 (23%) | 750 (16%) | |
| (5) | 492 (13%) | N/A | 598 (12%) | 428 (9%) | |
| (6) | 512 (13%) | N/A | 834 (16%) | 301 (6%) | |
| (7) | 430 (11%) | N/A | – | 795 (17%) | |
| RF and/or RH mentioned during follow-up (n [%]) | |||||
| No | 1,552 (24.8%) | 5,032 (61.6%)5 | 1,827 (21.6%) | 1,887 (26.1%) | < 0.0001 |
| Yes | 4705 (75.2%) | 3141 (38.4%) | 6647 (78.4%) | 5344 (73.9%) | |
| Stable exclusive IQOS™ at week 48 (n [%]) | |||||
| No | 2978 (47.6%) | 3358 (41.1%) | 3406 (40.2%) | 2605 (36.0%) | < 0.0001 |
| Yes | 3279 (52.4%) | 4815 (58.9%) | 5068 (59.8%) | 4626 (64.0%) | |
Number of RF vs_ RH indications and the likelihood of exclusive IQOS™ use in Japan_
| Number of RF and/or RH indications | RF indications (n = 4170) | RH indications (n = 3894) | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| OR (95% CI) | (n) | OR (95% CI) | (n) | |
| 0 | Reference (1.0) | 1391 | Reference (1.0) | 1471 |
| 1 | 1.15 (1.02–1.30) 1 | 693 | 1.34 (1.18–1.51) | 667 |
| 2–5 | 1.41 (1.28–1.54) | 1230 | 1.41 (1.27–1.55) | 988 |
| 6–10 | 1.57 (1.37–1.79) | 613 | 1.47 (1.28–1.68) | 556 |
| 11–13 | 1.81 (1.46–2.24) | 243 | 2.92 (2.29–3.72) | 212 |
RF and/or RH indications, risk of stable non-exclusive IQOS™ use, percentage of stable exclusive IQOS™ users, and time to stable exclusive IQOS™ use_
| Country | Indicating vs. not indicating RF and/or RH as a reason for using IQOS™ during 48 weeks of follow-up | |||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Risk 1 of becoming a stable non-exclusive IQOS™ user | Percentage of stable exclusive IQOS™ users 2 until week 48 | Mean number of weeks to stable exclusive IQOS™ use | ||||||||
| Unadjusted analysis | Adjusted analysis 3 | Unadjusted analysis | Unadjusted analysis | |||||||
| HR (95% CI) | P | HR (95% CI) | P | Indicating % (95% CI) | Not indicating % (95% CI) | P | Indicating mean (95% CI) | Not indicating mean (95% CI) | P | |
| Japan | 0.74 | < 0.0001 | 0.74 | < 0.0001 | 61% | 46% | < 0.05 | 28.5 | 32.2 | < 0.05 |
| (N = 4557) | (0.69–0.79) | (0.69–0.80) | (59%–63%) | (43%–50%) | (27.5–29.0) | (31.1–33.4) | ||||
| Italy | 0.80 | < 0.0001 | 0.80 | < 0.0001 | 70% | 55% | < 0.05 | 20.1 | 26.9 | < 0.05 |
| (N = 6945) | (0.76–0.84) | (0.76–0.84) | (68%–73%) | (53%–56%) | (18.9–21.2) | (25.2–27.6) | ||||
| Germany | 0.82 | < 0.0001 | 0.83 | < 0.0001 | 69% | 47% | < 0.05 | 22.5 | 30.0 | < 0.05 |
| (N = 6437) | (0.77–0.88) | (0.76–0.90) | (76%–70%) | (44%–50%) | (21.8–23.2) | (28.8–31.2) | ||||
| Russia | 0.85 | < 0.0001 | 0.84 | < 0.0001 | 70% | 62% | < 0.05 | 22.7 | 25.3 | < 0.05 |
| (N = 5866) | (0.81–0.91) | (0.78–0.90) | (68%–71%) | (59%–64%) | (22.0–23.5) | (24.2–26.4) | ||||
RF and RH statements that could be indicated by participants as reasons for using IQOS™ by country 1_
| Japan | Two reasons referred to RF (the top 2) and two reasons to RH (the bottom 2) |
| • The tobacco vapor of IQOS has significantly less harmful chemicals than the smoke of conventional cigarettes, but using IOQS is not risk free. | |
| • Has a significantly lower level of harmful chemicals in its vapor than conventional cigarettes. | |
| • Because switching completely to IQOS is likely to present less risk of harm than continuing to smoke cigarettes (this does not mean IQOS is risk-free). | |
| • Because switching completely to IQOS is a better choice than continuing to smoke 1-mg cigarettes (this does not mean IQOS is risk-free). | |
| Italy and Russia | One reason referred to RF |
| • The levels of harmful chemicals in IQOS vapor are significantly reduced compared to a standard cigarette smoke. | |
| Germany | One reason referred to RF |
| • IQOS contains 90% less harmful chemicals: IQOS reduces the concentration of a representative set of chemicals which are identified as being harmful in tobacco smoke on average by 90% in comparison to a cigarette. |