ArticleTobacco control2024
MRTP claim authorisation and General Snus sales in the USA: evidence from a difference-in-differences model.
Article in Tobacco control, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundThe 2009 Tobacco Control Act granted the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) regulatory authority over tobacco products, including the ability to authorise modified-risk tobacco product (MRTP) claims. In October 2019, the FDA authorised the first-ever MRTP claim for General Snus, which allowed the product to be marketed as reduced risk (relative to cigarettes). MRTP authorisation may increase otherwise low rates of snus use in the USA (<0.5% for children and adults).
methodsUsing 2017-2021 Nielsen sales data from 19 US states, we conducted a difference-in-differences analysis to determine whether logged unit sales of General Snus were affected by the MRTP authorisation, compared with (1) sales of other snus brands and (2) sales of non-snus smokeless products; we also examined (3) if sales of non-General Snus brands were affected by General Snus's MRTP authorisation, compared with sales of non-snus smokeless tobacco products.
resultsAlthough sales declined in absolute terms, sales of General Snus relative to other snus brands were unchanged after MRTP authorisation (-9.0%, 95% CI -19.6% to 1.60%, p=0.098). However, compared with non-snus smokeless brand sales, sales of General Snus (+14.7%, 95% CI 5.23% to 24.2%, p=0.002) rose after MRTP authorisation. Compared with non-snus smokeless products, sales of non-General Snus brands also rose after MRTP authorisation (+23.7%, 95% CI 9.5% to 38.0%, p=0.001).
conclusionsAlthough only General Snus received MRTP authorisation, this designation appears to have slowed declines for the entire snus category. This suggests consumers may make determinations regarding product risk to a product class rather than individual products.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.