Dataset Information

Health impact of "reduced yield" cigarettes: a critical assessment of the epidemiological evidence.

ABSTRACT: Cigarettes with lower machine measured "tar" and nicotine yields have been marketed as "safer" than high tar products over the last four decades, but there is conflicting evidence about the impact of these products on the disease burden caused by smoking. This paper critically examines the epidemiological evidence relevant to the health consequences of "reduced yield" cigarettes. Some epidemiological studies have found attenuated risk of lung cancer but not other diseases, among people who smoke "reduced yield" cigarettes compared to smokers of unfiltered, high yield products. These studies probably overestimate the magnitude of any association with lung cancer by over adjusting for the number of cigarettes smoked per day (one aspect of compensatory smoking), and by not fully considering other differences between smokers of "high yield" and "low yield" cigarettes. Selected cohort studies in the USA and UK show that lung cancer risk continued to increase among older smokers from the 1950s to the 1980s, despite the widespread adoption of lower yield cigarettes. The change to filter tip products did not prevent a progressive increase in lung cancer risk among male smokers who began smoking during and after the second world war compared to the first world war era smokers. National trends in vital statistics data show declining lung cancer death rates in young adults, especially males, in many countries, but the extent to which this is attributable to "reduced yield" cigarettes remains unclear. No studies have adequately assessed whether health claims used to market "reduced yield" cigarettes delay cessation among smokers who might otherwise quit, or increase initiation among non-smokers. There is no convincing evidence that past changes in cigarette design have resulted in an important health benefit to either smokers or the whole population. Tobacco control policies should not allow changes in cigarette design to subvert or distract from interventions proven to reduce the prevalence, intensity, and duration of smoking.

SUBMITTER: Thun MJ

PROVIDER: S-EPMC1766045 | biostudies-literature | 2001

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Health impact of "reduced yield" cigarettes: a critical assessment of the epidemiological evidence.

Thun M J MJ Burns D M DM

Tobacco control 20010101

Cigarettes with lower machine measured "tar" and nicotine yields have been marketed as "safer" than high tar products over the last four decades, but there is conflicting evidence about the impact of these products on the disease burden caused by smoking. This paper critically examines the epidemiological evidence relevant to the health consequences of "reduced yield" cigarettes. Some epidemiological studies have found attenuated risk of lung cancer but not other diseases, among people who smoke ...[more]

PMID: 11740038

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundUS mentholated cigarette sales have increased considerably over 50 years. Preference for mentholated cigarettes is markedly higher in Black people. While menthol itself is not genotoxic or carcinogenic, its acute respiratory effects might affect inhalation of cigarette smoke. This possibility seems consistent with the higher lung cancer risk in Black men, despite Black people smoking less and starting smoking later than White people. Despite experimental data suggesting similar carcinogenicity of mentholated and non-mentholated cigarettes, the lack of convincing evidence that mentholation increases puffing, inhalation or smoke uptake, and the similarity of lung cancer rates in Black and White females, a review of cigarette mentholation and lung cancer is timely given current regulatory interest in the topic.MethodsEpidemiological studies comparing lung cancer risk in mentholated and non-mentholated cigarette smokers were identified from MedLine and other sources. Study details were extracted and strengths and weaknesses assessed. Relative risk estimates were extracted, or derived, for ever mentholated use and for long-term use, overall and by gender, race, and current/ever smoking, and meta-analyses conducted.ResultsEight generally good quality studies were identified, with valid cases and controls, and appropriate adjustment for age, gender, race and smoking. The studies afforded good power to detect possible effects. However, only one study presented results by histological type, none adjusted for occupation or diet, and some provided no results by length of mentholated cigarette use.The data do not suggest any effect of mentholation on lung cancer risk. Adjusted relative risk estimates for ever use vary from 0.81 to 1.12, giving a combined estimate of 0.93 (95% confidence interval 0.84-1.02, n = 8), with no increase in males (1.01, 0.84-1.22, n = 5), females (0.80, 0.67-0.95, n = 5), White people (0.87, 0.75-1.03, n = 4) or Black people (0.90, 0.73-1.10, n = 4). Estimates for current and ever smokers are similar. The combined estimate for long-term use (0.95, 0.80-1.13, n = 4) again suggests no effect of mentholation.ConclusionHigher lung cancer rates in Black males cannot be due to their greater preference for mentholated cigarettes. While some study weaknesses exist, the epidemiological evidence is consistent with mentholation having no effect on the lung carcinogenicity of cigarettes.

Project description:IntroductionPain has been implicated in the onset and maintenance of nicotine addiction, and there is initial cross-sectional evidence of covariation between pain and the use of cigarettes and e-cigarettes. The goals of the current study were to: (1)test pain severity as a predictor of initiating co-use of cigarettes and e-cigarettes, (2)examine longitudinal associations between pain and use/co-use of cigarettes and e-cigarettes, (3)generate the first prevalence rate data regarding cigarette and e-cigarette use as a function of pain, and (4)examine gender as a moderator of these associations.Aims and methodsData were drawn from Waves 1-4 of the Population Assessment of Tobacco and Health Study (2013-2018).ResultsAmong exclusive cigarette smokers at Wave 1 (n = 7719), pain severity was associated with a greater likelihood of and faster trajectory to initiating co-use of cigarettes and e-cigarettes (ps < .05). A significant pain × gender interaction (p < .05) revealed this prospective relationship was stronger among women. Among adult respondents who provided at least three waves of data (n = 24 255), greater Wave 1 pain severity was positively associated with e-cigarette use, cigarette smoking, and co-use of cigarettes and e-cigarettes at Waves 2, 3, and 4 (ps < .001). At Wave 4 (n = 33 822), adults with moderate or severe pain endorsed rates of e-cigarette and cigarette use almost two times greater versus no or low pain (ps < .001).ConclusionsCollectively, these findings provide evidence that pain likely serves as an important candidate risk factor for the initiation and maintenance of cigarette and e-cigarette use.ImplicationsThis is the first prospective study to show that pain serves as an important risk factor for initiation and maintenance of cigarette and e-cigarette use over time. Weighted prevalence estimates further demonstrated that individuals with moderate or severe pain endorsed rates of cigarette and e-cigarette use and co-use approximately two times greater compared to those with no or low pain. These findings highlight a subpopulation of nicotine users more susceptible to greater healthcare burden, nicotine dependence, and physical impairment. Nicotine users with comorbid pain may benefit from integrated interventions that address pain in the context of cessation.

Dataset Information

Health impact of "reduced yield" cigarettes: a critical assessment of the epidemiological evidence.

Publications

Health impact of "reduced yield" cigarettes: a critical assessment of the epidemiological evidence.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets