The effect of a statewide smoking ordinance on acute myocardial infarction rates

Association between the extension of smoke-free legislation and incident acute myocardial infarctions in Singapore from 2010 to 2019: an interrupted time-series analysis

BACKGROUND

We examined the association between smoke-free laws implemented in the outdoors and the common areas of residential apartment blocks and reported acute myocardial infarctions (AMI) in Singapore.

METHODS

We used an interrupted time-series design and seasonal autoregressive integrated moving average models to examine the effect of the smoke-free law extensions in 2013 (common areas of residential blocks, covered pedestrian linkways, overhead bridges and within 5 m of bus stops), 2016 (parks) and 2017 (educational institutions, buses and taxis) on the monthly incidence rate of AMIs per 1 000 000 population.

RESULTS

We included 133 868 AMI reports from January 2010 to December 2019. Post-2013, there was a decrease in the AMI incidence trend (β=-0.6 per month, 95%CI -1.0 to -0.29) and 2097 (95% CI 2094 to 2100) more AMIs may have occurred without the extension. There was a significant step-decline in male AMIs and a non-significant step-increase in female AMIs post-2013. Those 65 years and older experienced a greater decline to the postlegislation 2013 trend (β=-5.9, 95% CI -8.7 to -3.1) compared with those younger (β=-0.4, 95% CI -0.6 to -0.2), while an estimated 19 591 (15 711 to 23472) additional AMI cases in those 65 years and above may have occurred without the extension. We found a step-increase in monthly AMI incidence post-2016 (β=14.2, 95%CI 3.3 to 25.0).

CONCLUSION

The 2013 smoke-free law extension to residential estates and other outdoor areas were associated with a decline in AMIs and those above the age of 65 years and men appeared to be major beneficiaries. Additional epidemiological evidence is required to support the expanded smoke-free legislation to parks, educational institutions, buses and taxis.

Evaluation of Population-Level Tobacco Control Interventions and Health Outcomes: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Importance

Smoking causes considerable noncommunicable diseases, perinatal morbidity, and mortality.

Objective

To investigate the associations of population-level tobacco-control policies with health outcomes.

Data Sources

PubMed, EMBASE, Web of Science, Cumulated Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature, and EconLit were searched from inception to March 2021 (updated on 1 March 2022). References were manually searched.

Study Selection

Studies reporting on associations of population-level tobacco control policies with health-related outcomes were included. Data were analyzed from May to July 2022.

Data Extraction and Synthesis

Data were extracted by 1 investigator and cross-checked by a second investigator. Analyses were conducted using the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses reporting guideline.

Main Outcomes and Measures

The primary outcomes were respiratory system disease (RSD), cardiovascular disease (CVD), cancer, mortality, hospitalization, and health care utilization. The secondary outcomes were adverse birth outcomes, such as low birth weight and preterm birth. Random-effects meta-analysis was used to estimate pooled odds ratios (ORs) and 95% CIs.

Results

Of 4952 records identified, 144 population-level studies were included in the final analysis; 126 studies (87.5%) were of high or moderate quality. The most frequently reported policies were smoke-free legislation (126 studies), followed by tax or price increases (14 studies), multicomponent tobacco control programs (12 studies), and a minimum cigarette purchase age law (1 study). Smoke-free legislation was associated with decreased risk of all CVD events (OR, 0.90; 95% CI, 0.86-0.94), RSD events (OR, 0.83; 95% CI, 0.72-0.96), hospitalization due to CVD or RSD (OR, 0.91; 95% CI, 0.87-0.95), and adverse birth outcomes (OR, 0.94; 95% CI, 0.92-0.96). These associations persisted in all sensitivity and subgroup analyses, except for the country income category, for which a significant reduction was only observed in high-income countries. In meta-analysis, there was no clear association of tax or price increases with adverse health outcomes. However, for the narrative synthesis, all 8 studies reported statistically significant associations between tax increases and decreases in adverse health events.

Conclusions and Relevance

In this systematic review and meta-analysis, smoke-free legislation was associated with significant reductions in morbidity and mortality related to CVD, RSD, and perinatal outcomes. These findings support the need to accelerate the implementation of smoke-free laws to protect populations against smoking-related harm.

Updating the evidence relating smoking bans to incidence of heart disease

In our latest update of the evidence on smoking bans and heart disease we summarize 59 studies. We take account of the underlying trends in incidence rates as far as possible by using control data in eight studies, and by adjustment based on observed trends in cases pre- and post-ban in 40 studies, being unable to make an adjustment in the remaining 11 studies. Overall, based on 62 independent estimates from the 59 studies, we estimate that bans reduce incidence by 5.0% (95% CI 3.2-6.8%), though this estimate reduces to 2.9% (0.01-5.6%) when we exclude regional estimates where national estimates are available, and studies where trend adjustment is not possible. For 25 of the studies, quadratic rather than linear adjustment is possible, but this hardly affects the overall estimates. Ban effects are somewhat greater when the pre-ban period studied is relatively short, and in smaller studies. We compare our findings with those in other recent reviews, one of which totally ignored underlying trends and results from control populations. We discuss reasons why we believe there is likely to be a true small effect of smoking bans, and weaknesses in the data which preclude reaching any very confident conclusion.

Legislative smoking bans for reducing harms from secondhand smoke exposure, smoking prevalence and tobacco consumption

BACKGROUND

Smoking bans have been implemented in a variety of settings, as well as being part of policy in many jurisdictions to protect the public and employees from the harmful effects of secondhand smoke (SHS). They also offer the potential to influence social norms and the smoking behaviour of those populations they affect. Since the first version of this review in 2010, more countries have introduced national smoking legislation banning indoor smoking.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effects of legislative smoking bans on (1) morbidity and mortality from exposure to secondhand smoke, and (2) smoking prevalence and tobacco consumption.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Tobacco Addiction Group Specialised Register, MEDLINE, EMBASE, PsycINFO, CINAHL and reference lists of included studies. We also checked websites of various organisations. Date of most recent search; February 2015.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We considered studies that reported legislative smoking bans affecting populations. The minimum standard was having an indoor smoking ban explicitly in the study and a minimum of six months follow-up for measures of smoking behaviour. Our search included a broad range of research designs including: randomized controlled trials, quasi-experimental studies (i.e. non-randomized controlled studies), controlled before-and-after studies, interrupted time series as defined by the Cochrane Effective Practice and Organisation of Care Group, and uncontrolled pre- and post-ban data.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

One author extracted characteristics and content of the interventions, participants, outcomes and methods of the included studies and a second author checked the details. We extracted health and smoking behaviour outcomes. We did not attempt a meta-analysis due to the heterogeneity in design and content of the studies included. We evaluated the studies using qualitative narrative synthesis.

MAIN RESULTS

There are 77 studies included in this updated review. We retained 12 studies from the original review and identified 65 new studies. Evidence from 21 countries is provided in this update, an increase of eight countries from the original review. The nature of the intervention precludes randomized controlled trials. Thirty-six studies used an interrupted time series study design, 23 studies use a controlled before-and-after design and 18 studies are before-and-after studies with no control group; six of these studies use a cohort design. Seventy-two studies reported health outcomes, including cardiovascular (44), respiratory (21), and perinatal outcomes (7). Eleven studies reported national mortality rates for smoking-related diseases. A number of the studies report multiple health outcomes. There is consistent evidence of a positive impact of national smoking bans on improving cardiovascular health outcomes, and reducing mortality for associated smoking-related illnesses. Effects on respiratory and perinatal health were less consistent. We found 24 studies evaluating the impact of national smoke-free legislation on smoking behaviour. Evidence of an impact of legislative bans on smoking prevalence and tobacco consumption is inconsistent, with some studies not detecting additional long-term change in existing trends in prevalence.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Since the first version of this review was published, the current evidence provides more robust support for the previous conclusions that the introduction of a legislative smoking ban does lead to improved health outcomes through reduction in SHS for countries and their populations. The clearest evidence is observed in reduced admissions for acute coronary syndrome. There is evidence of reduced mortality from smoking-related illnesses at a national level. There is inconsistent evidence of an impact on respiratory and perinatal health outcomes, and on smoking prevalence and tobacco consumption.

Cardiovascular Events Following Smoke-Free Legislations: An Updated Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

BACKGROUND

Legislations banning smoking in indoor public places and workplaces are being implemented worldwide to protect the population from secondhand smoke exposure. Several studies have reported reductions in hospitalizations for acute coronary events following the enactment of smoke-free laws.

OBJECTIVE

We set out to conduct a systematic review and meta-analysis of epidemiologic studies examining how legislations that ban smoking in indoor public places impact the risk of acute coronary events.

METHODS

We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, and relevant bibliographies including previous systematic reviews for studies that evaluated changes in acute coronary events, following implementation of smoke-free legislations. Studies were identified through December 2013. We pooled relative risk (RR) estimates for acute coronary events comparing post- vs. pre-legislation using inverse-variance weighted random-effects models.

RESULTS

Thirty-one studies providing estimates for 47 locations were included. The legislations were implemented between 1991 and 2010. Following the enactment of smoke-free legislations, there was a 12 % reduction in hospitalizations for acute coronary events (pooled RR: 0.88, 95 % CI: 0.85-0.90). Reductions were 14 % in locations that implemented comprehensive legislations compared to an 8 % reduction in locations that only had partial restrictions. In locations with reductions in smoking prevalence post-legislation above the mean (2.1 % reduction) there was a 14 % reduction in events compared to 10 % in locations below the mean. The RRs for acute coronary events associated with enacting smoke-free legislation were 0.87 vs. 0.89 in locations with smoking prevalence pre-legislation above and below the mean (23.1 %), and 0.87 vs. 0.89 in studies from the Americas vs. other regions.

CONCLUSION

The implementation of smoke-free legislations was related to reductions in acute coronary event hospitalizations in most populations evaluated. Benefits are greater in locations with comprehensive legislations and with greater reduction in smoking prevalence post-legislation. These cardiovascular benefits reinforce the urgent need to enact and enforce smoke-free legislations that protect all citizens around the world from exposure to tobacco smoke in public places.