Investigating the effect of e-cigarette use on quitting smoking in adults aged 25 years or more using the PATH study

Background: The evidence on harms and benefits of e-cigarettes partly concerns whether their use encourages smokers to quit.  We addressed this using data from the nationally representative PATH study, with detailed accounting for potential confounding variables.

Methods: We considered adults aged 25+.  Our original analyses, reported in version 1 of this paper, used data for Waves 1 to 3, separate analyses considering Waves 1 to 2, 2 to 3 and 1 to 3.  These related baseline ever e-cigarette use (or e-product use at Wave 2) to quitting at follow-up, adjusting for confounders derived from 55 candidates.  Sensitivity analyses omitted ever other product users, linked quitting to current e-cigarette use, and used values of some predictors modified using follow-up data.  Additional analyses used data for Waves 1 to 4, separately considering sustained, delayed and temporary quitting during Waves 1 to 3, 2 to 4 and 1 to 4.  Sensitivity analyses considered 30-day quitting, restricted attention to smokers attempting to quit, and considered ever smokeless tobacco or snus use.

Results: In the original analyses, unadjusted odds ratios (ORs) of quitting smoking for ever e-cigarette use were 1.29 (95% CI 1.01-1.66), 1.52 (1.26-1.83) and 1.47 (1.19-1.82) for the Wave 1 to 2, 2 to 3, and 1 to 3 analyses.  These reduced after adjustment, to 1.23 (0.94-1.61), 1.51 (1.24-1.85) and 1.39 (1.11-1.74).  Quitting rates remained elevated in users in all sensitivity analyses.  The additional analyses found associations of e-cigarette use with sustained, delayed and temporary quitting, associations little affected by considering 30-day quitting, and only slightly reduced restricting attention to quit attempters.  Ever use of smokeless tobacco or snus also predicted increased quitting.  

Conclusions: As does most evidence from clinical trials, other analyses of PATH, and other epidemiological studies, our results suggest using e-cigarettes helps adult smokers to quit.

Estimating the public health impact had tobacco-free nicotine pouches been introduced into the US in 2000

BACKGROUND

For smokers not intending to quit, switching to a reduced-risk nicotine product should be healthier than continuing smoking. We estimate the health impact, over the period 2000-2050, had the nicotine pouch ZYN hypothetically been introduced into the US in 2000. ZYN's toxicant profile and method of use is like that for Swedish snus, a product with known health effects much less than smoking.

METHODS

Our modelling approach is similar to others developed for estimating potential effects of new tobacco products. It starts with a simulated cohort of 100,000 individuals in the year 2000 subdivided by age, sex, and smoking status (including years since quitting). They are followed annually accounting for births, net immigrations, deaths and product use changes, with follow-up carried out in the Base Case (ZYN not introduced) and Modified Case (ZYN introduced). Using informed assumptions about initiation, quitting and switching rates, distributions of the population over time are then constructed for each Case, and used to estimate product mortality based on assumptions about the relative risk according to product use.

RESULTS

Whereas in both Base and Modified Cases, the prevalence of any current product use is predicted to decline from about 22% to 10% during follow-up, in the Modified Case about 25% of current users use ZYN by 2050, about a quarter being dual users and the rest ZYN-only users. Over the 50 years, deaths at ages 35-84 from product use among the 100,000 are estimated as 249 less in the Modified than the Base Case, equivalent to about 700,000 less in the whole US. Sensitivity analyses varying individual parameter values confirm the benefits of switching to ZYN, which increase as either the switching rate to ZYN increases or the initiation rate of ZYN relative to smoking increases. Even assuming the reduction in excess mortality risk using ZYN use is 20% of that from smoking rather than the 3.5% assumed in the main analyses, the reduction in product-related deaths would still be 213, or about 600,000 in the US.

CONCLUSIONS

Although such model-based estimates involve uncertainties, the results suggest that introducing ZYN could substantially reduce product-related deaths.

Estimating the reduction in US mortality if cigarettes were largely replaced by e-cigarettes

BACKGROUND

Recent estimates indicated substantially replacing cigarettes by e-cigarettes would, during 2016-2100, reduce US deaths and life-years lost (millions) by 6.6 and 86.7 (Optimistic Scenario) and 1.6 and 20.8 (Pessimistic). To provide additional insight we use alternative modelling based on a shorter period (1991-2040), four main smoking-associated diseases, deaths aged 30-79 years, and a full product history. We consider variations in: assumed effective dose of e-cigarettes versus cigarettes (F); their relative quitting rate (Q); proportions smoking after 10 years (X); and initiation rate (I) of vaping, relative to smoking.

METHODS

We set F = 0.05, X = 5%, Q = 1.0 and I = 1.0 (Main Scenario) and F = 0.4, X = 10%, Q = 0.5 and I = 1.5 (Pessimistic Scenario). Sensitivity Analyses varied Main Scenario parameters singly; F from 0 to 0.4, X 0.01% to 15%, and Q and I 0.5 to 1.5. To allow comparison with prior work, individuals cannot be dual users, re-initiate, or switch except from cigarettes to e-cigarettes.

RESULTS

Main Scenario reductions were 2.52 and 26.23 million deaths and life-years lost; Pessimistic Scenario reductions were 0.76 and 8.31 million. These were less than previously, due to the more limited age-range and follow-up, and restriction to four diseases. Reductions in deaths (millions) varied most for X, from 3.22 (X = 0.01%) to 1.31 (X = 15%), and F, 2.74 (F = 0) to 1.35 (F = 0.4). Varying Q or I had little effect.

CONCLUSIONS

Substantial reductions in deaths and life-years lost were observed even under pessimistic assumptions. Estimates varied most for X and F. These findings supplement literature indicating e-cigarettes can importantly impact health challenges from smoking.

Awareness and preparedness of healthcare workers against the first wave of the COVID-19 pandemic: A cross-sectional survey across 57 countries

BACKGROUND

Since the COVID-19 pandemic began, there have been concerns related to the preparedness of healthcare workers (HCWs). This study aimed to describe the level of awareness and preparedness of hospital HCWs at the time of the first wave.

METHODS

This multinational, multicenter, cross-sectional survey was conducted among hospital HCWs from February to May 2020. We used a hierarchical logistic regression multivariate analysis to adjust the influence of variables based on awareness and preparedness. We then used association rule mining to identify relationships between HCW confidence in handling suspected COVID-19 patients and prior COVID-19 case-management training.

RESULTS

We surveyed 24,653 HCWs from 371 hospitals across 57 countries and received 17,302 responses from 70.2% HCWs overall. The median COVID-19 preparedness score was 11.0 (interquartile range [IQR] = 6.0-14.0) and the median awareness score was 29.6 (IQR = 26.6-32.6). HCWs at COVID-19 designated facilities with previous outbreak experience, or HCWs who were trained for dealing with the SARS-CoV-2 outbreak, had significantly higher levels of preparedness and awareness (p<0.001). Association rule mining suggests that nurses and doctors who had a 'great-extent-of-confidence' in handling suspected COVID-19 patients had participated in COVID-19 training courses. Male participants (mean difference = 0.34; 95% CI = 0.22, 0.46; p<0.001) and nurses (mean difference = 0.67; 95% CI = 0.53, 0.81; p<0.001) had higher preparedness scores compared to women participants and doctors.

INTERPRETATION

There was an unsurprising high level of awareness and preparedness among HCWs who participated in COVID-19 training courses. However, disparity existed along the lines of gender and type of HCW. It is unknown whether the difference in COVID-19 preparedness that we detected early in the pandemic may have translated into disproportionate SARS-CoV-2 burden of disease by gender or HCW type.

Estimating the Population Health Impact of Recently Introduced Modified Risk Tobacco Products: A Comparison of Different Approaches

Introduction

Various approaches have been used to estimate the population health impact of introducing a Modified Risk Tobacco Product (MRTP).

Aims and Methods

We aimed to compare and contrast aspects of models considering effects on mortality that were known to experts attending a meeting on models in 2018.

Results

Thirteen models are described, some focussing on e-cigarettes, others more general. Most models are cohort-based, comparing results with or without MRTP introduction. They typically start with a population with known smoking habits and then use transition probabilities either to update smoking habits in the “null scenario” or joint smoking and MRTP habits in an “alternative scenario”. The models vary in the tobacco groups and transition probabilities considered. Based on aspects of the tobacco history developed, the models compare mortality risks, and sometimes life-years lost and health costs, between scenarios. Estimating effects on population health depends on frequency of use of the MRTP and smoking, and the extent to which the products expose users to harmful constituents. Strengths and weaknesses of the approaches are summarized.

Conclusions

Despite methodological differences, most modellers have assumed the increase in risk of mortality from MRTP use, relative to that from cigarette smoking, to be very low and have concluded that MRTP introduction is likely to have a beneficial impact. Further model development, supplemented by preliminary results from well-designed epidemiological studies, should enable more precise prediction of the anticipated effects of MRTP introduction.

Implications

There is a need to estimate the population health impact of introducing modified risk nicotine-containing products for smokers unwilling or unable to quit. This paper reviews a variety of modeling methodologies proposed to do this, and discusses the implications of the different approaches. It should assist modelers in refining and improving their models, and help toward providing authorities with more reliable estimates.

Further investigation of gateway effects using the PATH study

Background: Interest exists in whether youth e-cigarette use (“vaping”) increases risk of initiating cigarette smoking. Using Waves 1 and 2 of the US PATH study we previously reported adjustment for vaping propensity using Wave 1 variables explained about 80% of the unadjusted relationship. Here data from Waves 1 to 3 are used to avoid over-adjustment if Wave 1 vaping affected variables recorded then.

Methods: Main analyses M1 and M2 concerned Wave 2 never smokers who never vaped by Wave 1, linking Wave 2 vaping to Wave 3 smoking initiation, adjusting for predictors of vaping based on Wave 1 data using differing  propensity indices.  M3 was similar but derived the index from Wave 2 data.  Sensitivity analyses excluded Wave 1 other tobacco product users, included other product use as another predictor, or considered propensity for smoking or any tobacco use, not vaping. Alternative analyses used exact age (not previously available) as a confounder not grouped age, attempted residual confounding adjustment by modifying predictor values using data recorded later, or considered interactions with age.

Results: In M1, adjustment removed about half the excess OR (i.e. OR–1), the unadjusted OR, 5.60 (95% CI 4.52-6.93), becoming 3.37 (2.65-4.28), 3.11 (2.47-3.92) or 3.27 (2.57-4.16), depending whether adjustment was for propensity as a continuous variable, as quintiles, or the variables making up the propensity score. Many factors had little effect: using grouped or exact age; considering other products; including interactions; or using predictors of smoking or tobacco use rather than vaping. The clearest conclusion was that analyses avoiding over-adjustment explained about half the excess OR, whereas analyses subject to over-adjustment explained about 80%.

Conclusions: Although much of the unadjusted gateway effect results from confounding, we provide stronger evidence than previously of some causal effect of vaping, though doubts still remain about the completeness of adjustment.

Exclusive cigar smoking in the United States and smoking-related diseases: A systematic review

BACKGROUND

Little information has been published on the risks of cigar smoking. Since 1990 cigar smoking has become more prevalent in the United States.

AIM

To summarise the evidence from the United States relating exclusive cigar smoking to risk of the major smoking-related diseases.

METHODS

Literature searches detected studies carried out in the United States which estimated the risk of lung cancer, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), heart disease, stroke or overall circulatory disease in exclusive cigar smokers as compared to those who had never smoked any tobacco product. Papers were identified from reviews and detailed searches on MEDLINE. For each study, data were extracted onto a study database and a linked relative risk database. Relative risks and 95%CIs were extracted, or estimated, relating to current, former or ever exclusive cigar smokers, and meta-analysed using standard methods. Sensitivity analyses were conducted including or excluding results from studies that did not quite fit the full selection criteria (for example, a paper presenting combined results from five studies, where 86% of the population were in the United States).

RESULTS

The literature searches identified 17 relevant publications for lung cancer, four for COPD and 12 for heart disease, stroke and circulatory disease. These related to 11 studies for lung cancer, to four studies for COPD and to eight studies for heart disease, stroke or overall circulatory disease. As some studies provided results for more than one disease, the total number of studies considered was 13, with results from four of these used in sensitivity analyses. There was evidence of significant heterogeneity in some of the meta-analyses so the random-effects estimates are summarized below. As the results from the sensitivity analyses were generally very similar to those from the main analyses, and involved more data, only the sensitivity results are summarized below. For lung cancer, relative risks (95%CI) for current, former and ever smokers were respectively, 2.98 (2.08 to 4.26), 1.61 (1.23 to 2.09), and 2.22 (1.79 to 2.74) based on 6, 4 and 10 individual study estimates. For COPD, the corresponding estimates were 1.44 (1.16 to 1.77), 0.47 (0.02 to 9.88), and 0.86 (0.48 to 1.54) based on 4, 2 and 2 estimates. For ischaemic heart disease (IHD) the estimates were 1.11 (1.04 to 1.19), 1.26 (1.03 to 1.53) and 1.15 (1.08 to 1.23) based on 6, 3 and 4 estimates, while for stroke they were 1.02 (0.92 to 1.13), 1.08 (0.85 to 1.38), and 1.11 (0.95 to 1.31) based on 5, 3 and 4 estimates. For overall circulatory disease they were 1.10 (1.05 to 1.16), 1.11 (0.84 to 1.46), and 1.15 (1.06 to 1.26) based on 3, 3 and 4 estimates.

CONCLUSION

Exclusive cigar smoking is associated with an increased risk of lung cancer, and less so with COPD and IHD. The increases are lower than for cigarettes.

Systematic review with meta-analysis of the epidemiological evidence relating smoking to type 2 diabetes

BACKGROUND

Evidence relating tobacco smoking to type 2 diabetes has accumulated rapidly in the last few years, rendering earlier reviews considerably incomplete.

AIM

To review and meta-analyse evidence from prospective studies of the relationship between smoking and the onset of type 2 diabetes.

METHODS

Prospective studies were selected if the population was free of type 2 diabetes at baseline and evidence was available relating smoking to onset of the disease. Papers were identified from previous reviews, searches on Medline and Embase and reference lists. Data were extracted on a range of study characteristics and relative risks (RRs) were extracted comparing current, ever or former smokers with never smokers, and current smokers with non-current smokers, as well as by amount currently smoked and duration of quitting. Fixed- and random-effects estimates summarized RRs for each index of smoking overall and by various subdivisions of the data: Sex; continent; publication year; method of diagnosis; nature of the baseline population (inclusion/exclusion of pre-diabetes); number of adjustment factors; cohort size; number of type 2 diabetes cases; age; length of follow-up; definition of smoking; and whether or not various factors were adjusted for. Tests of heterogeneity and publication bias were also conducted.

RESULTS

The literature searches identified 157 relevant publications providing results from 145 studies. Fifty-three studies were conducted in Asia and 53 in Europe, with 32 in North America, and seven elsewhere. Twenty-four were in males, 10 in females and the rest in both sexes. Fifteen diagnosed type 2 diabetes from self-report by the individuals, 79 on medical records, and 51 on both. Studies varied widely in size of the cohort, number of cases, length of follow-up, and age. Overall, random-effects estimates of the RR were 1.33 [95% confidence interval (CI): 1.28-1.38] for current vs never smoking, 1.28 (95%CI: 1.24-1.32) for current vs non-smoking, 1.13 (95%CI: 1.11-1.16) for former vs never smoking, and 1.25 (95%CI: 1.21-1.28) for ever vs never smoking based on, respectively, 99, 156, 100 and 100 individual risk estimates. Risk estimates were generally elevated in each subdivision of the data by the various factors considered (exceptions being where numbers of estimates in the subsets were very low), though there was significant (P < 0.05) evidence of variation by level for some factors. Dose-response analysis showed a clear trend of increasing risk with increasing amount smoked by current smokers and of decreasing risk with increasing time quit. There was limited evidence of publication bias.

CONCLUSION

The analyses confirmed earlier reports of a modest dose-related association of current smoking and a weaker dose-related association of former smoking with type 2 diabetes risk.

Methodological steps used by authors of systematic reviews and meta-analyses of clinical trials: a cross-sectional study

Background

The quality of systematic reviews and meta-analyses (SR/MAs) depends on the extent of the methods used. We investigated the methodological steps used by authors of SR/MAs of clinical trials via an author survey.

Methods

We conducted an email-based cross-sectional study by contacting corresponding authors of SR/MAs that were published in 2015 and 2016 and retrieved through the PubMed database. The 27-item questionnaire was developed to study the methodological steps used by authors when conducting a SR/MA and the demographic characteristics of the respondent. Besides the demographic characteristics, methodological questions regarding the source, extraction and synthesis of data were included.

Results

From 10,292 emails sent, 384 authors responded and were included in the final analysis. Manual searches were carried out by 69.2% of authors, while 87.3% do updated searches, 49.2% search grey literature, 74.9% use the Cochrane tool for risk of bias assessment, 69.8% assign more than two reviewers for data extraction, 20.5% use digital software to extract data from graphs, 57.9% use raw data in the meta-analysis, and 43.8% meta-analyze both adjusted and non-adjusted data. There was a positive correlation of years of experience in conducting of SR/MAs with both searching grey literature (P = 0.0003) and use of adjusted and non-adjusted data (P = 0.006).

Conclusions

Many authors still do not carry out many of the vital methodological steps to be taken when performing any SR/MA. The experience of the authors in SR/MAs is highly correlated with use of the recommended tips for SR/MA conduct. The optimal methodological approach for researchers conducting a SR/MA should be standardized.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (10.1186/s12874-019-0780-2) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Misclassification of smoking habits: An updated review of the literature

BACKGROUND

Misclassification of smoking habits leads to underestimation of true relationships between diseases and active smoking, and overestimation of true relationships with passive smoking. Information on misclassification rates can be obtained from studies using cotinine as a marker.

AIM

To estimate overall misclassification rates based on a review and meta-analysis of the available evidence, and to investigate how misclassification rates depend on other factors.

METHODS

We searched for studies using cotinine as a marker which involved at least 200 participants and which provided information on high cotinine levels in self-reported non-, never, or ex-smokers or on low levels in self-reported smokers. We estimated overall misclassification rates weighted on sample size and investigated heterogeneity by various study characteristics. Misclassification rates were calculated for two cotinine cut points to distinguish smokers and non-smokers, the higher cut point intended to distinguish regular smoking.

RESULTS

After avoiding double counting, 226 reports provided 294 results from 205 studies. A total of 115 results were from North America, 128 from Europe, 25 from Asia and 26 from other countries. A study on 6.2 million life insurance applicants was considered separately. Based on the lower cut point, true current smokers represented 4.96% (95% CI 4.32-5.60%) of reported non-smokers, 3.00% (2.45-3.54%) of reported never smokers, and 10.92% (9.23-12.61%) of reported ex-smokers. As percentages of true current smokers, non-, never and ex-smokers formed, respectively, 14.50% (12.36-16.65%), 5.70% (3.20-8.20%), and 8.93% (6.57-11.29%). Reported current smokers represented 3.65% (2.84-4.45%) of true non-smokers. There was considerable heterogeneity between misclassification rates. Rates of claiming never smoking were very high in Asian women smokers, the individual studies reporting rates of 12.5%, 22.4%, 33.3%, 54.2% and 66.3%. False claims of quitting were relatively high in pregnant women, in diseased individuals who may recently have been advised to quit, and in studies considering cigarette smoking rather than any smoking. False claims of smoking were higher in younger populations. Misclassification rates were higher in more recently published studies. There was no clear evidence that rates varied by the body fluid used for the cotinine analysis, the assay method used, or whether the respondent was aware their statements would be validated by cotinine - though here many studies did not provide relevant information. There was only limited evidence that rates were lower in studies classified as being of good quality, based on the extent to which other sources of nicotine were accounted for.

CONCLUSION

It is important for epidemiologists to consider the possibility of bias due to misclassification of smoking habits, especially in circumstances where rates are likely to be high. The evidence of higher rates in more recent studies suggests that the extent of misclassification bias in studies relating passive smoking to smoking-related disease may have been underestimated.

Considerations related to vaping as a possible gateway into cigarette smoking: an analytical review

Background: Toxicant levels are much lower in e-cigarettes than cigarettes. Therefore, introducing e-cigarettes into the market seems likely to reduce smoking-related diseases (SRD). However, vaping might provide a gateway into cigarette smoking for those who otherwise would never have smoked, a concern fuelled by cohort studies showing vaping predicts subsequent smoking initiation in young people. Methods: In this discussion paper, we consider various aspects of the gateway issue in youths. We provide a descriptive critical review of results from prospective studies relating to the gateway effect and the extent to which the studies considered other potential confounding variables associated with smoking initiation. We then estimate the effects of omitting a confounding variable, or misclassifying it, on the association between vaping and subsequent smoking initiation, and determine how the prevalence of smoking might be affected by any true gateway effects of vaping. Finally, we examine trends in e-cigarette and smoking prevalence in youths based on national surveys. Results: First, we demonstrate that although studies report that vaping significantly predicts smoking initiation following adjustment for various other predictors, the sets of predictors considered are quite incomplete. Furthermore, no study considered residual confounding arising from inaccurate measurement of predictors. More precise adjustment may substantially reduce the association. Second, we show any true gateway effect would likely affect smoking prevalence only modestly. Third, we show smoking prevalence in U.S. and U.K. youths in 2014-2016 declined somewhat faster than predicted by the preceding trend; a substantial gateway effect suggests the opposite. Finally, we argue that even if some gateway effect exists, introducing e-cigarettes still likely reduces SRDs. Conclusions: Given that the existence of any true gateway effect in youth is not yet clearly demonstrated the population health impact of introducing e-cigarettes is still likely to be beneficial.

Considerations related to vaping as a possible gateway into cigarette smoking: an analytical review

Background: Toxicant levels are much lower in e-cigarettes than cigarettes. Therefore, introducing e-cigarettes into the market seems likely to reduce smoking-related diseases (SRD). However, vaping might provide a gateway into cigarette smoking for those who otherwise would never have smoked, a concern fueled by cohort studies showing vaping predicts subsequent smoking initiation in young people. Methods: In this discussion paper, we consider various aspects of the gateway issue in youths. We provide a descriptive critical review of results from prospective studies relating to the gateway effect and the extent to which the studies considered other potential confounding variables associated with smoking initiation.  We then estimate the effects of omitting a confounding variable, or misclassifying it, on the association between vaping and subsequent smoking initiation, and determine how the prevalence of smoking might be affected by any true gateway-in effects of vaping. Finally, we examine trends in e-cigarette and smoking prevalence in youths based on national surveys. Results:  First, we demonstrate that although studies report that vaping significantly predicts smoking initiation following adjustment for various other predictors, the sets of predictors considered are quite incomplete. Furthermore, no study considered residual confounding arising from inaccurate measurement of predictors. More precise adjustment may substantially reduce the association. Second, we show any true gateway effect would likely affect smoking prevalence only modestly. Third, we show smoking prevalence in U.S. and U.K. youths in 2014-2016 declined somewhat faster than predicted by the preceding trend; a substantial gateway effect suggests the opposite. Finally, we argue that even if some gateway effect exists, introducing e-cigarettes still likely reduces SRDs. Conclusions: We have shown that the existence of any true gateway-in effect in youth is not yet clearly demonstrated and that the population health impact of introducing e-cigarettes is still likely to be beneficial.

Considerations related to vaping as a possible gateway into cigarette smoking: an analytical review

Background: Compared to cigarette smoking, e-cigarette use is likely to present a reduced risk of smoking-related disease (SRD). However, several studies have shown that vaping predicts smoking initiation and might provide a gateway into smoking for those who otherwise would never have smoked. This paper considers various aspects of the gateway issue in youths. Methods: Here, we reviewed studies (N=15) of the gateway effect examining how extensively they accounted for confounders associated with smoking initiation in youths. We estimated how omitting a confounder, or misclassifying it, might bias the association between vaping and smoking initiation. We assessed how smoking prevalence might be affected by any true gateway effect, and examined trends in youth smoking and e-cigarette use from national surveys. Results: The list of smoking predictors adjusted for in studies reporting a significant gateway effect is not comprehensive, rarely considering internalising/externalising disorders, outcome expectancies, school performance, anxiety, parental smoking and peer attitudes. Furthermore, no study adjusted for residual confounding from inaccurately measured predictors. Better adjustment may substantially reduce the estimated gateway effect. Calculations showed that as any true gateway effects increase, there are much smaller increases in smoking prevalence, and that gateway effects increase only if initiating vaping is more frequent than initiating smoking. These effects on prevalence also depend on the relative odds of quitting vs. initiation. Data from five surveys in US/UK youths all show that, regardless of sex and age, smoking prevalence in 2014-2016 declined faster than predicted by the preceding trend, suggesting the absence of a substantial gateway effect. We also present arguments suggesting that even with some true gateway effect, introducing e-cigarettes likely reduces SRD risk. Conclusions: A true gateway effect in youths has not yet been demonstrated. Even if it were, e-cigarette introduction may well have had a beneficial population health impact.

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.

Estimating the population health impact of introducing a reduced-risk tobacco product into Japan. The effect of differing assumptions, and some comparisons with the U.S

We estimated, using previously described methodology, the population health impact of introducing a reduced-risk tobacco product (RRP) into Japan. Various simulations were carried out to understand the impact on the population in different situations over a 20-year period from 1990. The overall reduction in tobacco-attributable deaths from lung cancer (LC), ischemic heart disease (IHD), stroke, and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) for men and women combined was estimated to be 269,916 over the period if tobacco use disappeared completely at baseline. In contrast, reductions ranging from 167,041 to 232,519 deaths were estimated if the RRP totally replaced smoking at baseline (assuming that switching to it had an effect equivalent to 70%-90% of the effect of quitting). If, more plausibly, the RRP were introduced at baseline, with uptake rates consistent with the known uptake of the RRP IQOS^®, the reductions would still be substantial (from 65,126 to 86,885 deaths). Expressed as a percentage of attributable deaths, these proportions are larger than those for the U.S., based on likely uptake rates. We discuss various limitations of the approach, though none should affect the conclusion that the introduction of an RRP into Japan will substantially reduce tobacco-related deaths.

Improving the conduct of meta-analyses of observational studies

The author, who has published numerous meta-analyses of epidemiological studies, particularly on tobacco, comments on various aspects of their content. While such meta-analyses, even when well conducted, are more difficult to draw inferences from than are meta-analyses of clinical trials, they allow greater insight into an association than do simple qualitative reviews. This editorial starts with a discussion of some problems relating to hypothesis definition. These include the definition of the outcome, the exposure and the population to be considered, as well as the study inclusion and exclusion criteria. Under literature searching, the author argues against restriction to studies published in peer-reviewed journals, emphasising the fact that relevant data may be available from other sources. Problems of identifying studies and double counting are discussed, as are various issues in regard to data entry. The need to check published effect estimates is emphasised, and techniques to calculate estimates from material provided in the source publication are described. Once the data have been collected and an overall effect estimate obtained, tests for heterogeneity should be conducted in relation to different study characteristics. Though some meta-analysts recommend classifying studies by an overall index of study quality, the author prefers to separately investigate heterogeneity by those factors which contribute to the assessment of quality. Reasons why an association may not actually reflect a true causal relationship are also discussed, with the editorial describing techniques for investigating the relevance of confounding, and referring to problems resulting from misclassification of key variables. Misclassification of disease, exposure and confounding variables can all produce a spurious association, as can misclassification of the variable used to determine whether an individual can enter the study, and the author points to techniques to adjust for this. Issues relating to publication bias and the interpretation of “statistically significant” results are also discussed. The editorial should give the reader insight into the difficulties of producing a good meta-analysis.

Modeling the impact of changes in tobacco use on individual disease risks

Reduced Risk Products (RRPs) do not burn tobacco and produce lower levels of toxicants than in cigarette smoke. The long-term effects of using RRPs on health are difficult to assess in a pre-market setting and a modeling approach is required to quantify harm reduction. The Population Health Impact Model (Weitkunat et al., 2015) follows a hypothetical population of individuals over time, creating their tobacco use histories and, based on these, estimating relative and absolute risks of lung cancer, ischemic heart disease, stroke and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. Linking the tobacco use to the risk profile allow us to assess how the relative and absolute risks of these diseases vary between individuals aged 20, 30, 40 or 50 at baseline who have never smoked or who initiated smoking at 19 years old and either continued to smoke, quit smoking, or switched to RRPs with varying degrees of harm reduction. The simulations suggest that, for smokers in their 20s-30s quitting, or switching to RRP primarily prevents the accrual of risk, while in their 40s-50s it reduces risk. Though tobacco prevention has been the primary approach to limit smoking-related diseases, RRPs can also substantially reduce risks in individuals who do not quit.

Tar level of cigarettes smoked and risk of smoking-related diseases

BACKGROUND

Opinions differ on the relationship between tar level and risk of smoking-related disease. However, except for lung cancer, few reviews have evaluated the epidemiological evidence. Here the relationship of tar level to risk of the four main smoking-related diseases is considered.

METHODS

Papers comparing risk of lung cancer, COPD, heart disease or stroke in smokers of lower and higher tar yield cigarettes were identified from reviews and searches, relative risk estimates being extracted comparing the lowest and highest tar groups. Meta-analyses investigated heterogeneity by various study characteristics.

RESULTS

Twenty-six studies were identified, nine of prospective design and 17 case-control. Two studies grouped cigarettes by nicotine rather than tar. Seventeen studies gave results for lung cancer, 16 for heart disease, five for stroke and four for COPD. Preferring relative risks adjusted for daily amount smoked, where adjusted and unadjusted estimates were available, combined estimates for lowest versus highest tar (or nicotine) groups were 0.78 (95% confidence interval 0.70-0.88) for lung cancer, 0.86 (0.81-0.91) for heart disease, 0.77 (0.62-0.95) for stroke and 0.81 (0.65-1.02) for COPD. Lower risks were generally evident in subgroups by publication period, gender, study design, location and extent of confounder adjustment. Estimates were similar preferring data unadjusted for amount smoked or excluding nicotine-based estimates.

CONCLUSIONS

Despite evidence that smokers substantially compensate for reduced cigarette yields, the results clearly show lower risks in lower tar smokers. Limitations of the evidence are discussed, but seem unlikely to affect this conclusion.

The relationship of cigarette smoking in Japan to lung cancer, COPD, ischemic heart disease and stroke: A systematic review

Background:  To present up-to-date meta-analyses of evidence from Japan relating smoking to major smoking-related diseases.  Methods:  We restricted attention to lung cancer, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), ischemic heart disease (IHD) and stroke, considering relative risks (RRs) for current and ex-smokers relative to never smokers.  Evidence by amount smoked and time quit was also considered.  For IHD and stroke only, studies had to provide age-adjusted RRs, with age-specific results considered.  For each disease we extended earlier published databases to include more recent studies.  Meta-analyses were conducted, with random-effects RRs and tests of heterogeneity presented.  Results:  Of 40 studies, 26 reported results for lung cancer and 7 to 9 for each other disease.  For current smoking, RRs (95%CIs) were lung cancer 3.59 (3.25-3.96), COPD 3.57 (2.72-4.70), IHD 2.21 (1.96-2.50) and stroke 1.40 (1.25-1.57).  Ex-smoking RRs were lower.  Data for lung cancer and IHD showed a clear tendency for RRs to rise with increasing amount smoked and decrease with increasing time quit.  Dose-response data were unavailable for COPD and unclear for stroke, where the association was weaker.  Conclusions:  Compared to studies in other Asian and Western countries, current smoking RRs were quite similar for IHD and stroke.  The comparison is not clear for COPD, where the Japanese data, mainly from cross-sectional studies, is limited.  For lung cancer, the RRs are similar to those in other Asian countries, but substantially lower than in Western countries.  Explanations for this are unclear, but less accurate reporting of smoking by Japanese may contribute to the difference.

Epidemiological evidence relating environmental smoke to COPD in lifelong non-smokers: a systematic review

Background: Some evidence suggests environmental tobacco smoke (ETS) might cause chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). We reviewed available epidemiological data in never smokers. Methods: We identified epidemiological studies providing estimates of relative risk (RR) with 95% confidence interval (CI) for various ETS exposure indices. Confounder-adjusted RRs for COPD were extracted, or derived using standard methods. Meta-analyses were conducted for each exposure index, with tests for heterogeneity and publication bias. For the main index (spouse ever smoked or nearest equivalent), analyses investigated variation in RR by location, publication period, study type, sex, diagnosis, study size, confounder adjustment, never smoker definition, and exposure index definition. Results: Twenty-eight relevant studies were identified; nine European or Middle Eastern, nine Asian, eight American and two from multiple countries. Five were prospective, seven case-control and 16 cross-sectional. The COPD definition involved death or hospitalisation in seven studies, GOLD stage 1+ criteria in twelve, and other definitions in nine. For the main index, random-effects meta-analysis of 33 heterogeneous (p<0.001) estimates gave a RR of 1.20 (95%CI 1.08-1.34). Higher estimates for females (1.59,1.16-2.19, n=11) than males (1.29,0.94-1.76, n=7) or sexes combined (1.10,0.99-1.22, n=15 where sex-specific not available), and lower estimates for studies of 150+ cases (1.08,0.97-1.20, n=13) partly explained the heterogeneity. Estimates were higher for Asian studies (1.34,1.08-1.67, n=10), case-control studies (1.55,1.04-2.32, n=8), and COPD mortality or hospitalisation (1.40,1.12-1.74, n=11). Some increase was seen for severer COPD (1.29,1.10-1.52, n=7). Dose-response evidence was heterogeneous. Evidence for childhood (0.88,0.72-1.07, n=2) and workplace (1.12,0.77-1.64, n=4) exposure was limited, but an increase was seen for overall adulthood exposure (1.20,1.03-1.39, n=17). We discuss study weaknesses that may bias estimation of the association of COPD with ETS. Conclusions: Although the evidence suggests ETS increases COPD, study weaknesses and absence of well-designed large studies precludes reliable inference of causality. More definitive evidence is required.

Epidemiological evidence relating environmental smoke to COPD in lifelong non-smokers: a systematic review

Background: Some evidence suggests environmental tobacco smoke (ETS) might cause chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). We reviewed available epidemiological data in never smokers. Methods: We identified epidemiological studies providing estimates of relative risk (RR) with 95% confidence interval (CI) for various ETS exposure indices. Confounder-adjusted RRs for COPD were extracted, or derived using standard methods. Meta-analyses were conducted for each exposure index, with tests for heterogeneity and publication bias. For the main index (spouse ever smoked or nearest equivalent), analyses investigated variation in RR by location, publication period, study type, sex, diagnosis, study size, confounder adjustment, never smoker definition, and exposure index definition. Results: Twenty-eight relevant studies were identified; nine European or Middle Eastern, nine Asian, eight American and two from multiple countries. Five were prospective, seven case-control and 16 cross-sectional. The COPD definition involved death or hospitalisation in seven studies, GOLD stage 1+ criteria in twelve, and other definitions in nine. For the main index, random-effects meta-analysis of 33 heterogeneous (p<0.001) estimates gave a RR of 1.20 (95%CI 1.08-1.34). Higher estimates for females (1.59,1.16-2.19, n=11) than males (1.29,0.94-1.76, n=7) or sexes combined (1.10,0.99-1.22, n=15 where sex-specific not available), and lower estimates for studies of 150+ cases (1.08,0.97-1.20, n=13) partly explained the heterogeneity. Estimates were higher for Asian studies (1.34,1.08-1.67, n=10), case-control studies (1.55,1.04-2.32, n=8), and COPD mortality or hospitalisation (1.40,1.12-1.74, n=11). Some increase was seen for severer COPD (1.29,1.10-1.52, n=7). Dose-response evidence was heterogeneous. Evidence for childhood (0.88,0.72-1.07, n=2) and workplace (1.12,0.77-1.64, n=4) exposure was limited, but an increase was seen for overall adulthood exposure (1.20,1.03-1.39, n=17). We discuss study weaknesses that may bias estimation of the association of COPD with ETS. Conclusions: Although the evidence suggests ETS increases COPD, study weaknesses and absence of well-designed large studies precludes reliable inference of causality. More definitive evidence is required.

The relationship of snus use to diabetes and allied conditions

A recent meta-analysis reported smoking to be associated with a 37% higher risk of type 2 diabetes in current smokers, rising to a 57% increase in heavy smokers, which declines on quitting. If the increase results from nicotine exposure, it is possible that using Swedish moist snuff ("snus"), which provides at least equivalent nicotine doses, might also increase diabetes risk. Following a recent publication reporting pooled results from five cohorts, we present a detailed meta-analysis of data from 18 studies. Based on covariate-adjusted estimates, no significant increased risk was seen in never smokers with RRs (95% CIs) of 1.08 (0.86-1.34), 0.93 (0.79-1.11) and 1.05 (0.94-1.18) for current, former and ever snus users. Significant increases were also not seen in the whole population, the corresponding RR estimates being 1.18 (0.94-1.48), 0.69 (0.49-0.96) and 0.95 (0.81-1.11). Nor was there an association of snus use with related endpoints, such as impaired glucose tolerance. However, dose-response analyses showed a relationship, with the highest levels of snus exposure associated with a diabetes RR of 1.65 (1.25-2.18) in never smokers. The evidence relating snus to type 2 diabetes is somewhat limited, requiring further studies to confirm any possible relationship.

Estimating the effect of differing assumptions on the population health impact of introducing a Reduced Risk Tobacco Product in the USA

We use Population Health Impact Modelling to assess effects on tobacco prevalence and mortality of introducing a Reduced Risk Tobacco Product (RRP). Simulated samples start in 1990 with a US-representative smoking prevalence. Individual tobacco histories are updated annually until 2010 using estimated probabilities of switching between never/current/former smoking where the RRP is not introduced, with current users subdivided into cigarette/RRP/dual users where it is. RRP-related mortality reductions from lung cancer, IHD, stroke and COPD are derived from the histories and the assumed relative risks of the RRP. A basic analysis assumes a hypothetical RRP reduces effective dose 80% in users and 40% in dual users, with an uptake rate generating ∼10% RRP and ∼6% dual users among current users after 10 years. Sensitivity study changes in tobacco prevalence and mortality from varying effective doses, current smoking risks, quitting half-lives and rates of initiation, switching, re-initiation and cessation. They also study extreme situations (e.g. everyone using RRP), and investigate assumptions which might eliminate the RRP-related mortality reduction. The mortality reduction is proportional to the dose reduction, increasing rapidly with time of follow-up. Plausible increases in re-initiation or dual users' consumption, or decreased quitting by smokers would not eliminate the drop.

Environmental tobacco smoke exposure and heart disease: A systematic review

AIM

To review evidence relating passive smoking to heart disease risk in never smokers.

METHODS

Epidemiological studies were identified providing estimates of relative risk (RR) of ischaemic heart disease and 95%CI for never smokers for various indices of exposure to environmental tobacco smoke (ETS). “Never smokers” could include those with a minimal smoking experience. The database set up included the RRs and other study details. Unadjusted and confounder-adjusted RRs were entered, derived where necessary using standard methods. The fixed-effect and random-effects meta-analyses conducted for each exposure index included tests for heterogeneity and publication bias. For the main index (ever smoking by the spouse or nearest equivalent, and preferring adjusted to unadjusted data), analyses investigated variation in the RR by sex, continent, period of publication, number of cases, study design, extent of confounder adjustment, availability of dose-response results and biomarker data, use of proxy respondents, definitions of exposure and of never smoker, and aspects of disease definition. Sensitivity analyses were also run, preferring current to ever smoking, or unadjusted to adjusted estimates, or excluding certain studies.

RESULTS

Fifty-eight studies were identified, 20 in North America, 19 in Europe, 11 in Asia, seven in other countries, and one in 52 countries. Twenty-six were prospective, 22 case-control and 10 cross-sectional. Thirteen included 100 cases or fewer, and 11 more than 1000. For the main index, 75 heterogeneous (P < 0.001) RR estimates gave a combined random-effects RR of 1.18 (95%CI: 1.12-1.24), which was little affected by preferring unadjusted to adjusted RRs, or RRs for current ETS exposure to those for ever exposure. Estimates for each level of each factor considered consistently exceeded 1.00. However, univariate analyses revealed significant (P < 0.001) variation for some factors. Thus RRs were lower for males, and in North American, larger and prospective studies, and also where the RR was for spousal smoking, fatal cases, or specifically for IHD. For case-control studies RRs were lower if hospital/diseased controls were used. RRs were higher when diagnosis was based on medical data rather than death certificates or self-report, and where the never smoker definition allowed subjects to smoke products other than cigarettes or have a limited smoking history. The association with spousal smoking specifically (1.06, 1.01-1.12, n = 34) was less clear in analyses restricted to married subjects (1.03, 0.99-1.07, n = 23). In stepwise regression analyses only those associations with source of diagnosis, study size, and whether the spouse was the index, were independently predictive (at P < 0.05) of heart disease risk. A significant association was also evident with household exposure (1.19, 1.13-1.25, n = 37). For those 23 studies providing dose-response results for spouse or household exposure, 11 showed a significant (P < 0.05) positive trend including the unexposed group, and two excluding it. Based on fewer studies, a positive, but non-significant (P > 0.05) association was found for workplace exposure (RR = 1.08, 95%CI: 0.99-1.19), childhood exposure (1.12, 0.95-1.31), and biomarker based exposure indices (1.15, 0.94-1.40). However, there was a significant association with total exposure (1.23, 1.12-1.35). Some significant positive dose-response trends were also seen for these exposure indices, particularly total exposure, with no significant negative trends seen. The evidence suffers from various weaknesses and biases. Publication bias may explain the large RR (1.66, 1.30-2.11) for the main exposure index for smaller studies (1-99 cases), while recall bias may explain the higher RRs seen in case-control and cross-sectional than in prospective studies. Some bias may also derive from including occasional smokers among the “never smokers”, and from misreporting smoking status. Errors in determining ETS exposure, and failing to update exposure data in long term prospective studies, also contribute to the uncertainty. The tendency for RRs to increase as more factors are adjusted for, argues against the association being due to uncontrolled confounding.

CONCLUSION

The increased risk and dose-response for various exposure indices suggests ETS slightly increases heart disease risk. However heterogeneity, study limitations and possible biases preclude definitive conclusions.

A systematic review of possible serious adverse health effects of nicotine replacement therapy

We conducted a systematic literature review to identify and critically evaluate studies of serious adverse health effects (SAHEs) in humans using nicotine replacement therapy (NRT) products. Serious adverse health effects refer to adverse events, leading to substantial disruption of the ability to conduct normal life functions. Strength of evidence evaluations and conclusions were also determined for the identified SAHEs. We evaluated 34 epidemiological studies and clinical trials, relating NRT use to cancer, reproduction/development, CVD, stroke and/or other SAHEs in patients, and four meta-analyses on effects in healthy populations. The overall evidence suffers from many limitations, the most significant being the short-term exposure (≤12 weeks) and follow-up to NRT product use in most of the studies, the common failure to account for changes in smoking behaviour following NRT use, and the sparse information on SAHEs by type of NRT product used. The only SAHE from NRT exposure we identified was an increase in respiratory congenital abnormalities reported in one study. Limited evidence indicated a lack of effect between NRT exposure and SAHEs for CVD and various reproduction/developmental endpoints. For cancer, stroke and other SAHEs, the evidence was inadequate to demonstrate any association with NRT use. Our conclusions agree with recent statements from authoritative bodies.

Environmental Tobacco Smoke Exposure and Risk of Stroke in Never Smokers: An Updated Review with Meta-Analysis

OBJECTIVES

The study aimed to review the epidemiological evidence relating environmental tobacco smoke exposure to stroke in never smokers.

METHODS

The study is similar to our review in 2006, with searches extended to March 2016.

RESULTS

Twelve further studies were identified. A total of 28 studies varied considerably in design, exposure indices used, and disease definition. Based on 39 sex-specific estimates and the exposure index current spousal exposure (or nearest equivalent), the meta-analysis gave an overall fixed-effect relative risk estimate of 1.23 (95% confidence interval: 1.16-1.31), with significant (P < .05) heterogeneity. There was no significant heterogeneity by sex, continent, fatality, disease end point, or degree of adjustment for potential confounding factors. Relative risks were less elevated in prospective studies (1.15, 1.06-1.24) than in case-control studies (1.44, 1.22-1.60) or cross-sectional studies (1.40, 1.21-1.61). They also varied by publication year, but with no trend. A significant increase was not seen in studies that excluded smokers of any tobacco (1.07, .97-1.17), but was seen for studies that included pipe- or cigar-only smokers, occasional smokers, or long-term former smokers. No elevation was seen for hemorrhagic stroke. Relative risk estimates were similar using ever rather than current exposure, or total rather than spousal exposure. Eleven studies provided dose-response estimates, the combined relative risk for the highest exposure level being 1.56 (1.37-1.79). Many studies have evident weaknesses, recall bias, and particularly publication bias being major concerns.

CONCLUSIONS

Although other reviewers inferred a causal relationship, we consider the evidence does not conclusively demonstrate this. We repeat our call for publication of data from existing large prospective studies.

Environmental tobacco smoke exposure and risk of breast cancer in nonsmoking women. An updated review and meta-analysis

CONTEXT

In 2006, we reviewed the evidence on environmental tobacco smoke (ETS) and breast cancer in nonsmoking women. Since then various studies and reviews have been published but opinion remains divided.

OBJECTIVE

To provide an updated review.

METHODS

We extracted study details, derived relative risk (RR) estimates with confidence intervals (CIs) for various ETS exposure indices, and conducted meta-analyses.

RESULTS

The update increased the number of studies from 22 to 47. Using an index for each study most closely equivalent to "spouse ever smoked", a weak but significant association was seen (random-effects RR = 1.15, 95% CI = 1.07-1.23). However, the estimates were heterogeneous: higher for Asian studies than for North American or European studies, higher for studies adjusting for fewer potential confounding variables, and close to 1.0 for prospective studies, regardless of whether or not they asked detailed questions on ETS exposure. The RR for eight prospective studies asking detailed questions was 1.003, 95% CI = 0.96-1.05. Risk was increased in premenopausal women (RR = 1.36, 95% CI = 1.15-1.60), but not postmenopausal women. Dose-response findings were similarly heterogeneous. No significant increase was seen for childhood or workplace exposure, but an increase was seen for total exposure (RR = 1.22, 95% CI = 1.09-1.37).

CONCLUSIONS

Increases mainly derived from case-control studies are prone to recall bias. Study weaknesses and possible publication bias limit interpretation. Considering also the weak association of smoking with breast cancer, and the much lower exposures from ETS than from smoking, our analyses do not clearly demonstrate that ETS exposure increases risk of breast cancer in nonsmokers. More research is needed.

Environmental tobacco smoke exposure and lung cancer: A systematic review

AIM: To review evidence relating passive smoking to lung cancer risk in never smokers, considering various major sources of bias.

METHODS: Epidemiological prospective or case-control studies were identified which provide estimates of relative risk (RR) and 95%CI for never smokers for one or more of seven different indices of exposure to environmental tobacco smoke (ETS): The spouse; household; workplace; childhood; travel; social and other; and total. A wide range of study details were entered into a database, and the RRs for each study, including descriptions of the comparisons made, were entered into a linked database. RRs were derived where necessary. Results were entered, where available, for all lung cancer, and for squamous cell cancer and adenocarcinoma. “Most adjusted” results were entered based on results available, adjusted for the greatest number of potential confounding variables. “Least adjusted” results were also entered, with a preference for results adjusted at least for age for prospective studies. A pre-planned series of fixed-effects and random-effects meta-analyses were conducted. Overall analyses and analyses by continent were run for each exposure index, with results for spousal smoking given by sex, and results for childhood exposure given by source of ETS exposure. For spousal exposure, more extensive analyses provide results by various aspects of study design and definition of the RR. For smoking by the husband (or nearest equivalent), additional analyses were carried out both for overall risk, and for risk per 10 cigarettes per day smoked by the husband. These adjusted for uncontrolled confounding by four factors (fruit, vegetable and dietary fat consumption, and education), and corrected for misclassification of smoking status of the wife. For the confounding adjustment, estimates for never smoking women were derived from publications on the relationship of the four factors to both lung cancer risk and at home ETS exposure, and on the correlations between the factors. The bias due to misclassification was calculated on the basis that the proportion of ever smokers denying smoking is 10% in Asian studies and 2.5% elsewhere, and that those who deny smoking have the same risk as those who admit it. This approach, justified in previous work, balances higher true denial rates and lower risk in deniers compared to non-deniers.

RESULTS: One hundred and two studies were identified for inclusion, published in 1981 onwards, 45 in Asia, 31 in North America, 21 in Europe, and five elsewhere. Eighty-five were of case-control design and 17 were prospective. Significant (P < 0.05) associations were noted, with random-effects of (RR = 1.22, 95%CI: 1.14-1.31, n = 93) for smoking by the husband (RR = 1.14, 95%CI: 1.01-1.29, n = 45) for smoking by the wife (RR = 1.22, 95%CI: 1.15-1.30, n = 47) for workplace exposure (RR = 1.15, 95%CI: 1.02-1.29, n = 41) for childhood exposure, and (RR = 1.31, 95%CI: 1.19-1.45, n = 48) for total exposure. No significant association was seen for ETS exposure in travel (RR = 1.34, 95%CI: 0.94-1.93, n = 8) or in social situations (RR = 1.01, 95%CI: 0.82-1.24, n = 15). A significant negative association (RR = 0.78, 95%CI: 0.64-0.94, n = 8) was seen for ETS exposure in childhood, specifically from the parents. Significant associations were also seen for spousal smoking for both squamous cell carcinoma (RR = 1.44, 95%CI: 1.15-1.80, n = 24) and adenocarcinoma (RR = 1.33, 95%CI: 1.17-1.51, n = 30). Results generally showed marked heterogeneity between studies. For smoking by either the husband or wife, where 119 RR estimates gave an overall estimate of (RR = 1.21, 95%CI: 1.14-1.29), the heterogeneity was highly significant (P < 0.001), with evidence that the largest RRs were seen in studies published in 1981-89, in small studies (1-49 cases), and for estimates unadjusted by age. For smoking by the husband, the additional analyses showed that adjustment for the four factors reduced the overall (RR = 1.22, 95%CI: 1.14-1.31) based on 93 estimates to (RR = 1.14, 95%CI: 1.06-1.22), implying bias due to uncontrolled confounding of 7%. Further correction for misclassification reduced the estimate to a marginally non-significant (RR = 1.08, 95%CI: 0.999-1.16). In the fully adjusted and corrected analyses, there was evidence of an increase in Asia (RR = 1.18, 95%CI: 1.07-1.30, n = 44), but not in other regions (RR = 0.96, 95%CI: 0.86-1.07, n = 49). Studies published in the 1980’s, studies providing dose-response data, and studies only providing results unadjusted for age showed elevated RRs, but later published studies, studies not providing dose-response data, and studies adjusting for age did not. The pattern of results for RRs per 10 cigs/d was similar, with no significant association in the adjusted and corrected results (RR = 1.03, 95%CI: 0.994-1.07).

CONCLUSION: Most, if not all, of the ETS/lung cancer association can be explained by confounding adjustment and misclassification correction. Any causal relationship is not convincingly demonstrated.

A novel approach to assess the population health impact of introducing a Modified Risk Tobacco Product

Based on the Food and Drug Administration's Modified Risk Tobacco Product (MRTP) Application draft guideline, Philip Morris International (PMI) has developed a Population Health Impact Model to estimate the reduction in the number of deaths over a period following the introduction of an MRTP. Such a model is necessary to assess the effect that its introduction would have on population health, given the lack of epidemiological data available prior to marketing authorization on any risks from MRTPs. The model is based on publicly available data on smoking prevalence and on the relationships between smoking-related disease-specific mortality and various aspects of the smoking of conventional cigarettes (CCs), together with an estimate of exposure from the MRTP relative to that from CCs, and allows the exploration of possible scenarios regarding the effect of MRTP introduction on the prevalence of CC and MRTP use, individually and in combination. By comparing mortality attributable in a scenario where the MRTP is introduced with one where it is not, the model can estimate the mortality attributable to CCs and the MRTP, as well as the reduction in the deaths attributable to the introduction of the MRTP.

Appropriate and inappropriate methods for investigating the "gateway" hypothesis, with a review of the evidence linking prior snus use to later cigarette smoking

Background

The “gateway hypothesis” usually refers to the possibility that the taking up of habit A, which is considered harmless (or less harmful), may lead to the subsequent taking up of another habit, B, which is considered harmful (or more harmful).

Methods

Possible approaches to designing and analysing studies to test the hypothesis are discussed. Evidence relating to the use of snus (A) as a gateway for smoking (B) is then evaluated in detail.

Results—design and analysis considerations

The importance of having appropriate data available on the sequence of use of A and B and on other potential confounding factors that may lead to the taking up of B is emphasised. Where randomised trials are impractical, the preferred designs include the prospective cohort study in which ever use of A and of B is recorded at regular intervals, and the cross-sectional survey in which time of starting to use A and B is recorded. Both approaches allow time-stratified analytical methods to be used, in which, in each time period, risk of initiating B among never users of B at the start of the interval is compared according to prior use of A. Adjustment in analysis for the potential confounding factors is essential.

Results—review of evidence

Of 11 studies of possible relevance conducted in Sweden, Finland or Norway, only one seriously addresses potential confounding by those other factors involved in the initiation of smoking. Furthermore, 5 of the 11 studies are of a design that does not allow proper testing of the gateway hypothesis for various reasons, and the analysis is unsatisfactory, sometimes seriously, in all the remaining six.

Conclusions

While better analyses could be attempted for some of the six studies identified as having appropriate design, the issues of confounding remain, and more studies are clearly needed. To obtain a rapid answer, a properly designed cross-sectional survey is recommended.

A review of the evidence on smoking bans and incidence of heart disease

We update an earlier review of smoking bans and heart disease, restricting attention to admissions for acute myocardial infarction. Forty-five studies are considered. New features of our update include consideration of non-linear trends in the underlying rate, a modified trend adjustment method where there are multiple time periods post-ban, comparison of estimates based on changes in rates and numbers of cases, and comparison of effect estimates according to post-ban changes in smoking restrictiveness. Using a consistent approach to derive ban effect estimates, taking account of linear time trends and control data, the reduction in risk following a ban was estimated as 4.2% (95% confidence interval 1.8-6.5%). Excluding regional estimates where national estimates are available, and studies where trend adjustment was not possible, the estimate reduced to 2.6% (1.1-4.0%). Estimates were little affected by non-linear trend adjustment, where possible, or by basing estimates on changes in rates. Ban effect estimates tended to be greater in smaller studies, and studies with greater post-ban changes in smoking restrictiveness. Though the findings suggest a true effect of smoking bans, uncertainties remain, due to the weakness of much of the evidence, the small estimated effect, and various possibilities of bias.

Health risks related to dual use of cigarettes and snus - a systematic review

Reviews show that using snus (Swedish-type moist snuff) is much safer than smoking, with no increased risk from snus of cancer or circulatory disease yet demonstrated, but have not investigated possible health effects from dual use of cigarettes and snus. This review considers studies where health risks can be compared in dual users, those who only use snus or only smoke, and those who use neither product. The interaction RR, the ratio of RRs associated with snus use in smokers and in non-smokers, was used to test for special effects of dual use. Of 51 interaction RRs presented, only one (for gestational hypertension in a study based on the Swedish Medical Register) was significantly (p<0.05) above 1.0, and RRs below 1.0 were commoner, perhaps as cigarette consumption is lower in dual users than those who only smoke. Dual users more often initiate tobacco use with cigarettes than snus. Dual use is much commoner in adolescents than adults, possibly because many tobacco users try both products, eventually settling on one. Epidemiological evidence from various sources, though suffering from weaknesses, consistently suggests concomitant snus use increases smoking quit rates, and aligns with evidence from RCTs using snus to aid smoking cessation.

Prevention of head louse infestation: a randomised, double-blind, cross-over study of a novel concept product, 1% 1,2-octanediol spray versus placebo

OBJECTIVES

To determine whether regular use of a spray containing 1,2-octanediol 1%, which has been shown to inhibit survival of head lice, is able to work as a preventive against establishment of new infestations.

SETTING

Randomised, double-blind, cross-over, community study in Cambridgeshire, UK.

PARTICIPANTS

63 male and female schoolchildren aged 4-16 years judged to have a high risk of recurrent infestation. Only the youngest member of a household attending school participated.

INTERVENTIONS

Participants were treated to eliminate lice, randomised between 1% octanediol or placebo sprays for 6 weeks then crossed-over to the other spray for 6 weeks. Parents applied the sprays at least twice weekly or more frequently if the hair was washed. Investigators monitored weekly for infestation and replenished supplies of spray.

PRIMARY AND SECONDARY OUTCOME MEASURES

The primary endpoint was the time taken until the first infestation event occurred. The secondary measure was safety of the product in regular use.

RESULTS

Intention-to-treat analysis found a total of 32 confirmed infestations in 20 participants, with 9 of them infested while using both products. In these nine participants the time to first infestation showed a significant advantage to 1% octanediol (p=0.0129). Per-protocol analysis showed only trends because the population included was not large enough to demonstrate significance. There were no serious adverse events and only two adverse events possibly related to treatment, one was a case of transient erythema and another of a rash that resolved after 5 days.

CONCLUSIONS

Routine use of 1% octanediol spray provided a significant level of protection from infestation. It was concluded that this product is effective if applied regularly and thoroughly.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

ISRCTN09524995.

Estimating the decline in excess risk of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease following quitting smoking - a systematic review based on the negative exponential model

We quantified the decline in COPD risk following quitting using the negative exponential model, as previously carried out for other smoking-related diseases. We identified 14 blocks of RRs (from 11 studies) comparing current smokers, former smokers (by time quit) and never smokers, some studies providing sex-specific blocks. Corresponding pseudo-numbers of cases and controls/at risk formed the data for model-fitting. We estimated the half-life (H, time since quit when the excess risk becomes half that for a continuing smoker) for each block, except for one where no decline with quitting was evident, and H was not estimable. For the remaining 13 blocks, goodness-of-fit to the model was generally adequate, the combined estimate of H being 13.32 (95% CI 11.86-14.96) years. There was no heterogeneity in H, overall or by various studied sources. Sensitivity analyses allowing for reverse causation or different assumed times for the final quitting period little affected the results. The model summarizes quitting data well. The estimate of 13.32years is substantially larger than recent estimates of 4.40years for ischaemic heart disease and 4.78years for stroke, and also larger than the 9.93years for lung cancer. Heterogeneity was unimportant for COPD, unlike for the other three diseases.

Epidemiological evidence relating snus to health--an updated review based on recent publications

An earlier review summarized evidence relating use of snus (Swedish-type moist snuff) to health and to initiation and cessation of smoking. This update considers the effect recent publications on snus use and health have on the overall evidence. The additional evidence extends the list of neoplastic conditions unassociated with snus use (oropharynx, oesophagus, stomach, lung) to include colorectal cancer and acoustic neuroma, and further undermines the weakly-based argument that snus use increases the risk of pancreatic cancer, although there is a report of poorer cancer survival in users. It remains undemonstrated that “snuff-dipper’s lesion” increases risk of oral cancer, and recent publications add to the evidence that snus use has no effect on periodontitis or dental caries. Although onset of acute myocardial infarction is not adversely associated with snus use, there is some evidence of an association with reduced survival. Whether this is a direct effect of snus use or a result of confounding by socioeconomic status or other factors requires further investigation, as does a report of an increased risk of heart failure in snus users. Even if some adverse health effects of snus use do exist, it remains clear that they are far less than those of smoking.

The effect of quitting smoking on HDL-cholesterol - a review based on within-subject changes

A higher concentration of high density lipoprotein cholesterol (HDL-C) in ex-smokers than smokers has consistently been observed. Better evidence of quitting effects comes from within-subject changes. We extend an earlier meta-analysis to quantify the reduction, and investigate variation by time quit and other factors. We conducted Medline and Cochrane searches for studies measuring HDL-C in subjects while still smoking and later having quit. Using unweighted and inverse-variance weighted regression analysis, we related changes (in mmol/l) to intra-measurement period, and estimated time quit, and to study type, location and start year, age, sex, product smoked, validation of quitting, baseline HDL-C, baseline and change in weight/BMI, and any study constraints on diet or exercise. Forty-five studies were identified (17 Europe, 16 North America, 11 Asia, 1 Australia). Thirteen were observational, giving changes over at least 12 months, with most involving >1000 subjects. Others were smoking cessation trials, 12 randomized and 20 non-randomized. These were often small (18 of <100 subjects) and short (14 of <10 weeks, the longest a year). Thirty studies provided results for only one time interval. From 94 estimates of HDL-C change, the unweighted mean was 0.107 (95% CI 0.085-0.128). The weighted mean 0.060 (0.044 to 0.075) was lower, due to smaller estimates in longer term studies. Weighted means varied by time quit (0.083, 0.112, 0.111, 0.072, 0.058 and 0.040 for <3, 3 to <6, 6 to <13, 13 to <27, 27 to <52 and 52+ weeks, p=0.006). After adjustment for time quit, estimates varied by study constraint on diet/exercise (p=0.003), being higher in studies requiring subjects to maintain their pre-quitting habits, but no other clear differences were seen, with significant (p<0.05) increases following quitting being evident in all subgroups studied, except where data were very limited. For both continuing and never smokers, the data are (except for two large studies atypically showing significant HDL-C declines in both groups, and a smaller decline in quitters) consistent with no change, and contrast markedly with the data for quitters. We conclude that quitting smoking increases HDL-C, and that this increase occurs rapidly after quitting, with no clear pattern of change thereafter.

Dose-response relationship of lung cancer to amount smoked, duration and age starting

AIM: To quantify smoking/lung cancer relationships accurately using parametric modelling.

METHODS: Using the International Epidemiological Studies on Smoking and Lung Cancer database of all epidemiological studies of 100+ lung cancer cases published before 2000, we analyzed 97 blocks of data for amount smoked, 35 for duration of smoking, and 27 for age started. Pseudo-numbers of cases and controls (or at risk) estimated from RRs by dose level formed the data modelled. We fitted various models relating log_e RR to dose (d), including βd, βd^Y and βlog_e (1 + Wd), and investigated goodness-of-fit and heterogeneity between studies.

RESULTS: The best-fitting models for log_e RR were 0.833 log_e [1 + (8.1c/10)] for cigarettes/d (c), 0.792 (y/10)^0.74 for years smoked (y) and 0.176 [(70 - a)/10]^1.44 for age of start (a). Each model fitted well overall, though some blocks misfitted. RRs rose from 3.86 to 22.31 between c = 10 and 50, from 2.21 to 13.54 between y = 10 and 50, and from 3.66 to 8.94 between a = 30 and 12.5. Heterogeneity (P < 0.001) existed by continent for amount, RRs for 50 cigarettes/d being 7.23 (Asia), 26.36 (North America) and 22.16 (Europe). Little heterogeneity was seen for duration of smoking or age started.

CONCLUSION: The models describe the dose-relationships well, though may be biased by factors including misclassification of smoking status and dose.

Indirectly estimated absolute lung cancer mortality rates by smoking status and histological type based on a systematic review

Background

National smoking-specific lung cancer mortality rates are unavailable, and studies presenting estimates are limited, particularly by histology. This hinders interpretation. We attempted to rectify this by deriving estimates indirectly, combining data from national rates and epidemiological studies.

Methods

We estimated study-specific absolute mortality rates and variances by histology and smoking habit (never/ever/current/former) based on relative risk estimates derived from studies published in the 20^th century, coupled with WHO mortality data for age 70–74 for the relevant country and period. Studies with populations grossly unrepresentative nationally were excluded. 70–74 was chosen based on analyses of large cohort studies presenting rates by smoking and age. Variations by sex, period and region were assessed by meta-analysis and meta-regression.

Results

148 studies provided estimates (Europe 59, America 54, China 22, other Asia 13), 54 providing estimates by histology (squamous cell carcinoma, adenocarcinoma). For all smoking habits and lung cancer types, mortality rates were higher in males, the excess less evident for never smokers. Never smoker rates were clearly highest in China, and showed some increasing time trend, particularly for adenocarcinoma. Ever smoker rates were higher in parts of Europe and America than in China, with the time trend very clear, especially for adenocarcinoma. Variations by time trend and continent were clear for current smokers (rates being higher in Europe and America than Asia), but less clear for former smokers. Models involving continent and trend explained much variability, but non-linearity was sometimes seen (with rates lower in 1991–99 than 1981–90), and there was regional variation within continent (with rates in Europe often high in UK and low in Scandinavia, and higher in North than South America).

Conclusions

The indirect method may be questioned, because of variations in definition of smoking and lung cancer type in the epidemiological database, changes over time in diagnosis of lung cancer types, lack of national representativeness of some studies, and regional variation in smoking misclassification. However, the results seem consistent with the literature, and provide additional information on variability by time and region, including evidence of a rise in never smoker adenocarcinoma rates relative to squamous cell carcinoma rates.

Systematic review with meta-analysis of the epidemiological evidence relating FEV1 decline to lung cancer risk

Background

Reduced FEV₁ is known to predict increased lung cancer risk, but previous reviews are limited. To quantify this relationship more precisely, and study heterogeneity, we derived estimates of β for the relationship RR(diff) = exp(βdiff), where diff is the reduction in FEV₁ expressed as a percentage of predicted (FEV₁%P) and RR(diff) the associated relative risk. We used results reported directly as β, and as grouped levels of RR in terms of FEV₁%P and of associated measures (e.g. FEV₁/FVC).

Methods

Papers describing cohort studies involving at least three years follow-up which recorded FEV₁ at baseline and presented results relating lung cancer to FEV₁ or associated measures were sought from Medline and other sources. Data were recorded on study design and quality and, for each data block identified, on details of the results, including population characteristics, adjustment factors, lung function measure, and analysis type. Regression estimates were converted to β estimates where appropriate. For results reported by grouped levels, we used the NHANES III dataset to estimate mean FEV₁%P values for each level, regardless of the measure used, then derived β using regression analysis which accounted for non-independence of the RR estimates. Goodness-of-fit was tested by comparing observed and predicted lung cancer cases for each level. Inverse-variance weighted meta-analysis allowed derivation of overall β estimates and testing for heterogeneity by factors including sex, age, location, timing, duration, study quality, smoking adjustment, measure of FEV₁ reported, and inverse-variance weight of β.

Results

Thirty-three publications satisfying the inclusion/exclusion criteria were identified, seven being rejected as not allowing estimation of β. The remaining 26 described 22 distinct studies, from which 32 independent β estimates were derived. Goodness-of-fit was satisfactory, and exp(β), the RR increase per one unit FEV₁%P decrease, was estimated as 1.019 (95%CI 1.016-1.021). The estimates were quite consistent (I² =29.6%). Mean age was the only independent source of heterogeneity, exp(β) being higher for age <50 years (1.024, 1.020-1.028).

Conclusions

Although the source papers present results in various ways, complicating meta-analysis, they are very consistent. A decrease in FEV₁%P of 10% is associated with a 20% (95%CI 17%-23%) increase in lung cancer risk.

Systematic review with meta-analysis of the epidemiological evidence in the 1900s relating smoking to lung cancer

BACKGROUND

Smoking is a known lung cancer cause, but no detailed quantitative systematic review exists. We summarize evidence for various indices.

METHODS

Papers published before 2000 describing epidemiological studies involving 100+ lung cancer cases were obtained from Medline and other sources. Studies were classified as principal, or subsidiary where cases overlapped with principal studies. Data were extracted on design, exposures, histological types and confounder adjustment. RRs/ORs and 95% CIs were extracted for ever, current and ex smoking of cigarettes, pipes and cigars and indices of cigarette type and dose-response. Meta-analyses and meta-regressions investigated how relationships varied by study and RR characteristics, mainly for outcomes exactly or closely equivalent to all lung cancer, squamous cell carcinoma ("squamous") and adenocarcinoma ("adeno").

RESULTS

287 studies (20 subsidiary) were identified. Although RR estimates were markedly heterogeneous, the meta-analyses demonstrated a relationship of smoking with lung cancer risk, clearly seen for ever smoking (random-effects RR 5.50, CI 5.07-5.96) current smoking (8.43, 7.63-9.31), ex smoking (4.30, 3.93-4.71) and pipe/cigar only smoking (2.92, 2.38-3.57). It was stronger for squamous (current smoking RR 16.91, 13.14-21.76) than adeno (4.21, 3.32-5.34), and evident in both sexes (RRs somewhat higher in males), all continents (RRs highest for North America and lowest for Asia, particularly China), and both study types (RRs higher for prospective studies). Relationships were somewhat stronger in later starting and larger studies. RR estimates were similar in cigarette only and mixed smokers, and similar in smokers of pipes/cigars only, pipes only and cigars only. Exceptionally no increase in adeno risk was seen for pipe/cigar only smokers (0.93, 0.62-1.40). RRs were unrelated to mentholation, and higher for non-filter and handrolled cigarettes. RRs increased with amount smoked, duration, earlier starting age, tar level and fraction smoked and decreased with time quit. Relationships were strongest for small and squamous cell, intermediate for large cell and weakest for adenocarcinoma. Covariate-adjustment little affected RR estimates.

CONCLUSIONS

The association of lung cancer with smoking is strong, evident for all lung cancer types, dose-related and insensitive to covariate-adjustment. This emphasises the causal nature of the relationship. Our results quantify the relationships more precisely than previously.

Systematic review with meta-analysis of the epidemiological evidence in the 1900s relating smoking to lung cancer

BACKGROUND

Smoking is a known lung cancer cause, but no detailed quantitative systematic review exists. We summarize evidence for various indices.

METHODS

Papers published before 2000 describing epidemiological studies involving 100+ lung cancer cases were obtained from Medline and other sources. Studies were classified as principal, or subsidiary where cases overlapped with principal studies. Data were extracted on design, exposures, histological types and confounder adjustment. RRs/ORs and 95% CIs were extracted for ever, current and ex smoking of cigarettes, pipes and cigars and indices of cigarette type and dose-response. Meta-analyses and meta-regressions investigated how relationships varied by study and RR characteristics, mainly for outcomes exactly or closely equivalent to all lung cancer, squamous cell carcinoma ("squamous") and adenocarcinoma ("adeno").

RESULTS

287 studies (20 subsidiary) were identified. Although RR estimates were markedly heterogeneous, the meta-analyses demonstrated a relationship of smoking with lung cancer risk, clearly seen for ever smoking (random-effects RR 5.50, CI 5.07-5.96) current smoking (8.43, 7.63-9.31), ex smoking (4.30, 3.93-4.71) and pipe/cigar only smoking (2.92, 2.38-3.57). It was stronger for squamous (current smoking RR 16.91, 13.14-21.76) than adeno (4.21, 3.32-5.34), and evident in both sexes (RRs somewhat higher in males), all continents (RRs highest for North America and lowest for Asia, particularly China), and both study types (RRs higher for prospective studies). Relationships were somewhat stronger in later starting and larger studies. RR estimates were similar in cigarette only and mixed smokers, and similar in smokers of pipes/cigars only, pipes only and cigars only. Exceptionally no increase in adeno risk was seen for pipe/cigar only smokers (0.93, 0.62-1.40). RRs were unrelated to mentholation, and higher for non-filter and handrolled cigarettes. RRs increased with amount smoked, duration, earlier starting age, tar level and fraction smoked and decreased with time quit. Relationships were strongest for small and squamous cell, intermediate for large cell and weakest for adenocarcinoma. Covariate-adjustment little affected RR estimates.

CONCLUSIONS

The association of lung cancer with smoking is strong, evident for all lung cancer types, dose-related and insensitive to covariate-adjustment. This emphasises the causal nature of the relationship. Our results quantify the relationships more precisely than previously.

Using the negative exponential distribution to quantitatively review the evidence on how rapidly the excess risk of ischaemic heart disease declines following quitting smoking

No previous review has formally modelled the decline in IHD risk following quitting smoking. From PubMed searches and other sources we identified 15 prospective and eight case-control studies that compared IHD risk in current smokers, never smokers, and quitters by time period of quit, some studies providing separate blocks of results by sex, age or amount smoked. For each of 41 independent blocks, we estimated, using the negative exponential model, the time, H, when the excess risk reduced to half that caused by smoking. Goodness-of-fit to the model was adequate for 35 blocks, others showing a non-monotonic pattern of decline following quitting, with a variable pattern of misfit. After omitting one block with a current smoker RR 1.0, the combined H estimate was 4.40 (95% CI 3.26-5.95) years. There was considerable heterogeneity, H being <2years for 10 blocks and >10years for 12. H increased (p<0.001) with mean age at study start, but not clearly with other factors. Sensitivity analyses allowing for reverse causation, or varying assumed midpoint times for the final open-ended quitting period little affected goodness-of-fit of the combined estimate. The US Surgeon-General's view that excess risk approximately halves after a year's abstinence seems over-optimistic.

1,2-Octanediol, a novel surfactant, for treating head louse infestation: identification of activity, formulation, and randomised, controlled trials

BACKGROUND

Interest in developing physically active pediculicides has identified new active substances. The objective was to evaluate a new treatment for clinical efficacy.

METHODS AND FINDINGS

We describe the selection of 1,2-octanediol as a potential pediculicide. Clinical studies were community based. The main outcome measure was no live lice, after two treatments, with follow up visits over 14 days. Study 1 was a proof of concept with 18/20 (90%) participants cured. Study 2 was a multicentre, parallel, randomised, observer-blind study (520 participants) that compared 0.5% malathion liquid with 1,2-octanediol lotion (20% alcohol) applied 2-2.5 hours or 8 hours/overnight. 1,2-octanediol lotion was significantly (p<0.0005) more effective with success for 124/175 (70.9%) RR = 1.50 (97.5% CI, 1.22 to 1.85) for 2-2.5 hours, and 153/174 (87.9%) RR = 1.86 (97.5% CI, 1.54 to 2.26) for 8 hours/overnight compared with 81/171 (47.4%) for malathion. Study 3, a two centre, parallel, randomised, observer-blind study (121 participants), compared 1,2-octanediol lotion, 2-2.5 hours with 1,2-octanediol alcohol free mousse applied for 2-2.5 hours or 8 hours/overnight. The mousse applied for 8 hours/overnight cured 31/40 (77.5%), compared with 24/40 (60.0%) for lotion (RR = 1.29, 95% CI, 0.95 to 1.75; NNT = 5.7) but mousse applied for 2-2.5 hours 17/41 (41.5%) was less effective than lotion (RR = 0.69, 95% CI, 0.44 to 1.08). Adverse events were more common using 1,2-octanediol lotion at both 2-2.5 hours (12.0%, p = 0.001) and 8 hours/overnight (14.9%, p<0.0005), compared with 0.5% malathion (2.3%). Similar reactions were more frequent (p<0.045) using lotion compared with mousse.

CONCLUSIONS

1,2-octanediol was found to eliminate head louse infestation. It is believed to disrupt the insect's cuticular lipid, resulting in dehydration. The alcohol free mousse is more acceptable exhibiting significantly fewer adverse reactions.

TRIAL REGISTRATIONS

Controlled-Trials.com ISRCTN66611560, ISRCTN91870666, ISRCTN28722846.