|
|
||||||||||||||
|
|
|||||||||||||||
RESEARCH PAPER |
1 National Health Screening Service,*, Oslo, Norway
2 Norwegian Institute of Public Health, Nydalen, Oslo, Norway
Correspondence to:
Dr Kjell Bjartveit
Fridtjof Nansens vei 24 B, N-0369 Oslo, Norway (home address); kjell.bjartveit{at}chello.no
Received 23 March 2005
Accepted 20 July 2005
| ABSTRACT |
|---|
|
|
|---|
Design: Prospective study.
Setting: Oslo city and three counties in Norway.
Participants: 23 521 men and 19 201 women, aged 3549 years, screened for cardiovascular disease risk factors in the mid 1970s and followed throughout 2002.
Outcomes: Absolute mortality and relative risks adjusted for confounding variables, of dying from ischaemic heart disease, all cancer, lung cancer, and from all causes.
Results: Adjusted relative risk (95% confidence interval) in smokers of 14 cigarettes per day, with never smokers as reference, of dying from ischaemic heart disease was 2.74 (2.07 to 3.61) in men and 2.94 (1.75 to 4.95) in women. The corresponding figures for all cancer were 1.08 (0.78 to 1.49) and 1.14 (0.84 to 1.55), for lung cancer 2.79 (0.94 to 8.28) and 5.03 (1.81 to 13.98), and for any cause 1.57 (1.33 to 1.85) and 1.47 (1.19 to 1.82).
Conclusions: In both sexes, smoking 14 cigarettes per day was associated with a significantly higher risk of dying from ischaemic heart disease and from all causes, and from lung cancer in women. Smoking control policymakers and health educators should emphasise more strongly that light smokers also endanger their health.
Keywords: ischaemic heart disease; cancer; light smoking; mortality
Is there a threshold value for daily cigarette consumption that must be exceeded before serious health consequences occur?
Numerous population studies have reported on a strong doseresponse relationship between cigarette consumption and severe diseases. In most studies, however, the lowest consumption group was set at 19 or 115 cigarettes per day. One may argue that smokers in these groups clustered close to the upper limit of this consumption span, and that a threshold value might be found on a lower level.
Only a few prospective studies have reported on the health consequences of smoking fewer than five cigarettes per day.13
Our aim was to determine the risk in men and women smoking 14 cigarettes per day of dying from specified smoking related diseases and from any cause. We report on a Norwegian population of 23 521 men and 19 201 women, aged 3549 years, who in the mid 1970s were screened for cardiovascular disease risk factors and followed throughout 2002 for deaths from ischaemic heart disease, all cancer, lung cancer, and from all causes.
| METHODS |
|---|
|
|
|---|
The screening programmes in the four areas included a questionnaire related to cardiovascular diseases. Height, weight, and blood pressure were measured according to an identical protocol. A non-fasting blood sample was drawn and serum analysed at the same laboratory for total cholesterol, triglycerides, and glucose. Details on the screening programme have been given elsewhere.4,5
A more extensive report on this study population after 13 years of observation with relevance to smoking and mortality has been reported previously.6
We will present pooled data for the age group 3549 in the Oslo study and the County study. In Oslo the attendance was 65%, in the counties 91%.
Exclusions
The following groups were excluded:
Hence, 23 521 men and 19 201 women were left as participants for analysis. At the time of screening, they did not report a history related to cardiovascular disease or diabetes, or symptoms indicative of angina pectoris or atherosclerosis obliterans. They were daily smokers of cigarettes only, or had never smoked daily.
Categories of daily cigarette consumption
In Oslo, the participants stated their daily cigarette consumption by ticking one of the preset categories in the questionnaire: 14, 59, 1014, 1519, 2024, 25+ cigarettes. In the counties, the attending persons reported the actual number of cigarettes per day in a special box in the questionnaire. Here, they were allowed to give a range, such as 1015 cigarettes.
At the examination site, the nurses checked carefully the questionnaire together with the attendees. In all areas, factory made and hand rolled cigarettes had to be counted together. The nurses were instructed that one pack of tobacco for hand rolling (50 g) was equal to 50 cigarettes.
In our analyses, we transferred the consumption reported by people in the counties to one of the categories used in the Oslo questionnaire. For those who gave a range we used the highest figurefor example, 1015 cigarettes were categorised as 1519, and 914 cigarettes as 1014.
End points
We carried out a mortality follow up by linking our records with the national register of causes of death, using the 11 digit personal identification number as record linkage. Each person accrued person years from the day of screening attendance until date of death, date of emigration, or 31 December 2002.
In addition to deaths from all causes, we studied deaths from:
New screening in the three counties
In the three counties, a new examination was carried out around 10 years after the baseline screening.
Eligible persons aged 3549 years at the first screening were re-invited; for 40.1% of the men and 68.6% of the women who were subject to analysis from the first screening we have information on cigarette consumption 10 years after (10 231 men and 13 171 women). The lower male response was mainly due to the lack of re-examination in Oslo. For never smokers and smokers of 14 cigarettes at baseline we shall give their reported consumption category 10 years later.
Statistical methods
Relative risks adjusted for confounders were estimated with the Cox proportional hazards model.
Two sets of adjustments were made:
Also, we ran Cox models with attained age as time variable. The relative risk estimates were similar, less than 2% difference from the relative risk estimates presented. The proportional hazards assumption was assessed by visual inspection of the plot of log minus log survival against log of time.
| RESULTS |
|---|
|
|
|---|
|
|
|
In both sexes and in all consumption groups, relative risk for ischaemic heart disease is far higher than for all cancer and for deaths from any cause, with the steepest increase from 0 to 14 cigarettes per day.
On the whole, women have higher relative risks than men of dying from ischaemic heart disease and lung cancer, but one should keep in mind that the absolute risk is higher in men than in women in all consumption categories.
For all mortality groups, there is a significant increasing trend in relative risk by cigarette consumption, with the exception of ischaemic heart disease in women.
As light smokers clearly had a shorter history of smoking than the other consumption groups (table 1
), we ran a separate analysis for smokers in order to elucidate the impact of this factor upon future mortality.
Table 4
presents the relative risks related to five years of smoking. This table, and table 1
, show that if duration of smoking in the light smokers had been of the same length as for persons in other consumption groups, their relative risk would have been even higher than that reported in table 3
, ranging from about 7% for ischaemic heart disease to about 47% for lung cancer in women.
|
|
| DISCUSSION |
|---|
|
|
|---|
For all disease groups and cigarette consumption levels, women had distinctly lower deaths rates than men; for ischaemic heart disease womens risks related to never smokers, however, were clearly higher than in men. The same applies to risk for lung cancer in women smoking fewer than 20 cigarettes per day.
It may be argued that the participants smoking habits could have changed essentially since the screening took place. For example, analyses of results from the first screening indicate a steady increase in consumption during the first 1020 years after starting to smoke.7 This may well have been the case, since the light smokers in this study had a shorter history of smoking than the other consumption groups. On the other hand, the light smokers may represent previous heavier smokers who have cut down on consumption.
Some participants who were never smokers at baseline reported 10 years later that they were smokers, and this biases the relative risk estimate towards the null. On the other hand, a large proportion of light smokers had changed smoking category, but almost as many had quit smoking as had increased their consumption. The result of these changes is hard to quantify. It may even differ for the specific causes, as the dose-response relationship varies between them. In all, we see no strong reason to believe that the relative risk estimates for light smokers are substantially biased.
Strengths and weaknesses of the study
The strength of the study is that it includes large numbers of both men and women who were examined according to standardised procedures and have been observed for more than two decades. The number of person years is 592 771 for men and 494 334 for women. We also have information on smoking habits 10 years later for more than half of the participants. Furthermore, the follow up is complete.
One weakness of the study is that we have registered only deaths from ischaemic heart disease, and not incidence, as many other studies have. Mortality is the result of incidence and case fatality. In the Finnmark study (part of the County study), it was found that smoking (yes, no) was a predictor of case fatality.8 From the same study it was reported that smoking (yes, no) was related to incidence of myocardial infarction.9 No dose-response relationship was given, however, so we cannot be sure whether light smoking has an effect on both incidence and case fatality of myocardial disease. For lung cancer, on the other hand, estimates of mortality will be close to those of incidence, as the five year relative survival rate is less than 10%.10
Relation to other studies
The results confirm and strengthen observations in three prospective studies that have dealt with health consequences of light smoking. In these studies risks in light smokers were related to never smokers after adjustment for confounders that had been registered at screening.
| What this paper adds Three prospective studies have shown that light smoking significantly increases the risk of fatal and non-fatal myocardial infarction; two of them also found increased risk of dying from any cause (in the third study, this end point was not taken up). One of these studies included men only, one women only, and one both sexes. In the last mentioned study, significant increased risk was not found in light smoking men. This study included both men and women. In both sexes, smoking 14 cigarettes per day was associated with a significantly higher risk of dying from ischaemic heart disease and from all causes (both sexes), and in women, from lung cancer.
|
The adjusted relative risks we have reported for light smokers are within the same order of magnitude as in the three studies referred to above. As in our study, the Copenhagen City heart study found that relative risk was higher in women than in men. The same observation had previously been reported from the Finnmark study.9
Possible implications for policymakers
Over the years, both governmental and non-governmental Norwegian health education agencies have underlined that all daily cigarette consumption is dangerous to health. This view has been attacked by the Norwegian tobacco industry, which in 1973 claimed: "To our knowledge, no scientific investigations have shown clearly that a consumption of a few cigarettes daily is causing a significant health risk in healthy people. Also, in all probability there are some threshold values that must be exceeded before any health risk occur."11 Undoubtedly, a similar view has been widespread in the general population. Since 1972, Statistics Norway has monitored annually the smoking habits of representative samples of the adult Norwegian population. Up to 1995 one of the standard questions was "How many cigarettes do you yourself think that you could smoke per day without harming your health?" In 199092, one third of the total sample answered that a few cigarettes a day are not harmful to health; of those who smoked daily, 40%.12
The results from this and other studies imply that smoking control policymakers and health educators should emphasise more strongly that light smokers are also endangering their health.
Conclusions
In both sexes, smoking 14 cigarettes per day was significantly associated with higher risk of dying from ischaemic heart disease and from all causes, and from lung cancer in women. Accordingly, five cigarettes per day is not a threshold value for daily cigarette consumption that must be exceeded before serious health consequences occur.
| ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS |
|---|
| FOOTNOTES |
|---|
Competing interests: KB has been involved in national and international tobacco control. AT none declared.
KB participated in designing the County Study and was administratively responsible for the screening part. AT carried out the data extract and analyses. KB and AT drafted the paper.
| REFERENCES |
|---|
|
|
|---|
This article has been cited by other articles:
![]() |
J. F. Thrasher, L. M. Reynales-Shigematsu, L. Baezconde-Garbanati, V. Villalobos, P. Tellez-Giron, E. Arillo-Santillan, A. Dorantes-Alonso, R. Valdes-Salgado, and E. Lazcano-Ponce Promoting the Effective Translation of the Framework Convention on Tobacco Control: A Case Study of Challenges and Opportunities for Strategic Communications in Mexico Eval Health Prof, June 1, 2008; 31(2): 145 - 166. [Abstract] [PDF] |
||||
![]() |
O A Ayo-Yusuf, P S Reddy, and B W van den Borne Association of snuff use with chronic bronchitis among South African women: implications for tobacco harm reduction Tob. Control, April 1, 2008; 17(2): 99 - 104. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] |
||||
![]() |
R. A. Walsh, F. Tzelepis, and E. Stojanovski Australian pension funds and tobacco investments: promoting ill health and out-of-step with their members Health Promot. Int., March 1, 2008; 23(1): 35 - 41. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] |
||||
![]() |
K. H. Ginzel, G. S. Maritz, D. F. Marks, M. Neuberger, Jim. R. Pauly, J. R. Polito, R. Schulte-Hermann, and T. A. Slotkin Critical Review: Nicotine for the Fetus, the Infant and the Adolescent? J Health Psychol, March 1, 2007; 12(2): 215 - 224. [Abstract] [PDF] |
||||
![]() |
D. K. Hatsukami, C. T. Le, Y. Zhang, A. M. Joseph, M. E. Mooney, S. G. Carmella, and S. S. Hecht Toxicant Exposure in Cigarette Reducers versus Light Smokers Cancer Epidemiol. Biomarkers Prev., December 1, 2006; 15(12): 2355 - 2358. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] |
||||
![]() |
A. Tverdal and K. Bjartveit Health consequences of reduced daily cigarette consumption Tob. Control, December 1, 2006; 15(6): 472 - 480. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] |
||||
![]() |
K Bjartveit and A Tverdal Health consequences of smoking 1-4 cigarettes per day: response to G F Cope (eletter to journal) Tob. Control, February 1, 2006; 15(1): 71 - 72. [Full Text] [PDF] |
||||
![]() |
H. Marcovitch What's new this month in BMJ Journals BMJ, November 19, 2005; 331(7526): 1168 - 1168. [Full Text] [PDF] |
||||
![]() |
K Jamrozik Slaying myths about passive smoking Tob. Control, October 1, 2005; 14(5): 294 - 295. [Full Text] [PDF] |
||||
Read all eLetters
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| HOME | HELP | FEEDBACK | SUBSCRIPTIONS | ARCHIVE | SEARCH | TABLE OF CONTENTS | REGISTER |