Tobacco News Analysis And Commentary - Details

Link Details

Blog Directory : Listing Details

Tobacco News Analysis And Commentary details

Listing ID: 127

Title: Tobacco News Analysis And Commentary

Description: Physician Michael Siegel who specialised in preventive medicine and public health writes about the stories behind tobacco-related news.

Category: News & Media : Analysis & Opinion

Owner:

listed on: April 02, 2008 08:27:25 AM

Number Hits: 3 times

Recent Posts:

Welcome Back - 4 Posts Today - Mon, 05 Jan 2009 10:06:00 +0000
The holiday break was a busy time for tobacco control news. There are 4 posts today. I alert readers here so that they do not read the top story and fail to realize that there are 3 more blog posts. The 4 topics are:

1. A new study which concludes that the smoking ban in Pueblo, Colorado caused a 41% decline in heart attacks.

2. A new study which reports that "thirdhand" smoke is now a new health hazard to worry about.

3. A new book on the tobacco control movement which blasts the attorneys general and anti-smoking groups for their role in the public health disaster that is the Master Settlement Agreement.

4. The apparent 2009 theme of using cigarette tax increases to balance state budgets.
CDC: Pueblo Smoking Ban Reduced Heart Attacks by 41%, Due Mostly to Decreased Secondhand Smoke Exposure; But Conclusions are Biased and Invalid - Mon, 05 Jan 2009 10:02:00 +0000
In anew studypublished in the current issue ofMMWR (Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Reports), researchers from Colorado and from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) have concluded that the smoking ban in Pueblo, Colorado caused a 41% reduction in heart attacks during the three years following its implementation, primarily due to a reduction in secondhand smoke exposure associated with the ban (see: Alsever RN, et al. Reduced Hospitalizations for Acute Myocardial Infarction After Implementation of a Smoke-Free Ordinance --- City of Pueblo, Colorado, 2002--2006.MMWR2009; 57(51);1373-1377).

The study compared the rate of hospitalizations for acute myocardial infarction (heart attacks) in the city of Pueblo with similar rates in Pueblo county (outside of Pueblo) and El Paso county (which includes Colorado Springs) for the 18-month period prior to the implementation of Pueblo's smoking ban and for the two 18-month periods following the smoking ban, which was implemented in July 2003. While there was no significant reduction in heart attack admissions for Pueblo or El Paso counties, there was a reduction in the heart attack rate of 19% and 41% from pre-implementation to the first and second post-implementation periods, respectively, in the city of Pueblo.

The study concludes: "These findings suggest that smoke-free policies can result in reductions in AMI [acute myocardial infarction] hospitalizations that are sustained over a 3-year period and that these policies are important in preventing morbidity and mortality associated with heart disease. This effect likely is mediated through reduced SHS [secondhand smoke] exposure among nonsmokers and reduced smoking, with the former making the larger contribution."

The Rest of the Story

Before you jump to any conclusions here (something the study did prematurely), consider this: let's accept the study's conclusion as correct - that smoking bans do lead to a dramatic, immediate reduction in heart attacks, in part because of a large reduction in smoking prevalence. Let's suppose that you want to demonstrate this "fact" by showing that compared to a similar city, heart attack rates in the city with the smoking ban fell substantially more after the ban was implemented.

Now you have to choose a comparison city. You have two choices, with the following information available about the smoking prevalence changes in those cities from pre-implementation to post-implementation:

City A - The smoking prevalence increased from 19% to 24%.
City B - The smoking prevalence remained relatively unchanged, dropping only from 24% to 23%.

Which city would you choose as the comparison city?

If you choose city B, you would be justified. There was little change in smoking prevalence, which mirrored the changes nationally during that time period, so one could argue that this is a reasonable comparison group.

If you choose city A, where there was a large increase in smoking prevalence, you are going to expect to see an increase in heart attacks due to the rise in smoking alone. This is going to artificially reduce any secular decline in heart attacks occurring in the comparison city and bias your results towards finding a larger decline in heart attacks in the city with the smoking ban.

A researcher who chose city A as the comparison city would certainly be suspected of having intentionally biased the results towards finding an effect of the smoking ban on heart attacks.

The last thing in the world that you want for a comparison city is one in which there was actually anincreasein smoking prevalence, defying all odds about what the national trends in smoking are throughout the nation.

Unfortunately, this is exactly what this study does: it knowingly uses a comparison county in which it has been documented that the smoking prevalence over the study period hasincreasedfrom 17.4% to 22.3%.

The study doesn't try to hide this fact. It openly acknowledges that the reported smoking prevalence in El Paso County (the comparison group) increased from 17.4% in 2002-2003 to 22.3% in 2004-2005.

Given this finding, El Paso County simplycannotbe used as a comparison population. You can't take a population in which you know that smoking prevalence increased substantially and "pretend" that it represents a reasonable area in which to evaluate the baseline secular trends in heart attack admission rates that would have occurred in the smoking ban city in the absence of the smoking ban.

Of course you are going to find that the rate of heart attacks in El Paso County did not decline all that much, given the increase in smoking. El Paso County is clearly not going to give you a good, representative picture of what the actual secular trend in heart attack admissions is.

Now if smoking rates throughout the country had increased substantially during the same time period, one could argue that El Paso county is representative of the nation as a whole, or of Colorado as a whole. But clearly, the trends in smoking reported in El Paso are an anomaly - they are very different from the rest of the nation and from Colorado, where we know that smoking has continued to decline during the study period.

While I am not arguing here that the study intentionally used El Paso county in order to try to create the finding of a smoking ban effect on heart attacks, the fact that the study failed to even consider this problem suggests to me that there is a great deal of bias inherent in the paper. Yes, I do think that the study wanted to find an effect of the smoking ban and that it lost its neutrality somewhere in the process. It's natural to want to see the positive effects of a public health policy. But you have to separate your desires from the science itself. More about that later.

Another important problem is the other comparison group that was used: the rest of Pueblo county. Since this area is directly adjacent to Pueblo, which is the one city in this area, it would be expected that many residents of Pueblo county work in, and/or spend time in Pueblo, including eating in restaurants in the city. Thus, one would expect that if the smoking ban reduced heart attack rates, it would reduce rates among Pueblo county residents as well. It's not like those residents were somehow shielded from the intervention.

For this reason, the study should have combined the heart attack admissions from Pueblo and Pueblo county. Doing this, the reduction in the heart attack rate from pre-implementation to the second post-implementation period is 33%, rather than 41%.

Two logical comparison groups that one would want to consider are the state of Colorado as a whole and the nation as a whole. Heart attack admission rates for Colorado during the approximate period of the study (2002-2005) dropped by 18.4%. For the United States as a whole, the heart attack admission rate dropped by 17.2% during this period.

It is quite a different situation to claim that the smoking ban in Pueblo reduced heart attacks by 41% (because there was no significant decline in the inappropriate comparison county of El Paso) than it is to view the whole picture, and see that a 33% decline in heart attacks in Pueblo must be compared with about an 18% drop throughout the state of Colorado and a 17% decline nationally during the same time period.

The fact that these comparisons were not made is problematic, since the data are readily available (it took me about half hour to access and run the numbers). Why wouldn't the study want to look at the statewide trends in Colorado, rather than simply rely on the biased control group of El Paso county? In 30 minutes, the study could have determined that there was an impressive 18% decline in heart attacks in the whole state during the study period, thus making it clear that the present conclusion of the study is inaccurate.

The bottom line is that the study fails to appropriately determine the baseline secular trends in heart attacks in order to be able to judge the differences observed in Pueblo from the trends that would have been expected in the absence of the smoking ban. For this reason, the study cannot conclude that the observed changes in heart attacks are due to the smoking ban, rather than to other changes that took place over time, including changes in medications being used to treat heart disease, better diagnosis and more aggressive treatment of heart disease, and a substantial decline in smoking prevalence in Pueblo county during the study period, which may or may not be due to the smoking ban itself.

More troubling to me than the fact that the study draws a conclusion that is premature and inadequately supported by the data is the appearance of bias in the study. Not only in the choice of a comparison community where smoking prevalence dramatically increased during the study period, but also in the conclusion itself.

Even if we stipulate that the smoking ban did cause the decline in heart attacks, how can the study possibly conclude that the effect was due primarily to reduced secondhand smoke exposure? The study made no attempt to determine the smoking status of the heart attack victims, so there is no evidence that the reduction in heart attacks occurred primarily among nonsmokers. Neither did the study measure changes in population-based exposure to secondhand smoke.

Moreover, the study itself documents that therewasa substantial decline in smoking prevalence in Pueblo county during the study period, from 25.9% to 20.6%. Wouldn't this documented decline in active smoking prevalence be the presumed major reason for the observed decline in heart attacks, as opposed to reductions in secondhand smoke exposure? At very least, wouldn't a study simply remark that both mechanisms may be operating, but that it can't be determined to what extent each is contributing?

The fact that the study concludes that it must primarily be the secondhand smoke reduction is curious. The fact that the editorial note of the study begins by claiming that evidence shows that brief secondhand smoke exposure can trigger a heart attack is revealing. If you look at the report to which that claim refers (the 2006 Surgeon General's report), you will not find any conclusion that brief secondhand smoke exposure triggers heart attacks. And you certainly won't find any evidence in that report that if we reduce secondhand smoke exposure, we can reduce heart attacks triggered by secondhand smoke exposure.

You may remember that I have previously called attention to thepoor scienceby CDC and the Department of Health and Human Services in their communications regarding the acute cardiovascular effects of secondhand smoke, when they went out on a limb,against the adviceof respected and expert scientists in the tobacco control field, and told the public that brief secondhand smoke exposure is enough to trigger heart attacks, cause heart disease, and cause lung cancer.

It seems odd that even if we stipulate that the overall conclusion of the study is valid (that the smoking ban caused a dramatic reduction in heart attacks in Pueblo), the study would emphasize that the effect must be primarily due to the reduction in secondhand smoke and thus a reduction in heart attacks among nonsmokers that would have otherwise been triggered by brief secondhand smoke exposures in restaurants or other public places.

Even if I were writing this editorial as a highly biased advocate, I would have simply concluded that the effect is likely due to the combination of a reduction in smoking prevalence and a reduction in secondhand smoke, but that the study provides no way of teasing out the degree to which these two phemomena are operating.

In fact, given the large decline in smoking prevalence reported in Pueblo county, even the above conclusion seems biased, since it is clear that if the effect were real, the smoking prevalence reduction would likely have been a major reason.

The study goes overboard not only in its overall conclusion, but in its attempt to paint these data as somehow proving that eating in a smoky restaurant for a half hour is causing lots of people to keel over from heart attacks. The study does nothing of the sort.

Let me finish by emphasizing that I would like nothing more than to have strong evidence presented that smoking bans are resulting in immediate and dramatic reductions in heart attacks. As I have devoted much of my life's work to promoting smoking bans, especially in bars and restaurants, it would bring a great sense of fulfillment to now that these policies are immediately saving lives and that we can document these acute effects.

However, I am first a scientist and I believe that in public health, our conclusions must be based on solid science, not just on conjecture or our deeply felt desire to see the success of our policies.
New Study Warns of Dangers of "Thirdhand" Tobacco Smoke - Mon, 05 Jan 2009 10:01:00 +0000
Astudypublished online ahead of print in the journalPediatricswarns of the dangers, especially to children, of "thirdhand" tobacco smoke -- residual smoke which can cause exposure long after a smoker has stopped smoking. The study describes thirdhand smoke as "persistently high levels of tobacco toxins well beyond the period of active smoking. These toxins take the form of particulate matter deposited in a layer onto every surface within the home; in loose household dust; and as volatile toxic compounds that “off gas” into the air over days, weeks, and months. Smoking indoors on 1 day thus exposes people to tobacco toxins within that space in the future. We use the new term “thirdhand” smoke to name this complex phenomenon and define it as residual tobacco smoke contamination that remains after the cigarette is extinguished" (see: Winickoff JP, et al. Beliefs about the health effects of "thirdhand" smoke and home smoking bans.Pediatrics2009; 123;e74-e79).

Regarding the risks posed by thirdhand smoke, the study concludes: "The toxicity of low levels of tobacco smoke constituents has been proved. ... Thirdhand smoke may remain inside even when smoking took place earlier. Similar to low levels of lead exposure, low levels of tobacco smoke markers have been associated with cognitive deficits among children. The highest tobacco exposure levels were associated with the lowest reading scores; however, the lowest levels of exposure were associated with the steepest slope in the decrement in reading levels. These facts underscore the possibility that compounds in tobacco smoke are neurotoxic at extremely low levels...".

The study also concludes that messages about the harms of thirdhand smoke, rather than those of secondhand smoke, should be used to help encourage smokers not to smoke at all in the home or to quit smoking altogether: "Thirdhand smoke health education campaigns might be more powerful motivators for these families than simply reiterating information about visible SHS [secondhand smoke] exposure that most families already know."

This message is already being used in anad campaignto encourage parents to quit smoking altogether, warning them that there are serious risks of simply having clothing in the house that they wore when they were smoking, even it that smoking occurred outside of the home.One adshows a picture of a coat hanging on a door hook and warns: "The toxins from cigarette smoke can hurt your children long after the cigarette is out."

The Rest of the Story

While I agree completely that parents should avoid smoking in the presence of their children and ideally, they should try to quit altogether, I am not convinced that the existing scientific evidence supports the conclusion that thirdhand smoke poses a significant public health hazard, even to children living in homes with a smoker.

While offgassing of toxic smoke constituents from surfaces onto which the smoke has settled has clearly been shown to occur, the resulting levels of exposure to these constituents in "thirdhand" smoke is extremely low. And there is no convincing scientific evidence that exposures of this magnitude produce any significant health harm, with the one possible exception being children who have asthma and are sensitive to tobacco smoke.

ThePediatricsarticle cites just asingle studyto support its contention that low levels of tobacco smoke exposure are associated with health harm: a study which purportedly showed that tobacco smoke exposure characterized by very low levels of cotinine causes children to have reduced cognitive function, as measured by math, reading, and block design scores (see: Yolton K et al. Exposure to environmental tobacco smoke and cognitive abilities among U.S. children and adolescents.Environmental Health Perspectives2005; 113(1):98-103).

The rest of the story, however, is that this is a cross-sectional study which failed to consider two plausible alternative explanations why children with higher cotinine levels might have lower cognitive testing scores:

(1) These children are more likely to have been exposed to pre-natal tobacco smoke, which may have caused the observed impairment; and

(2) The parents of these children are more likely to have lower levels of cognitive testing scores and their children's scores are reflecting the parents' cognitive abilities and thus an inherited phenomenon.

Let's deal with alternative hypothesis #2 first. The study accounted for parental education, but it failed to account for parents' cognitive testing scores, which were not measured. Thus, the study cannot rule out the very plausible alernative explanation: the study is merely reflecting inherited similarities in cognitive function between parents and their children.

The study itself dealt with alternative hypothesis #1. For a subset of the sample, pre-natal exposure to tobacco smoke was measured and controlled for in the analysis (seeTable 4). Interestingly, when pre-natal exposure was accounted for, the relationship between post-natal ETS exposure and math and block design scores disappeared, and the relationship between ETS exposure and reading scores was substantially reduced (by 30%).

Curiously, the study appears to hide or at least obscure the finding that the relationship between cotinine levels and cognitive function - as measured by math and block design scores - disappeared after controlling for pre-natal exposure and that the relationship between cotinine levels and reading scores was greatly reduced.

Part of the reason why the relationship between cotinine levels and reading scores may not have completely disappeared is because pre-natal exposure was based on parental self-report and was likely to be greatly under-reported. The authors acknowledge this, although it doesn't seem to alter their stated conclusions: "These prenatal data were obtained by parental report and may result in an underestimate of the intensity of tobacco smoke exposure. To confirm the causal role of ETS in diminished cognitive abilities among children, prospective birth cohort studies will be necessary."

The authors of the study acknowledge that because of its cross-sectional nature and these other issues, this study is not sufficient to draw a causal conclusion. They also acknowledge that there is no known biologic mechanism by which post-natal ETS exposure could lead to neurologic damage. Nevertheless, this acknowledgment does not appear to stop the authors from drawing such a causal conclusion anyway (an interesting statement about the bias which is now so apparent in tobacco control research).

The acknowledgment also does not stop the authors of thePediatricsarticle from concluding that the effects of low levels of post-natal tobacco smoke exposure on children's cognitive function have been well-established (an interesting statement in itself about the bias of tobacco control researchers in reviewing the existing literature, not only in interpreting the results of their own studies).

Three other points deserve mention.

First, it's not clear to me why thirdhand smoke would be of any significant concern in the first place, since such exposure indicates that parents are smoking in the home and that children are therefore being exposed directly to secondhand smoke. Any health effects from the very low levels of exposure to thirdhand smoke will be dwarfed by the health risks from the substantial exposure to secondhand smoke, so why would we be concerned about the offgassing that is occurring?

It's kind of like telling a smoker to avoid exposure to secondhand smoke. In light of the active smoking, why worry about any small incremental effect of secondhand smoke? What the smoker needs to do is quit smoking if she wants to protect her health. Avoiding secondhand smoke seems to be almost a trivial concern in that situation. So why the emphasis on thirdhand smoke when we know these children are being exposed significantly to secondhand smoke because their parents are smoking in the home?

Second, if one were to counter my above point by arguing that smokers may not be smoking in the home, but may be exposing their children by virtue of residue left on clothing, then I would challenge the advocate of that position to produce evidence that such minimal exposure poses any significant health hazard. Based on my review of the literature, it is merely a theoretical concern.

Third, sending a message that smokers need to be worried about the effects of thirdhand smoke could well undermine efforts to encourage smokers not to smoke in their homes. If smokers are led to believe that even if they smoke outside the home, they will still be exposing their children to toxins, then many smokers may simply decide it is not worth the extra effort to smoke outside the home.

This all-or-nothing philosophy may undermine the harm reduction appraoch, and may actually result in smokers deciding not to bother to smoke outside the home. If their children are going to be exposed to toxins anyway, then why bother going through all that trouble?

Messages like the one in the ad campaign highlighted above could well backfire. Or at least, they might prove counterproductive for some smoking parents.

But most importantly, I question the accuracy and the scientific support behind such a health claim. It's not clear to me that if a smoker is careful never to smoke inside the home, that merely hanging up their coat on a hook inside the home will cause harm to his children from toxins that offgas from the coat. I just am not aware of any evidence that this represents a significant health risk.

Those who know my position understand that I believe the effects of secondhand smoke are enough. I do not believe that we need to invoke ever-so-shaky scientific evidence to try to now scare people about the effects of thirdhand smoke. Not only is this approach scientifically unsupported, but it may also backfire by undermining people's appreciation of the documented hazards of secondhand smoke.