cutting tobacco’s death toll − an overview of different options lars m. ramström institute for...
TRANSCRIPT
![Page 1: Cutting tobacco’s death toll − an overview of different options Lars M. Ramström Institute for Tobacco Studies Stockholm, Sweden 5th Annual Conference](https://reader035.vdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022070401/56649f1b5503460f94c31281/html5/thumbnails/1.jpg)
Cutting tobacco’s death toll − an overview of different options
Lars M. Ramström
Institute for Tobacco Studies
Stockholm, Sweden
5th Annual Conference of ISPTID, Hong Kong, 24th – 26th November 2006
![Page 2: Cutting tobacco’s death toll − an overview of different options Lars M. Ramström Institute for Tobacco Studies Stockholm, Sweden 5th Annual Conference](https://reader035.vdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022070401/56649f1b5503460f94c31281/html5/thumbnails/2.jpg)
OVERALL GOAL Reducing tobacco-related
death and disease
Major strategies:
with regard to ”passive smoking”● Smokefree environment programs
with regard to active tobacco use● Decreased initiation of tobacco use● Increased cessation of tobacco use● Minimized exposure to tobacco toxins
![Page 3: Cutting tobacco’s death toll − an overview of different options Lars M. Ramström Institute for Tobacco Studies Stockholm, Sweden 5th Annual Conference](https://reader035.vdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022070401/56649f1b5503460f94c31281/html5/thumbnails/3.jpg)
Possibilities and limitations of the strategies
● Decreased initiation ● Theoretically ideal, but success rates are modest and payoff in reduction of death and disease comes late.
● Increased cessation ● Payoff in reduction of death and disease comes quite soon, but many users are unable or unwilling to quit.
● Minimized exposure ● Possible means of additional to tobacco toxins reduction of tobacco-related(”Risk reduction”) death and disease.
![Page 4: Cutting tobacco’s death toll − an overview of different options Lars M. Ramström Institute for Tobacco Studies Stockholm, Sweden 5th Annual Conference](https://reader035.vdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022070401/56649f1b5503460f94c31281/html5/thumbnails/4.jpg)
Major toxins in cigarette smoke
● Nicotine ● Producing dependence but only minor disease risks.
● Carbon monoxide ● Major contributor to CVD.
● Irritant and ● Major contributors tooxidizing gases CVD and lung diseases.
● ”Tar” ● Aggregate of carcinogens and other disease producing substances.
![Page 5: Cutting tobacco’s death toll − an overview of different options Lars M. Ramström Institute for Tobacco Studies Stockholm, Sweden 5th Annual Conference](https://reader035.vdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022070401/56649f1b5503460f94c31281/html5/thumbnails/5.jpg)
![Page 6: Cutting tobacco’s death toll − an overview of different options Lars M. Ramström Institute for Tobacco Studies Stockholm, Sweden 5th Annual Conference](https://reader035.vdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022070401/56649f1b5503460f94c31281/html5/thumbnails/6.jpg)
Intake of nicotine (summary)
An individual SMOKER’S intake of nicotine is NOT determined by the cigarette (so as is the machine yield of nicotine).
A SMOKER’S Intake of nicotine is determined by his personal need for nicotine. He adjusts the way he smokes each type of cigarette so that it gives him the amount of nicotine he needs, irrespective of the machine yield from the cigarette in question.
![Page 7: Cutting tobacco’s death toll − an overview of different options Lars M. Ramström Institute for Tobacco Studies Stockholm, Sweden 5th Annual Conference](https://reader035.vdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022070401/56649f1b5503460f94c31281/html5/thumbnails/7.jpg)
Intake of ”tar” , Example 1:
A smoker who needs 1.3 mg nicotine per cigarette (typical average)smokes a cigarette with machine yields of 1.0 mg nicotine and 9 mg tar.
Since 1.0 mg nicotine is accompanied by 9 mg tar, 1.3 mg nicotine (intake by this smoker) will be accompanied by 1.3 9 mg = 11.7 mg tar, so, the smoker’s intake of tar is around 12 mg.
![Page 8: Cutting tobacco’s death toll − an overview of different options Lars M. Ramström Institute for Tobacco Studies Stockholm, Sweden 5th Annual Conference](https://reader035.vdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022070401/56649f1b5503460f94c31281/html5/thumbnails/8.jpg)
![Page 9: Cutting tobacco’s death toll − an overview of different options Lars M. Ramström Institute for Tobacco Studies Stockholm, Sweden 5th Annual Conference](https://reader035.vdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022070401/56649f1b5503460f94c31281/html5/thumbnails/9.jpg)
Intake of ”tar” , Example 2:
A smoker who needs 1.3 mg nicotine per cigarette, smokes Bond Street International (”high tar” brand), andCamel Lights (”low tar” brand).
M a c h i n e y i e l d s: T a r/N i c o t i n e r a t i o s BSI:13 mg tar,1.4 mg nicotine,(13/1.4 ≈ 9 mg tar/mg nicotine)CL : 8 mg tar,0.6 mg nicotine,(8/0.6 ≈ 13 mg tar/mg nicotine)
Intake of ”tar” from Bond St Intnl: 1.3 9 ≈ 11 mg.Intake of ”tar” from Camel Lights: 1.3 13 ≈ 17 mg.
![Page 10: Cutting tobacco’s death toll − an overview of different options Lars M. Ramström Institute for Tobacco Studies Stockholm, Sweden 5th Annual Conference](https://reader035.vdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022070401/56649f1b5503460f94c31281/html5/thumbnails/10.jpg)
Comparing brands for toxicity• Nicotine
- No major differences according to brands (since intake is mainly regulated by the smoker).
• Other substances- Intake can differ between brands according to the brand-related ratio to nicotine for the substance.- The way the cigarette is smoked does not very much influence the ratios to nicotine.They can therefore serve as approximate
comparative indicators of brand-specific toxicity.
![Page 11: Cutting tobacco’s death toll − an overview of different options Lars M. Ramström Institute for Tobacco Studies Stockholm, Sweden 5th Annual Conference](https://reader035.vdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022070401/56649f1b5503460f94c31281/html5/thumbnails/11.jpg)
Can switching from one to another type of cigarette result in any substantial risk reduction?NO, since brand differences are small.
Smokers’ intake of different substances is unrelated to the machine yield figures that are currently prescribed as package labelling in some countries.
Such labelling practices are misleading and should therefore be avoided when implementing the FCTC.
Labelling rules should rather prescribe information on the true conditions that determine smokers’ intake.
![Page 12: Cutting tobacco’s death toll − an overview of different options Lars M. Ramström Institute for Tobacco Studies Stockholm, Sweden 5th Annual Conference](https://reader035.vdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022070401/56649f1b5503460f94c31281/html5/thumbnails/12.jpg)
Possible model for meaningful and truthful ”consumer information” on
cigarette packages:
Your intake of nicotine from one cigarette: 0.5 – 2.5 mg, depending (mainly) on HOW you smoke.
One mg of nicotine from this cigarette is accompanied by: Tar: 7-9 mg Carbon monoxide: 6-8 mg Benzene: 0.04-0.06 mg Hydrogen Cyanide: 0.06-0.08 mg Formaldehyde: 0.05-0.07 mg
![Page 13: Cutting tobacco’s death toll − an overview of different options Lars M. Ramström Institute for Tobacco Studies Stockholm, Sweden 5th Annual Conference](https://reader035.vdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022070401/56649f1b5503460f94c31281/html5/thumbnails/13.jpg)
Can switching from burned to unburned tobacco result in any substantial risk reduction?
Probably: YES,
because the major harmful toxins in cigarette smoke are formed during the combustion and consequently absent in smokeless tobacco products.
Still, some smokeless tobacco products are very harmful, but there is a very wide variation between products at the lower and the upper end of the scale.
![Page 14: Cutting tobacco’s death toll − an overview of different options Lars M. Ramström Institute for Tobacco Studies Stockholm, Sweden 5th Annual Conference](https://reader035.vdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022070401/56649f1b5503460f94c31281/html5/thumbnails/14.jpg)
Excerpt from:
Gray N, Henningfield J. Lancet. 2006 Sep 9;368(9539):899-901.
![Page 15: Cutting tobacco’s death toll − an overview of different options Lars M. Ramström Institute for Tobacco Studies Stockholm, Sweden 5th Annual Conference](https://reader035.vdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022070401/56649f1b5503460f94c31281/html5/thumbnails/15.jpg)
How hazardous is Sweden’s smokeless tobacco, ”snus” ?
![Page 16: Cutting tobacco’s death toll − an overview of different options Lars M. Ramström Institute for Tobacco Studies Stockholm, Sweden 5th Annual Conference](https://reader035.vdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022070401/56649f1b5503460f94c31281/html5/thumbnails/16.jpg)
Mean nitrosamine content of moist snuff products from various sources based on dry weight
Country Brand (yr sampled)
NNK g/g
NNN g/g
Total TSNA g/g
Sweden Ettan snus (2000)
0.5
1.1
2.8
Sudan (Toombak) 3 samples (1993)
188- -362
241- -369
United States Skoal (2000) Copenhagen (2000)
4.3 3.4
20.8 14.3
64.0 41.1
![Page 17: Cutting tobacco’s death toll − an overview of different options Lars M. Ramström Institute for Tobacco Studies Stockholm, Sweden 5th Annual Conference](https://reader035.vdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022070401/56649f1b5503460f94c31281/html5/thumbnails/17.jpg)
BangladeshIndia
PakistanSudan
UKSweden
0,0
2,5
5,0
7,5
10,0
Source: GLOBOCAN 2000: Cancer Incidence, Mortality and Prevalence Worldwide, .IARC CancerBase No. 5. Lyon, IARCPress, 2001
Cancer of oral cavity, males all agesAge standardized (World) mortality rates per 100,000
![Page 18: Cutting tobacco’s death toll − an overview of different options Lars M. Ramström Institute for Tobacco Studies Stockholm, Sweden 5th Annual Conference](https://reader035.vdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022070401/56649f1b5503460f94c31281/html5/thumbnails/18.jpg)
Cigarette smokers
Snus users
Never-smokers
0,0 0,5 1,0 1,5 2,0 2,5
Whole bar: Relative risk of death for male tobacco users
Green sector: Never-smokers' death risk (reference) Red sector: Excess risk (above Never-smokers)
Less than 9% of
Data derived from:Bjartveit K, Tverdal A. Health consequences of smoking 1-4 cigarfettes per day. Tobacco Control 2005;14:315-320.Levy D T et.al. The Relative Risks of a Low-Nitrosamine Smokeless Tobacco Product Compared with Smoking Cigarettes: Estimats of a Panel of Experts. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev 2004;13(12):2035-2041.
![Page 19: Cutting tobacco’s death toll − an overview of different options Lars M. Ramström Institute for Tobacco Studies Stockholm, Sweden 5th Annual Conference](https://reader035.vdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022070401/56649f1b5503460f94c31281/html5/thumbnails/19.jpg)
Does primary snus use make young people
more or less likely to start smoking???
![Page 20: Cutting tobacco’s death toll − an overview of different options Lars M. Ramström Institute for Tobacco Studies Stockholm, Sweden 5th Annual Conference](https://reader035.vdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022070401/56649f1b5503460f94c31281/html5/thumbnails/20.jpg)
A
L
L
M
E
N
PDSNU Primary Daily SNus Users, 16 % of total, (started daily snus use without previous daily smoking)
NON-PDNSU
SNUS AND SMOKING, SWEDISH MEN AGES 16-79
20 % of PDSNU initiated daily smoking becoming “Secondary Daily SMOkers”,
SDSMO
47 % of NON-PDSNU
initiated daily smoking becoming “Primary Daily
SMOkers”, PDSMO
INITIATION OF SMOKING
Derived from: Ramström L M, Foulds J. Role of snus in initiation and cessation of tobacco smoking in Sweden. Tobacco Control 2006: 15:210-214
![Page 21: Cutting tobacco’s death toll − an overview of different options Lars M. Ramström Institute for Tobacco Studies Stockholm, Sweden 5th Annual Conference](https://reader035.vdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022070401/56649f1b5503460f94c31281/html5/thumbnails/21.jpg)
CHANGES OF INITATION PATTERNS
Swedish men born in:
1940- 1950- 1960- 1970-1949 1959 1969 1979
RATE OF INITIATION of
Primary daily snus use 8 % 16 % 30 % 29 %Primary daily smoking 56 % 45 % 26 % 20 %
SUM 64 % 45 % 26 % 20%
![Page 22: Cutting tobacco’s death toll − an overview of different options Lars M. Ramström Institute for Tobacco Studies Stockholm, Sweden 5th Annual Conference](https://reader035.vdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022070401/56649f1b5503460f94c31281/html5/thumbnails/22.jpg)
Does snus use make smokers more or less
likely to stop smoking ???
![Page 23: Cutting tobacco’s death toll − an overview of different options Lars M. Ramström Institute for Tobacco Studies Stockholm, Sweden 5th Annual Conference](https://reader035.vdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022070401/56649f1b5503460f94c31281/html5/thumbnails/23.jpg)
A
L
L
M
E
N
PDSNU Primary Daily SNus Users, 16 % of total, (started daily snus use without previous daily smoking)
NON-PDNSU
ALL
PDSMO
SDSNU Secondary Daily SNus Users, i.e. PDSMO who initiated daily snus use
NON-SDSNU
SNUS AND SMOKING, SWEDISH MEN AGES 16-79
20 % of PDSNU initiated daily smoking becoming “Secondary Daily SMOkers”,
SDSMO
47 % of NON-PDSNU
initiated daily smoking becoming “Primary Daily
SMOkers”, PDSMO
77 % of SDSNU quit smoking completely
52 % of NON-SDSNU quit smoking completely
INITIATION CESSATION OF SMOKING OF SMOKING
62 % of SDSMO quit smoking completely SDSMO (These smokers have a history of daily snus use)
Derived from: Ramström L M, Foulds J. Role of snus in initiation and cessation of tobacco smoking in Sweden. Tobacco Control 2006: 15:210-214
(Prevalence of remaining daily smokers from this category = 1 %)
(Prevalence of remaining daily smokers from this category = 13 %)
(Prevalence of remaining daily smokers from this category = 1 %)
![Page 24: Cutting tobacco’s death toll − an overview of different options Lars M. Ramström Institute for Tobacco Studies Stockholm, Sweden 5th Annual Conference](https://reader035.vdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022070401/56649f1b5503460f94c31281/html5/thumbnails/24.jpg)
QUIT RATE (Proportion of ”Ever daily smokers” having quit completely)
• All men 59%All women 49%
• Men WITHOUT a history of daily snus use 51%Women WITHOUT a history of daily snus use 48%
• Men WITH a history of daily snus use 72%Women WITH a history of daily snus use 71%
![Page 25: Cutting tobacco’s death toll − an overview of different options Lars M. Ramström Institute for Tobacco Studies Stockholm, Sweden 5th Annual Conference](https://reader035.vdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022070401/56649f1b5503460f94c31281/html5/thumbnails/25.jpg)
Gum onlyPatch onlySnus only
Gum onlyPatch onlySnus only
0 25 50 75 100
Quit smoking completelyQuit daily Continuing daily smoking
Outcome of latest attempt to quit smokingby type of cessation aid used
smoking, continuing to smoke occasionally
Men
Women
47%
32%
66%
37%
29%
55%
10%
2%
15%
8%
2%
16%
43%
66%
19%
55%
69%
29%
Data from 2001/2002 ITS/FSI study (Ramström & Foulds 2006)
![Page 26: Cutting tobacco’s death toll − an overview of different options Lars M. Ramström Institute for Tobacco Studies Stockholm, Sweden 5th Annual Conference](https://reader035.vdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022070401/56649f1b5503460f94c31281/html5/thumbnails/26.jpg)
Risk reduction by products like snus: some policy considerations (1)
• Snus use entails nicotine dependence and some health risks, but risk levels are closer to those of no-tobacco-use than to those of cigarette smoking.
• Primary snus use is associated with reduced likelyhood for onset of smoking.
• Increase of initiation of snus use is associated with an even greater decrease of initiation of smoking.
• Secondary snus use is associated with increased likelyhood of stopping smoking.
• When used as smoking cessation aid, snus is more effective than nicotine gum or patch.
• Switching from cigarettes to snus may be a first step towards no-tobacco-use.
• In Sweden snus appears to be a contributing factor behind the low level of tobacco-related mortality.
![Page 27: Cutting tobacco’s death toll − an overview of different options Lars M. Ramström Institute for Tobacco Studies Stockholm, Sweden 5th Annual Conference](https://reader035.vdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022070401/56649f1b5503460f94c31281/html5/thumbnails/27.jpg)
Risk reduction by products like snus: some policy considerations (2)
• Regulations are needed to safeguard product quality.
• Strict legislation is needed to prevent sales to minors and restrain manufacturers from using misleading claims or other undue marketing practices.
• Labelling of packages should give consumer information regarding product content and characteristics including additives.
• Public education campaigns should point out actual risks while avoiding the kind of scaremongering that has sometimes been seen in the past.
• It should be kept in mind that experience from Sweden may not be immediately applicable in other countires.