Quantifying the effects of promoting smokeless tobacco as a harm reduction strategy in the USA

被引:77
作者
Mejia, Adrienne B.
Ling, Pamela M. [2 ]
Glantz, Stanton A. [1 ]
机构
[1] Univ Calif San Francisco, Philip R Lee Inst Hlth Policy Studies, Ctr Tobacco Control Res & Educ, Dept Med,Div Cardiol, San Francisco, CA 94143 USA
[2] Univ Calif San Francisco, Div Gen Internal Med, Ctr Tobacco Control Res & Educ, Dept Med, San Francisco, CA 94143 USA
关键词
CIGARETTE-SMOKING; UNITED-STATES; SWEDISH SNUS; RISK-FACTOR; INDUSTRY; CANCER; ADULTS; ADOLESCENTS; CESSATION; PANCREAS;
D O I
10.1136/tc.2009.031427
中图分类号
R194 [卫生标准、卫生检查、医药管理];
学科分类号
摘要
Background Snus (a form of smokeless tobacco) is less dangerous than cigarettes. Some health professionals argue that snus should be promoted as a component of a harm reduction strategy, while others oppose this approach. Major US tobacco companies (RJ Reynolds and Philip Morris) are marketing snus products as cigarette brand line extensions. The population effects of smokeless tobacco promotion will depend on the combined effects of changes in individual risk with population changes in tobacco use patterns. Objective To quantitatively evaluate the health impact of smokeless tobacco promotion as part of a harm reduction strategy in the US. Methods A Monte Carlo simulation of a decision tree model of tobacco initiation and use was used to estimate the health effects associated with five different patterns of increased smokeless tobacco use. Results With cigarette smoking having a health effect of 100, the base case scenario (based on current US prevalence rates) yields a total health effect of 24.2 (5% to 95% interval 21.7 to 26.5) and the aggressive smokeless promotion (less cigarette use and increased smokeless, health-concerned smokers switching to snus, smokers in smokefree environments switching to snus) was associated with a health effect of 30.4 (5% to 95% interval 25.9 to 35.2). The anticipated health effects for additional scenarios with lower rates of smokeless uptake also overlapped with the base case. Conclusions Promoting smokeless tobacco as a safer alternative to cigarettes is unlikely to result in substantial health benefits at a population level.
引用
收藏
页码:297 / 305
页数:9
相关论文
共 44 条
[1]   Smokeless and other noncigarette tobacco use and pancreatic cancer: A case-control study based on direct interviews [J].
Alguacil, J ;
Silverman, DT .
CANCER EPIDEMIOLOGY BIOMARKERS & PREVENTION, 2004, 13 (01) :55-58
[2]  
[Anonymous], 2007, SMOK TOB SOM TOB SPE
[3]   Smokeless tobacco use and risk of cancer of the pancreas and other organs [J].
Boffetta, P ;
Aagnes, B ;
Weiderpass, E ;
Andersen, A .
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF CANCER, 2005, 114 (06) :992-995
[4]   Use of smokeless tobacco and risk of myocardial infarction and stroke: systematic review with meta-analysis [J].
Boffetta, Paolo ;
Straif, Kurt .
BMJ-BRITISH MEDICAL JOURNAL, 2009, 339 :502
[5]   Monitoring polytobacco use among adolescents: Do cigarette smokers use other forms of tobacco? [J].
Bombard, Jennifer M. ;
Rock, Valerie J. ;
Pederson, Linda L. ;
Asman, Kat J. .
NICOTINE & TOBACCO RESEARCH, 2008, 10 (11) :1581-1589
[6]  
*BRIT AM TOB, 2008, SELL SNUS
[7]  
Britton J, 2008, BRIT MED J, V336, P358, DOI [10.1136/bmj.39479.427477.AD, 10.1136/bmj.39479.491319.AD]
[8]  
DORFMAN B, 2008, ALTRIA BUY UST 10 4
[9]   Effect of smoke-free workplaces on smoking behaviour: systematic review [J].
Fichtenberg, CM ;
Glantz, SA .
BMJ-BRITISH MEDICAL JOURNAL, 2002, 325 (7357) :188-191
[10]  
*FORB COM, RPT BAT UNV ACQ SKAN