M J Jarvis1, C Feyerabend, A Bryant, B Hedges, P Primatesta. 1. ICRF Health Behaviour Unit, Department of Epidemiology and Public Health, University College London, 2-16 Torrington Place, London WC1E 6BT, UK. martin.jarvis@ucl.ac.uk
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Risks of lung cancer and of heart disease attributable to passive smoking have been evaluated mainly in non-smokers married to smokers, but there has been little quantitative assessment of the extent of exposure in marriage partners as indicated by markers of inhaled smoke dose. OBJECTIVE: To relate plasma cotinine concentrations in non-smoking English adults to the smoking behaviour of their partners and to demographic and other factors. DATA: Population survey. Data from two years (1994 and 1996) of the Health Survey for England. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Plasma cotinine concentrations in non-smoking adults married to or cohabiting with a partner. RESULTS: There was a strong dose-response relation between cotinine concentrations in non-smoking adults and the smoking behaviour of their partners, rising from a geometric mean of 0.31 ng/ml in those with non-smoking partners to 1.99 ng/ml in those whose partners smoked 30 or more cigarettes per day. In addition, exposure was greater in men, in the autumn and winter, and in those living in more disadvantaged circumstances, and there was an increasing gradient of exposure from the south to the north of the country. On average, cotinine concentrations in non-smokers with a smoking partner were 0.6-0.7% of those in cigarette smokers. CONCLUSIONS: If cotinine is taken as a measure of risk relevant dose, the implied increase in risk of lung cancer in non-smokers with smoking partners is consistent with the risk observed in epidemiological studies. Smoking by partners in the home is a major source of non-smoking adults' exposure to passive smoking.
BACKGROUND: Risks of lung cancer and of heart disease attributable to passive smoking have been evaluated mainly in non-smokers married to smokers, but there has been little quantitative assessment of the extent of exposure in marriage partners as indicated by markers of inhaled smoke dose. OBJECTIVE: To relate plasma cotinine concentrations in non-smoking English adults to the smoking behaviour of their partners and to demographic and other factors. DATA: Population survey. Data from two years (1994 and 1996) of the Health Survey for England. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Plasma cotinine concentrations in non-smoking adults married to or cohabiting with a partner. RESULTS: There was a strong dose-response relation between cotinine concentrations in non-smoking adults and the smoking behaviour of their partners, rising from a geometric mean of 0.31 ng/ml in those with non-smoking partners to 1.99 ng/ml in those whose partners smoked 30 or more cigarettes per day. In addition, exposure was greater in men, in the autumn and winter, and in those living in more disadvantaged circumstances, and there was an increasing gradient of exposure from the south to the north of the country. On average, cotinine concentrations in non-smokers with a smoking partner were 0.6-0.7% of those in cigarette smokers. CONCLUSIONS: If cotinine is taken as a measure of risk relevant dose, the implied increase in risk of lung cancer in non-smokers with smoking partners is consistent with the risk observed in epidemiological studies. Smoking by partners in the home is a major source of non-smoking adults' exposure to passive smoking.
Authors: V Dell'Orco; F Forastiere; N Agabiti; G M Corbo; R Pistelli; R Pacifici; P Zuccaro; A Pizzabiocca; M Rosa; I Altieri Journal: Am J Epidemiol Date: 1995-08-15 Impact factor: 4.897
Authors: Emily J Wasserman; Samantha M Reilly; Reema Goel; Jonathan Foulds; John P Richie; Joshua E Muscat Journal: Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev Date: 2018-03-06 Impact factor: 4.254
Authors: Tricia L Larose; Florence Guida; Anouar Fanidi; Arnulf Langhammer; Kristian Kveem; Victoria L Stevens; Eric J Jacobs; Stephanie A Smith-Warner; Edward Giovannucci; Demetrius Albanes; Stephanie J Weinstein; Neal D Freedman; Ross Prentice; Mary Pettinger; Cynthia A Thomson; Qiuyin Cai; Jie Wu; William J Blot; Alan A Arslan; Anne Zeleniuch-Jacquotte; Loic Le Marchand; Lynne R Wilkens; Christopher A Haiman; Xuehong Zhang; Meir J Stampfer; Allison M Hodge; Graham G Giles; Gianluca Severi; Mikael Johansson; Kjell Grankvist; Renwei Wang; Jian-Min Yuan; Yu-Tang Gao; Woon-Puay Koh; Xiao-Ou Shu; Wei Zheng; Yong-Bing Xiang; Honglan Li; Qing Lan; Kala Visvanathan; Judith Hoffman Bolton; Per Magne Ueland; Øivind Midttun; Neil Caporaso; Mark Purdue; Howard D Sesso; Julie E Buring; I-Min Lee; J Michael Gaziano; Jonas Manjer; Hans Brunnström; Paul Brennan; Mattias Johansson Journal: Int J Epidemiol Date: 2018-12-01 Impact factor: 7.196
Authors: B J Jefferis; D A Lawlor; S Ebrahim; S G Wannamethee; C Feyerabend; M Doig; L McMeekin; D G Cook; P H Whincup Journal: Heart Date: 2010-06 Impact factor: 5.994
Authors: James M Lightwood; Pamela G Coxson; Kirsten Bibbins-Domingo; Lawrence W Williams; Lee Goldman Journal: Am J Prev Med Date: 2009-01 Impact factor: 5.043
Authors: Peter H Whincup; Julie A Gilg; Jonathan R Emberson; Martin J Jarvis; Colin Feyerabend; Andrew Bryant; Mary Walker; Derek G Cook Journal: BMJ Date: 2004-06-30
Authors: Mehmet Hakan Ozdener; Karen K Yee; Ryan McDermott; Beverly J Cowart; Aldona A Vainius; Pamela Dalton; Nancy E Rawson Journal: Tob Induc Dis Date: 2009-07-03 Impact factor: 2.600
Authors: B J Jefferis; G D O Lowe; P Welsh; A Rumley; D A Lawlor; S Ebrahim; C Carson; M Doig; C Feyerabend; L McMeekin; S G Wannamethee; D G Cook; P H Whincup Journal: Atherosclerosis Date: 2009-07-30 Impact factor: 5.162