James M Lightwood1, Stanton A Glantz. 1. Department of Clinical Pharmacy, University of California, 3333 California St, Suite 420, San Francisco, CA 94118, USA. lightwoodj@pharmacy.ucsf.edu
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The estimated effects of recent pubic and workplace smoking restriction laws suggest that they produce significant declines in community rates of heart attack. The consistency of these declines with existing estimates of the relative risk of heart attack in individuals attributable to passive smoking exposure is poorly understood. The objective is to determine the consistency of estimates of reductions in community rates of heart attacks resulting from smoking restriction laws with estimates of the relative risk of heart disease in individuals exposed to passive smoking. METHODS AND RESULTS: Meta-analyses of existing estimates of declines in community rates were compared with a mathematical model of the relationship between individual risk and community rates. The outcome measure is the ratio of community rates of acute myocardial infarction (after divided by before implementation of a smoking restriction law). There is a significant drop in the rate of acute myocardial infarction hospital admissions associated with the implementation of strong smoke-free legislation. The primary reason for heterogeneity in results of different studies is the duration of follow-up after adoption of the law. The pooled random-effects estimate of the rate of acute myocardial infarction hospitalization 12 months after implementation of the law is 0.83 (95% confidence interval, 0.80 to 0.87), and this benefit grows with time. This drop in admissions is consistent with a range of plausible individual risk and exposure scenarios. CONCLUSIONS: Passage of strong smoke-free legislation produces rapid and substantial benefits in terms of reduced acute myocardial infarctions, and these benefits grow with time.
BACKGROUND: The estimated effects of recent pubic and workplace smoking restriction laws suggest that they produce significant declines in community rates of heart attack. The consistency of these declines with existing estimates of the relative risk of heart attack in individuals attributable to passive smoking exposure is poorly understood. The objective is to determine the consistency of estimates of reductions in community rates of heart attacks resulting from smoking restriction laws with estimates of the relative risk of heart disease in individuals exposed to passive smoking. METHODS AND RESULTS: Meta-analyses of existing estimates of declines in community rates were compared with a mathematical model of the relationship between individual risk and community rates. The outcome measure is the ratio of community rates of acute myocardial infarction (after divided by before implementation of a smoking restriction law). There is a significant drop in the rate of acute myocardial infarction hospital admissions associated with the implementation of strong smoke-free legislation. The primary reason for heterogeneity in results of different studies is the duration of follow-up after adoption of the law. The pooled random-effects estimate of the rate of acute myocardial infarction hospitalization 12 months after implementation of the law is 0.83 (95% confidence interval, 0.80 to 0.87), and this benefit grows with time. This drop in admissions is consistent with a range of plausible individual risk and exposure scenarios. CONCLUSIONS: Passage of strong smoke-free legislation produces rapid and substantial benefits in terms of reduced acute myocardial infarctions, and these benefits grow with time.
Authors: Christian Heiss; Nicolas Amabile; Andrew C Lee; Wendy May Real; Suzaynn F Schick; David Lao; Maelene L Wong; Sarah Jahn; Franca S Angeli; Petros Minasi; Matthew L Springer; S Katharine Hammond; Stanton A Glantz; William Grossman; John R Balmes; Yerem Yeghiazarians Journal: J Am Coll Cardiol Date: 2008-05-06 Impact factor: 24.094
Authors: Jill P Pell; Sally Haw; Stuart Cobbe; David E Newby; Alastair C H Pell; Colin Fischbacher; Alex McConnachie; Stuart Pringle; David Murdoch; Frank Dunn; Keith Oldroyd; Paul Macintyre; Brian O'Rourke; William Borland Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2008-07-31 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Harlan R Juster; Brett R Loomis; Theresa M Hinman; Matthew C Farrelly; Andrew Hyland; Ursula E Bauer; Guthrie S Birkhead Journal: Am J Public Health Date: 2007-09-27 Impact factor: 9.308
Authors: S Vasselli; P Papini; D Gaelone; L Spizzichino; E De Campora; R Gnavi; C Saitto; N Binkin; G Laurendi Journal: Minerva Cardioangiol Date: 2008-04 Impact factor: 1.347
Authors: Kranthi Pinnamaneni; Richard E Sievers; Rikki Sharma; Amanda M Selchau; Gustavo Gutierrez; Eric J Nordsieck; Robert Su; Songtao An; Qiumei Chen; Xiaoyin Wang; Ronak Derakhshandeh; Kirstin Aschbacher; Christian Heiss; Stanton A Glantz; Suzaynn F Schick; Matthew L Springer Journal: Nicotine Tob Res Date: 2013-12-03 Impact factor: 4.244