Sanne A E Peters1, Rachel R Huxley, Mark Woodward. 1. From The George Institute for Global Health, University of Sydney, New South Wales, Australia (S.A.E.P., R.R.H., M.W.); Julius Center for Health Sciences and Primary Care, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht, The Netherlands (S.A.E.P.); Division of Epidemiology and Community Health, School of Public Health, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, MN (R.R.H.); and Department of Epidemiology, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, MD (M.W.).
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: It is currently unknown whether the excess risk of stroke by smoking is the same for women and men. We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis to estimate the effect of smoking on stroke in women compared with men. METHODS: PubMed MEDLINE was systematically searched for prospective population-based cohort studies published between January 1, 1966, and January 26, 2013. Studies that presented sex-specific estimates of the relative risk of stroke comparing current smoking with nonsmoking and its associated variability were selected. The sex-specific relative risks and their ratio (RRR), comparing women with men, were pooled using random-effects meta-analysis with inverse variance weighting. Similarly, the RRR for former versus never smoking was pooled. RESULTS: Data from 81 prospective cohort studies that included 3,980,359 individuals and 42,401 strokes were available. Smoking was an independent risk factor for stroke in both sexes. Overall, the pooled multiple-adjusted RRR indicated a similar risk of stroke associated with smoking in women compared with men (RRR, 1.06 [95% confidence interval, 0.99-1.13]). In a regional analysis, there was evidence of a more harmful effect of smoking in women than in men in Western (RRR, 1.10 [1.02-1.18)] but not in Asian (RRR, 0.97 [0.87-1.09]) populations. Compared with never-smokers, the beneficial effects of quitting smoking among former smokers on stroke risk were similar between the sexes (RRR, 1.10 [0.99-1.22]). CONCLUSIONS: Compared with nonsmokers, the excess risk of stroke is at least as great among women who smoke compared with men who smoke.
BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: It is currently unknown whether the excess risk of stroke by smoking is the same for women and men. We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis to estimate the effect of smoking on stroke in women compared with men. METHODS: PubMed MEDLINE was systematically searched for prospective population-based cohort studies published between January 1, 1966, and January 26, 2013. Studies that presented sex-specific estimates of the relative risk of stroke comparing current smoking with nonsmoking and its associated variability were selected. The sex-specific relative risks and their ratio (RRR), comparing women with men, were pooled using random-effects meta-analysis with inverse variance weighting. Similarly, the RRR for former versus never smoking was pooled. RESULTS: Data from 81 prospective cohort studies that included 3,980,359 individuals and 42,401 strokes were available. Smoking was an independent risk factor for stroke in both sexes. Overall, the pooled multiple-adjusted RRR indicated a similar risk of stroke associated with smoking in women compared with men (RRR, 1.06 [95% confidence interval, 0.99-1.13]). In a regional analysis, there was evidence of a more harmful effect of smoking in women than in men in Western (RRR, 1.10 [1.02-1.18)] but not in Asian (RRR, 0.97 [0.87-1.09]) populations. Compared with never-smokers, the beneficial effects of quitting smoking among former smokers on stroke risk were similar between the sexes (RRR, 1.10 [0.99-1.22]). CONCLUSIONS: Compared with nonsmokers, the excess risk of stroke is at least as great among women who smoke compared with men who smoke.
Entities:
Keywords:
meta-analysis; risk factors; sex differences; smoking; stroke
Authors: Emelia J Benjamin; Michael J Blaha; Stephanie E Chiuve; Mary Cushman; Sandeep R Das; Rajat Deo; Sarah D de Ferranti; James Floyd; Myriam Fornage; Cathleen Gillespie; Carmen R Isasi; Monik C Jiménez; Lori Chaffin Jordan; Suzanne E Judd; Daniel Lackland; Judith H Lichtman; Lynda Lisabeth; Simin Liu; Chris T Longenecker; Rachel H Mackey; Kunihiro Matsushita; Dariush Mozaffarian; Michael E Mussolino; Khurram Nasir; Robert W Neumar; Latha Palaniappan; Dilip K Pandey; Ravi R Thiagarajan; Mathew J Reeves; Matthew Ritchey; Carlos J Rodriguez; Gregory A Roth; Wayne D Rosamond; Comilla Sasson; Amytis Towfighi; Connie W Tsao; Melanie B Turner; Salim S Virani; Jenifer H Voeks; Joshua Z Willey; John T Wilkins; Jason Hy Wu; Heather M Alger; Sally S Wong; Paul Muntner Journal: Circulation Date: 2017-01-25 Impact factor: 29.690
Authors: Anne M Vangen-Lønne; Peter Ueda; Pablo Gulayin; Tom Wilsgaard; Ellisiv B Mathiesen; Goodarz Danaei Journal: Eur J Epidemiol Date: 2018-01-02 Impact factor: 8.082
Authors: Stephanie L Mayne; Amy H Auchincloss; Mark F Stehr; David M Kern; Ana Navas-Acien; Joel D Kaufman; Yvonne L Michael; Ana V Diez Roux Journal: Epidemiology Date: 2017-11 Impact factor: 4.822
Authors: Dixon Yang; Sunil Iyer; Hannah Gardener; David Della-Morte; Milita Crisby; Chuanhui Dong; Ken Cheung; Consuelo Mora-McLaughlin; Clinton B Wright; Mitchell S Elkind; Ralph L Sacco; Tatjana Rundek Journal: Cerebrovasc Dis Date: 2015-07-25 Impact factor: 2.762