Sara Kalkhoran1, Ernesto M Sebrié2, Edgardo Sandoya3, Stanton A Glantz4. 1. Department of Medicine, Cardiovascular Research Institute, University of California San Francisco, San Francisco, California. 2. Department of Health Behavior, Roswell Park Cancer Institute, Buffalo, New York. 3. CIET, Centro para la Investigación de la Epidemia de Tabaquismo, Montevideo; CLAEH Medical School, Maldonado, Uruguay. 4. Department of Medicine, Cardiovascular Research Institute, University of California San Francisco, San Francisco, California; Center for Tobacco Control Research and Education, Cardiovascular Research Institute, University of California San Francisco, San Francisco, California. Electronic address: glantz@medicine.ucsf.edu.
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Implementation of smokefree laws is followed by drops in hospital admissions for cardiovascular diseases and asthma. The impact of smokefree laws on use of non-hospital medical services has not been assessed. The purpose of this study is to evaluate the impact of Uruguay's national 100% smokefree legislation on non-hospital emergency care visits, hospitalizations for bronchospasm, and bronchodilator use. METHODS: The monthly number of non-hospital emergency care visits and hospitalizations for bronchospasm, as well as monthly puffs of bronchodilators (total and per person), from 3 years prior to the adoption of the 100% smokefree policy on March 1, 2006, through 5 years after the policy were assessed using interrupted time series negative binomial regression. Data analysis was conducted in 2014. RESULTS: The incidence of non-hospital emergency visits for bronchospasm decreased by 15% (incidence rate ratio [IRR]=0.85, 95% CI=0.76, 0.94) following implementation of the law. Hospitalizations for bronchospasm did not change significantly (IRR=0.89, 95% CI=0.66, 1.21). Total monthly puffs of salbutamol and ipratropium administered in the non-hospital emergency setting decreased by 224 (95% CI=-372, -76) and 179 (95% CI=-340, -18.6), respectively, from means of 1,222 and 1,007 before the law. CONCLUSIONS: Uruguay's 100% smokefree law was followed by fewer emergency visits for bronchospasm and less need for treatment, supporting adoption of such policies in low- and middle-income countries to reduce the disease burden and healthcare costs associated with smoking.
INTRODUCTION: Implementation of smokefree laws is followed by drops in hospital admissions for cardiovascular diseases and asthma. The impact of smokefree laws on use of non-hospital medical services has not been assessed. The purpose of this study is to evaluate the impact of Uruguay's national 100% smokefree legislation on non-hospital emergency care visits, hospitalizations for bronchospasm, and bronchodilator use. METHODS: The monthly number of non-hospital emergency care visits and hospitalizations for bronchospasm, as well as monthly puffs of bronchodilators (total and per person), from 3 years prior to the adoption of the 100% smokefree policy on March 1, 2006, through 5 years after the policy were assessed using interrupted time series negative binomial regression. Data analysis was conducted in 2014. RESULTS: The incidence of non-hospital emergency visits for bronchospasm decreased by 15% (incidence rate ratio [IRR]=0.85, 95% CI=0.76, 0.94) following implementation of the law. Hospitalizations for bronchospasm did not change significantly (IRR=0.89, 95% CI=0.66, 1.21). Total monthly puffs of salbutamol and ipratropium administered in the non-hospital emergency setting decreased by 224 (95% CI=-372, -76) and 179 (95% CI=-340, -18.6), respectively, from means of 1,222 and 1,007 before the law. CONCLUSIONS: Uruguay's 100% smokefree law was followed by fewer emergency visits for bronchospasm and less need for treatment, supporting adoption of such policies in low- and middle-income countries to reduce the disease burden and healthcare costs associated with smoking.
Authors: Adriana Blanco-Marquizo; Beatriz Goja; Armando Peruga; Miranda R Jones; Jie Yuan; Jonathan M Samet; Patrick N Breysse; Ana Navas-Acien Journal: Tob Control Date: 2010-06 Impact factor: 7.552
Authors: Daniel Menzies; Arun Nair; Peter A Williamson; Stuart Schembri; Mudher Z H Al-Khairalla; Martyn Barnes; Tom C Fardon; Lesley McFarlane; Gareth J Magee; Brian J Lipworth Journal: JAMA Date: 2006-10-11 Impact factor: 56.272
Authors: Mary Kay Rayens; Patricia V Burkhart; Mei Zhang; Seongjik Lee; Debra K Moser; David Mannino; Ellen J Hahn Journal: J Allergy Clin Immunol Date: 2008-08-09 Impact factor: 10.793
Authors: Ernesto M Sebrié; Verónica Schoj; Mark J Travers; Barbara McGaw; Stanton A Glantz Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health Date: 2012-05-21 Impact factor: 3.390
Authors: Yolanda Rando-Matos; Mariona Pons-Vigués; María José López; Rodrigo Córdoba; José Luis Ballve-Moreno; Elisa Puigdomènech-Puig; Vega Estíbaliz Benito-López; Olga Lucía Arias-Agudelo; Mercè López-Grau; Anna Guardia-Riera; José Manuel Trujillo; Carlos Martin-Cantera Journal: PLoS One Date: 2017-07-31 Impact factor: 3.240
Authors: Timor Faber; Arun Kumar; Johan P Mackenbach; Christopher Millett; Sanjay Basu; Aziz Sheikh; Jasper V Been Journal: Lancet Public Health Date: 2017-09-05
Authors: M Justin Byron; Joanna E Cohen; Shannon Frattaroli; Joel Gittelsohn; Jeffrey M Drope; David H Jernigan Journal: Tob Induc Dis Date: 2019-08-05 Impact factor: 2.600