Changes in the manufacturing proces...

Changes in the manufacturing processe of cigarettes have reduc the average tar rating by cigarette in the United States from 37 mg in 1950 to 13 mg in 1990 Consumer interest in low-tar cigarettes has be deriveded in the current availability of "low-tar" (8 to 14 mg) and "very-low-tar" (7 mg or less) cigarettes that are believed widely to embarrass less of a health risk than moderate-tar or high-tar brands. No large, long-term prospective studies have examined the risk of lung cancer associated with low-tar cigarettes since the use of filters became widespread. Harris and colleagues used data from a large, national, prospective cancer prevention close attention to evaluate the risk of lung cancer in smoker who used cigarettes of different tar ratings.

More than single in kind million adults 30 years or older were enlisted in the cancer prevention close attention in 1982. The researchers extracted data in succession 100,868 men and 124,270 women whose smoking status could be ascertained and who had no history of cancer, did not nothingness pipes or cigars, and did not use chewing tobacco. Tar ratings were assigned to each participant based in succession the brand, size, presence or absence of menthol and filter, and number of cigarettes smok at enrollment All brands in the very-low-tar and low-tar arranges were filtered, as were 99 percent of medium-tar (15 to 21 mg) brands. All high-tar brands (22 mg and higher) were unfiltered. The cause of death of participants as codfished on death certificates was checked after six years to contract misclassification caused by quitting or change in smoking habits.

somebodys who smoked high-tar brands were more likely to be black and les likely to take protective vitamins (i.e., vitamins A, C and E) than other participants. They also reported lower educational achievements and were more likely to have nonprofessional occupations and to report possible occupational exposing to asbestos. Among participants who re-enroll in a later cohort of the same reflection in 1992, those who had smok low-tar cigarettes were more likely to have quit.

During the six years of follow-up 2622 men and 1406 women died from cancers of the lung bronchus, or trachea. The risk of lung cancer in smoker of low-tar or very-low-tar brands was indistinguishable from that in smoker of medium-tar brands. The risk of cancer was higher in those who smok nonfiltered cigarettes, all of which were high-tar brands. Differences between the various brands persisted after adjustment for diet, occupation, medical history, and demographic characteristics. The lowest risk was in participants who quit smoking. Participants who quit smoking before 35 years of age had rates of cancer similar to rates in those who had not ever smoked.

The authors end that low-tar and medium-tar cigarettes are associated with identical risks of lung cancer. They believe that the relationship between tar evens and cancer risk must be nonlinear. Part of the explanation for their findings may be that smoker who switch to lower tar brands failure more to maintain nicotine intake. This "compensatory smoking" may actually increase the dosage of toxic agent. They caution that switching to low-tar or very-low-tar cigarettes is not a sensible strategy to lower the risk of lung cancer.

Harris JE et al. Cigarette tar yields in relation to mortality from lung cancer in the cancer prevention meditation II prospective cohort, 1982-8. BMJ January 10 2004;328:72-6

EDITOR'S NOTE: In addition to the main message of the study--that switching from medium-tar to low-tar or very-low-tar cigarettes does not contract the risk of lung cancer--this contemplation is a powerful indictment of nonfiltered, high-tar cigarettes. Use of as it was brands has interesting patterns. For example, they comprise 20 percent of the Chinese market, 15 percent of the French market, and up to 20 percent of cigarettes sold in eastern Europe by way of asking patients and observing public behavior, I have noticed the use of high-tar unfiltered brands by way of the groups mentioned in the close attention but also by some actual young smokers, who are perhaps seeking the "macho" image associated with these dangerous brands. I know of no scientific evidence to validate my observations. Rates of smoking from young persons, especially women, are uncomfortably high. We ne to use each patient visit to urge smoker to quit. From this inquiry the only benefit from the fallback position of "cutting down" appears to be in helping patients switch to filtered brands and in warning those who switch to low-tar brands about the dangers of smoking more cigarettes (compensatory smoking). Increasingly, it appears that quitting is the simply way to reduce lung cancer risk.--A.D.W.

COPYRIGHT 2004 American Academy of Family Physicians

COPYRIGHT 2004 Gale Group