This article addresses the claim by Gross in this issue that estimates of coronary heart disease deaths due to environmental tobacco smoke are indefensible. Gross's interpretation of his data is questioned on statistical inference grounds. The three new studies which he introduces are discussed and
The risk of coronary heart disease in non-smokers exposed to environmental tobacco smoke
โ Scribed by Alan J. Gross
- Publisher
- John Wiley and Sons
- Year
- 1998
- Tongue
- English
- Weight
- 160 KB
- Volume
- 9
- Category
- Article
- ISSN
- 1180-4009
No coin nor oath required. For personal study only.
โฆ Synopsis
This article addresses the controversial issue of whether non-smokers' exposure to environmental tobacco smoke (ETS) increases their risk of developing coronary heart disease (CHD). Glantz and Parmley purport to provide toxicological and epidemiologic evidence in support of their contention that non-smokers who are exposed to ETS are more likely to develop CHD than non-smokers who are not so exposed. The toxicological evidence provided by Glantz and Parmley has been challenged by Wu and by Gori, among others. Moreover, the epidemiologic data considered by Glantz and Parmley are equivocal at best and do not include data from the American Cancer Society's Cancer Prevention Studies (CPS-I) and (CPS-II and the National Mortality Followback Survey which, when added to the original epidemiologic database considered by Glantz and Parmley, indicate no statistically signiยฎcant association. Furthermore, most of the epidemiologic studies indicate a myriad of biases and confounders that have not been adequately adjusted. Many primary risk factors that were identiยฎed in the premier heart disease study, the Framingham Study (Kannel et al.), including but not limited to ethnicity, family history, dietary habits, age, serum cholesterol, exercise and alcohol use, were either totally ignored or not adequately considered in the epidemiologic studies. It seems foolhardy, then, to claim an association as do Glantz and Parmley. But perhaps a more egregious breach of science is to predict a number of CHD deaths in non-smokers caused by ETS. Unfortunately, that is what Wells purports to do. When one considers all the available evidence, the only reasonable conclusion that can be reached is that no association has been established between ETS exposure in non-smokers and an increased risk of CHD.
๐ SIMILAR VOLUMES
I appreciate the opportunity to respond to Professor Gross, since it seems, from his reply, that several things may not have been clear in my original rejoinder. However, before beginning, it is worth mentioning that another prospective study of CHD and ETS exposure recently appeared (Kawachi et al.
This response is in two parts. First, the critique of Ellison and Morrison (1998) is addressed. This is followed, then, by addressing Brown's (1998) criticisms. While I am appreciative of the eorts put forth in these rejoinders to Gross (1998), I cannot, in any good
The association between exposure to ETS and the risk of lung cancer in life-time non-smoking women was investigated by means of a hospital based case-control study in Moscow, Russia. The main importance of our study is that it was conducted on a population with a specific smoking pattern from which
The prevalence of coronary heart disease (CHD) risk factors in law enforcement personnel compared to that in the general population was studied by determining the predicted 10-year risk for developing CHD (CHD 10 , expressed as %) in subjects from the Iowa Department of Public Safety and comparing i