Systemic review project
Systemic review project
*For correspondence:
Competing interest: See
page 36
Funding: See page 36
Received: 09 July 2019
Accepted: 14 February 2020
Published: 24 March 2020
Reviewing editor: Eduardo
Franco, McGill University,
Canada
Copyright Jha. This article is
distributed under the terms of
the Creative Commons
Attribution License, which
permits unrestricted use and
redistribution provided that the
original author and source are
credited.
The hazards of smoking and the benefits
of cessation: A critical summation of the
epidemiological evidence in high-income
countries
Prabhat Jha*
Centre for Global Health Research, Dalla Lana School of Public Health and Unity
Health, Toronto, University of Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Abstract In high-income countries, the biggest cause of premature death, defined as death
before 70 years, is smoking of manufactured cigarettes. Smoking-related disease was responsible
for about 41 million deaths in the United States, United Kingdom and Canada, cumulatively, from
1960 to 2020. Every million cigarettes smoked leads to one death in the US and Canada, but
slightly more than one death in the UK. The 21st century hazards reveal that smokers who start
smoking early in adult life and do not quit lose a decade of life expectancy versus non-smokers.
Cessation, particularly before age 40 years, yields large reductions in mortality risk. Up to two-
thirds of deaths among smokers are avoidable at non-smoking death rates, and former smokers
have about only a quarter of the excess risk of death compared to current smokers. The gap
between scientific and popular understanding of smoking hazards is surprisingly large.
Overview
I summarize the causative role of smoking for the most common causes of death among adults in
high-income countries, drawing on data from Canada, the United States (US) and the United King-
dom (UK). The main objective of this analysis is to review the hazards of smoking and the benefits of
cessation. I do so by examining the cause, nature and extent of tobacco-related diseases in high-
income countries between 1960 and 2020. The review has seven main conclusions.
First, in much of Europe and North America, the biggest cause of premature death, defined as
death before 70 years, is smoking of manufactured cigarettes. Smoking as an important cause of
many diseases in many populations has been recognized widely in the scientific literature for the last
five decades. However, three surprising features of health hazards of smoking have been established
reliably only since about 2012. The first feature is that risk of developing disease among smokers is
big. The second feature is that for smokers to develop these big risks, they need to start smoking
early in adult life and to continue smoking. If smokers don’t start early in life, their risks are substan-
tially smaller. Third, if smokers stop smoking before they develop some serious disease, then their
risks are substantially reduced.
However, most smokers whom start early in adult life and who continue to smoke are eventually
killed by their tobacco use. This is because in every year during middle age (defined here as ages
30–69 years), the death rates among smokers are about three-fold higher than that of similar non-
smokers (considering differences between smokers and non-smokers in heavy alcohol use, obesity
patterns or different educational or economic status). So two-thirds of the mortality among smokers
would not be happening if they had the non-smoker death rates. Most of this excess risk arises from
diseases that are caused by smoking. This includes disease such as lung cancer, emphysema, heart
Jha. eLife 2020;9:e49979. DOI: https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.49979 1 of 47
REVIEW ARTICLE
attack, stroke, cancer of the upper aerodigestive areas, bladder cancer and various other conditions.
Thus this excess risk of disease and death is a cause and effect relationship.
Second, despite substantial declines in the proportion of adults who smoke in most high-income
countries, cigarette smoking remains a common exposure in many countries. There were approxi-
mately 34 million smokers in the US, 7 million in the UK and 5 million in Canada in 2017 and the
number of cigarettes sold in recent years has remained mostly unchanged for the past decade in
Canada, while it has declined in the US and the UK. In recent years, electronic cigarettes appear to
have accelerated the decline in smoking among younger adults. E-cigarettes are far less hazardous
than cigarettes, but do carry some risks, most notably the risk of addiction to nicotine among
youths.
Third, a proper understanding of the hazards of smoking requires due consideration of the lag of
decades between onset of smoking and the development of disease(s). For both individuals and
populations to experience increases in the risk of death, prolonged smoking from early adulthood
without cessation is required. The increases in the risk of death can be gauged reliably by studying
trends in national lung cancer mortality of different generations. The age-specific health hazards can
also be documented in large prospective studies, which monitor groups of smokers and non-smok-
ers for the development of disease(s) over time. Conservatively, smoking-related disease was
responsible for about 41 million deaths in the US, UK and Canada, cumulatively, from 1960 to 2020.
Every million cigarettes smoked causes approximately one death in the US and Canada, but about
1.3 deaths in the UK.
Fourth, the hazards of smoking are much bigger than was documented just two decades ago. Dif-
ferences in death rates among smokers and non-smokers imply that smokers lose on average at least
a decade of life. About half of all smoking-attributable deaths occur in middle age. The specific con-
ditions caused by smoking include vascular, respiratory and neoplastic (cancer) disease (which
account for approximately 75% of all causes of death in most high-income countries). Smoking is
increasingly linked to conditions such as diabetes, rheumatoid arthritis, age-related macular degen-
eration of the eye, orofacial clefts and ectopic pregnancy. Indeed, the list of smoking-attributable
diseases continues to expand with additional studies and monitoring. Hence, total mortality differen-
ces between otherwise similar smokers and non-smokers are a robust yet simple way to estimate the
effects of smoking.
Fifth, cessation is effective in reducing the increased risks of developing smoking-related disease.
Smokers who successfully quit before age 40 avoid nearly all increased mortality risks of continued
smoking. Smoking cessation yields specific benefits of reducing fatal and non-fatal vascular, respira-
tory and neoplastic disease. Former smokers have about only a quarter of the excess risk of death
than do current smokers. Studying cessation provides further evidence about the causal nature of
smoking and disease development.
Sixth, the biological evidence about particular carcinogens and other toxins found in manufac-
tured cigarettes and the possible mechanisms that trigger heart attacks and strokes are consistent
with the epidemiological evidence. Genetics is an important factor in disease susceptibility but does
not negate the substantial importance of smoking in explaining the marked changes in cause-specific
mortality and total mortality attributable to smoking over the last few decades.
Finally, there continues to be gross underestimation of the health hazards of smoking by the pub-
lic, non-experts and even some experts. The large health risks inherent in smoking are often wrongly
equated with the far smaller risks of other health exposures. For example, smoking remains far more
hazardous to the individual adult in high-income countries versus moderate obesity, heavy alcohol
use and other factors. Most adults surveyed in the US remained surprisingly unaware of the high lev-
els of disease risk that occur today from smoking.
Introduction
Tobacco use is well established as a major cause of death worldwide, accounting for about five to
six million deaths per year worldwide (Jha and Peto, 2014). On current smoking patterns, about
one billion deaths may occur from smoking during the 21st century, in contrast to ‘only’ 100 million
deaths in the 20th century (Peto et al., 1994). Already about 100 million tobacco deaths have
Jha. eLife 2020;9:e49979. DOI: https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.49979 2 of 47
Review Article Epidemiology and Global Health
occurred this century and there will be another 250 million tobacco deaths before 2050. The vast
majority of the deaths before 2050 will occur among current smokers. Hence, the major public health
priority is to increase the proportions of adults who quit smoking as well as to reduce the uptake of
smoking by young adults and children.
In order for individuals to properly understand their risks of smoking, an understanding of the
risks of smoking and benefits of cessation is required. This in turn requires a detailed understanding
of the cause, nature, and extent of tobacco-related disease, including an understanding of the evolu-
tion of cigarette smoking in populations. Relationships between smoking and disease depend on
changes in consumption patterns of smokers and ingredients of commonly manufactured cigarettes.
This review is intended to inform governments, researchers, health care providers and individuals
about the contemporary hazards of smoking. To do so, I outline the contemporary evidence that
defines the causal relationship between smoking and the development of major causes of premature
death. I focus mostly on evidence relevant from the US, UK and Canada, as typical of most high-
income countries.
As most of the evidence regarding the relationship between smoking and disease has been on
mortality, I focus on mortality by cause. Mortality has less misclassification than non-fatal outcomes,
such as a first or recurrent non-fatal heart attack (Jha, 2014; Menon et al., 2019). However, I assess
to some extent the evidence on the development of new diseases in previously non-diseased (or
healthy) populations (or incidence).
This review is in eight sections. This first section covers key sources of data and methods. Section
two reviews the current number of smokers in the US, UK and Canada. It also looks at historical
trends in smoking, specifically trends from 1920 to 2010, with an emphasis on trends over the last
five decades. It describes changes in the manufactured cigarette which have influenced the addictive
properties of cigarettes, and thus, the risks of disease development. A brief review of electronic cig-
arettes follows.
Section three focuses on smoking as a cause of disease. It reviews, briefly, the history of studies
linking smoking to disease, with particular attention to the importance of prolonged smoking to the
development of disease. Because lung cancer is a highly-studied disease, this section draws upon
national rates of lung cancer mortality and prospective studies of individuals who were smokers or
non-smokers and who were observed for the development of the disease. This section also provides
estimates of total mortality from smoking from 1960 to 2020 in the three countries (totalling about
41 million deaths), including the relationship of number of cigarettes smoked with mortality.
Section four reviews the epidemiological evidence that relates smoking to both total mortality
and cause-specific death rates from the most established conditions linked to smoking. It provides
estimates of the avoidable proportion of deaths had the smokers had death rates of comparable
non-smokers. Section five outlines the recent evidence on the reduction in total mortality and cause-
specific mortality from smoking cessation. Cessation is a powerful way to establish the causal rela-
tionships between smoking, total mortality and specific diseases. This section also quantifies the
reduction in excess risk among former smokers compared to continued smoking.
Section six briefly summarizes the biological evidence regarding the link between nicotine addic-
tion and smoking, and between smoking and disease. It outlines how biological data can help dispel
some commonly held myths about the ‘genetic basis’ of smoking-attributable disease. This summary
reemphasizes the central point that reliable quantification of smoking hazards is best done at the
level of populations, using epidemiological studies to determine both health risks in individual
humans and death rates in populations. Section seven reviews and contrasts the commonly per-
ceived risks of alcohol use and pollution or environmental exposures that influence human health to
epidemiological findings on hazards of smoking. Section eight discusses implications for future
research and provides a brief conclusion.
This review focuses on the consequences of smoking, and not on the causes of smoking (including
the key biological, social, economic and marketing influences that lead to variable rates of smoking
initiation and cessation across different populations). However, I do examine the engineering of
addictive nicotine to the modern manufactured cigarette, which plays a central role in explaining
smoking patterns. For a careful review of the causes of smoking, I refer the reader to various US Sur-
geon General Reports (USSGR), most notably those of 1989 and 2014 (U.S. Department of Health
and Human Services, 1989; U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, 2014). Similarly, the
emphasis is on high-income countries and not low and middle-income countries, where the evolution
Jha. eLife 2020;9:e49979. DOI: https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.49979 3 of 47
Review Article Epidemiology and Global Health
of the tobacco epidemic is not yet mature, and which has much lower rates of cessation (Jha and
Peto, 2014). The issues related to disease patterns in low and middle-income countries are also
quite distinct (Jha and Peto, 2014; International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC), 2004;
Jha et al., 2008; Liu et al., 1998). The review of the consequences of smoking does not include sec-
ond-hand smoking. Rigorous assessments on the relationship of second-hand smoking to cancer and
other diseases have been completed by the International Agency for Research on Cancer
(IARC Working Group on the Evaluation of Carcinogenic Risk to Humans, 2004;
International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC), 2012), and the US Surgeon General (USSGR;
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, 2004; U.S. Department of Health and Human
Services, 2014). Finally, this does not focus on control of smoking, including the most important
role of higher exicse taxes to raise cigarette prices, for which there are several reviews and WHO
reports (Jha and Chaloupka, 1999; Jha et al., 2015; World Health Organization, 2017; Jha and
Peto, 2014).
Sources of evidence
The main sources of evidence in this report are the published literature, which is accessible publicly
through the PubMed portal (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/); scholarly summations done by
key technical agencies such as the US Surgeon General, International Agency for Research on Cancer
(IARC), WHO, the US Institute of Medicine, and other independent technical groups; and my own
epidemiological research. Like most academic researchers, I did not have access to the scientific
research conducted by tobacco industries, much of which remains closed to the public.
The office of the US Surgeon General periodically assembles global evidence on the hazards of
smoking (https://www.surgeongeneral.gov/library/reports/). The most important of these compiled
evidences was the 1989 report covering the 25 years of progress after 1964 (when the first US Sur-
geon General’s report on smoking was published) and the 2014 report covering 50 years of progress
(U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, 1989; U.S. Department of Health and Human
Services, 2014). IARC publishes similarly comprehensive reviews of known carcinogens in humans
and has examined tobacco in these reviews over various years (http://monographs.iarc.fr/), with the
most notable being the 2004 report (IARC Working Group on the Evaluation of Carcinogenic Risk
to Humans, 2004). Finally, in 1981, an influential report for the US Congress Office of Technology
Assessment concluded that tobacco smoking was the leading cause of cancer deaths in the US,
accounting for more avoidable deaths than the sum of several pollutants or other environmental
exposures ( Doll and Peto, 1981).
The authors of these aforementioned reviews have followed reasonably strict rules to assess evi-
dence. These rules require that in considering the result of any particular study, reviewers are to
examine if bias, confounding or misclassification of exposure or outcome could explain the observed
results. Only those studies that examines such biases, and ensure that such biases do not account
for the observed relationship of smoking and disease are included into any quantitative synthesis of
the evidence. Many of the sources of data in this report are from the US and the UK, where there
have been more studies over longer durations done than in Canada or other high-income countries.
There are, of course, some differences between American,Canadian, and UK citizens and popula-
tions, in terms of disease distribution, access to health-care and other factors, as well as in the ingre-
dient formulation of the most common cigarettes smoked. However, these differences are quite
small compared to the similarity of mortality rates from specific causes, such as particular cancers,
vascular and respiratory diseases (World Health Organization, 2016).
The three countries have similar rates of exposure to smoking (beginning in early adulthood),
among a substantial proportion of adults. The differences in disease risks between smokers and non-
smokers due to prolonged smoking are very large for many diseases. Hence, differences in disease
patterns or smoking product do little to alter the main conclusions about the degree to which smok-
ing is a causative factor for the development of the diseases common in most high-income countries,
including those outside Canada, the US and the UK.
A central consideration of this epidemiological evidence is the delay between the onset of smok-
ing in adolescence or early adult life and the development of disease in middle-age, implying a lag
between initial exposure and eventual effect. This delay between the onset of smoking and its
potential eventual consequences is a major source of confusion among the public, non-experts, and
even some experts, about the causal relationship between smoking and specific diseases. Hence, I
Jha. eLife 2020;9:e49979. DOI: https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.49979 4 of 47
Review Article Epidemiology and Global Health
pay detailed attention to describing the full risks where they are already documented and point out
populations (such as women) and diseases for which such risks are still not fully documented.
Smoking trends in the US, UK and Canada
Despite substantial declines in smoking, a large proportion of Americans, Canadians and UK citizens
continue to smoke. Largely attributable to the addictive nature of cigarettes, the declines in smoking
prevalence have not been matched by declines in the number of cigarettes smoked daily by continu-
ing smokers.
Current smoking prevalence
In the US in 2017, an estimated 34.3 million adults aged 18 and older or 14.0% of US adults smoke
cigarettes (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 2018). The smoking prevalence is higher
among men than women (15.8% vs 12.2%). In the same year, 7.4 million adults in the UK smoked, or
15.1% of adults (17.0% of men and 13.3% of women) (Office for National Statistics, 2018a). In Can-
ada, about 5 million Canadians smoked (16.2% of those aged 12 and older; 19.1% of men and
13.4% of women [Statistics Canada, 2019]). The majority of the current smokers (meaning those
those who report themselves as non-daily or daily smokers) smoke daily. Other types of tobacco use
are less common than cigarettes, with cigars and cigarillos smoking reported by 4% of Americans
and 3% of Canadians (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 2018; Reid et al., 2017).
Current trends in smoking prevalence reflect a combination of those that smoke daily or occasion-
ally, former smokers and people who never started smoking. The prevalence of smoking is also
affected by changes in the denominators of all people, including immigration, which tends to lower
smoking prevalence (Newbold and Neligan, 2012). I examine historical trends in smoking by sex.
This is significant as women’s smoking has increased substantially the over the last few decades.
Historical smoking trends and changes in prevalence in the last four
decades
Prior to 1900, most tobacco consumed was in the form of chewed tobacco, snuff, pipes and cigars.
Some of the first reports of smoked tobacco came from Spain, where beggars in the 16th century
collected discarded cigar butts, shredded them and rolled them in scraps of paper for smoking.
These ‘poor man’s cigars’ were known as cigarillos (which translates, from Spanish, to ‘little cigars’).
Late in the 18th century, cigarillos acquired respectability. Their use spread throughout Europe,
aided by their popularity among troops in the Napoleonic Wars. The French named them cigarettes.
British tastes switched to cigarettes filled with unmixed Virginia tobacco, while the US market pre-
ferred blended tobacco (Encyclopaedia Britannica, 2018).
Prior to the early 20th century, cigarettes were made by hand, either by the smoker or in facto-
ries. The factory process consisted of hand-rolling on a table, pasting and hand-packaging. In 1880,
American James A. Bonsack was granted a US patent for a cigarette machine. Automated machines
could produce 120,000 cigarettes in ten hours (approximately 200 per minute). This machine revolu-
tionized the industry and supported a substantial expansion of the major cigarette companies in the
US, as well as exports to the UK and European countries. By 1920, there was a marked increase in
the use of cigarettes in much of Europe and North America and accelerated further during World
War II (WWII), when cigarettes were part of soldier rations. This dissemination contributed to a major
expansion in cigarette smoking during the first-half of the 20th century, displacing pipe smoking,
chewed tobacco, snuff, cigars and other types of tobacco product (Encyclopaedia Britannica, 2018;
Thun et al., 2002).
Figure 1 provides the per capita cigarette consumption in the US, Canada, and the UK from
1920 to 2010, based on a global compilation of sales data that includes tobacco industry sources
(Forey et al., 2016). Sales data provide a useful indicator of overall consumption trends over pro-
longed periods. These data are obviously crude and subject to various reporting errors, such as ille-
gal or undocumented sales, which in recent years has paralleled the increase in smuggling; given the
tobacco industry’s active role in smuggling their own products (Merriman, 2012). Furthermore, sales
data do not capture changes in the length of manufactured cigarettes, the amount of tobacco within
various lengths, and mostly do not capture gender-specific smoking patterns, including the notable
time lag between increased male smoking and female smoking in the three countries. Importantly,
Jha. eLife 2020;9:e49979. DOI: https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.49979 5 of 47
Review Article Epidemiology and Global Health
peak consumption among American males, as reported from prevalence surveys, was the year 1963,
when overall US cigarette sales also peaked. In contrast, in the UK and in Canada, peak sales
occurred around 1975 to 1980.
Figure 2 shows trends in overall smoking prevalence in both sexes over the last five decades in
the three countries, during which better-quality surveys of smoking prevalence in the adult popula-
tion became available. These surveys document the steady decline in smoking prevalence that
began around the same time as the publishing of the 1962 Royal College Report in the UK and the
1964 Surgeon General’s report in the US, both which provided expert opinion linking smoking to
lung cancer (Royal College of Physicians, 1962; U.S. Department of Health, Education, and Wel-
fare, 1964).
Figure 1. Trends in per capita consumption in Canada, US, UK in cigarettes per adult per year. Note. Data from
Forey et al. (2016), International smoking statistics.
Figure 2. Prevalence (%) of adult males (right panel), and females (left panel), usually 15 to 18 years or older that
smoke by sex in US, UK and Canada. Note. Data from National Center for Health Statistics, 2008, 1965–2012
National Health Interview Survey (NHIS); Office for National Statistics, 2018, Adult Smoking habits in Great Britain;
and Reid et al., 2017, Tobacco Use in Canada: Patterns and Trends, 2017 Edition.
Jha. eLife 2020;9:e49979. DOI: https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.49979 6 of 47
Review Article Epidemiology and Global Health
In most high-income countries, there has been a notable reduction in heavy smoking (over 20 cig-
arettes/day). For example, in the UK, in 1974, 26% of men and 13% of women were heavy smokers
compared to 5% of men and 3% of women in 2012.
The average number of cigarettes smoked per day by men and women has decreased across all
age groups, consistent with the declines of per capita consumption as shown in Figure 2 (Action on
Smoking and Health, 2016). Nevertheless, significant amounts of smoking defined as at least half a
pack (ten cigarettes) a day persists in many populations.
From 2000 to 2015, smoking prevalence fell steadily by well over a third in the US, UK and Can-
ada (Table 1). By contrast, the reduction in smoking amount among daily smokers has been more
modest, at about one-fifth.
The main conclusion remains that in these three countries, about one in six to one in
seven of adults, were smokers in 2017. In absolute terms, this represents about 45 million cigarette
smokers in the three countries.
Changes in the manufactured cigarette
Here I will outline three documented strategies used by the tobacco industry to increase uptake and
maintain behaviour of smoking (construction, tar content, and use of filters). The tobacco industry
conducts much of the scientific research on nicotine, addiction and the role of advertising and pro-
motion to start and maintain tobacco addiction. Little of this research is available publicly.
Thun et al. (2002) point out that the change in the manufacturing process in the US starting
about 1930 for cigarettes resulted in increased exposure to surfaces within the respiratory tract.
Snuff and other smokeless tobacco, much of which was commonly used before 1900, exposed the
local areas of the lip and the oral cavity, as well as extracts absorbed in saliva, and hence caused
mostly oral cancers. The smoke from cigars, pipes and traditional roll-your-own cigarettes was tradi-
tionally strongly alkaline, which discouraged deep inhalation. Early cigarettes released an un-ionized
form of nicotine that could be absorbed by the linking of the mouth and upper airway. Improve-
ments in cultivation and processing lowered the acid content of cigarettes and made them easier to
inhale. These improvements also allowed for the release of ionized nicotine, which could be
absorbed by the lower parts of the lung (including the tracheal and large bronchi). Thus, changes to
the manufactured cigarette shifted the location of cancers from the upper airways to those of the
trachea, bronchus and lung.
Reported levels of tar content in manufactured cigarettes have dropped substantially over time.
However, a large UK study showed that even low-tar cigarettes sharply increased rates of myocardial
infraction. Especially among smokers in their Thirties, Fourties or Fiftees much of the excess risks of
continued smoking are avoided by cessation, and less so by changing from one type of cigarette to
another (Parish et al., 1995).
Table 1. Adult smoking prevalence (daily and non-daily) and daily cigarettes for US, UK, and Canada in 2000 and 2015.
Year 2000 2015 Change in %
Prevalence*
US 23.1 15.2 �34.2%
UK 27.0 17.8 �34.1%
Canada 24.4 13.0 �46.7%
Amount per day (among daily smokers)
US 18.1 14.2 �21.5%
UK* 13.8 11.3 �18.1%
Canada 16.8 13.8 �17.9%
*Daily and non-daily smokers.
Note. Data from National Centre for Health Statistics, NHIS; Office of National Statistics, Adult Smoking habits in Great Britain; Statistics Canada and
Reid et al., 2017, Tobacco Use in Canada: Patterns and Trends, 2017 Edition –Defined as having smoked in the past 30 days and having smoked 100 ciga-
rettes in a lifetime. Adult ages are 15+ in Canada and the UK and 18+ in the US.
Jha. eLife 2020;9:e49979. DOI: https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.49979 7 of 47
Review Article Epidemiology and Global Health
Most, but not all, reviews of changes in tar content in US cigarettes have concluded that while
there might be some reductions in lung cancer from smoking lower-tar cigarettes, the overall risks of
disease are not greatly diminished (Thun and Burns, 2001). The Institute of Medicine
(Bondurant et al., 2001), and the National Institutes of Health, National Cancer Institute, 1996,
have examined evidence that low-tar-yield cigarettes reduce disease risk and concluded, “there
have been many efforts in the past to develop less harmful cigarettes, none of which has proved to
be successful.” The UK Royal College of Physicians (2000) reached similar conclusions. The National
Cancer Institute review concluded: “Epidemiological and other scientific evidence, including patterns
of mortality from smoking caused diseases, does not indicate a benefit to public health from
changes in cigarette design and manufacturing over the last 50 years.” Lower-tar cigarettes do
appear to result in lower lung cancer deaths. However, there might well be compensatory smoking
among smokers who smoke these lower-tar cigarettes, in which the smoke inhalation tends to be
more forceful, pulling the smoke deeper into the lungs (Thun and Burns, 2001).
Filters have been in place in most cigarettes for the last four decades. The purpose of the filter is
to reduce the amount of tar, smoke, and fine particles inhaled from combustible tobacco, as well as
to reduce tobacco flakes from entering the mouth. Many filters are perforated with small holes that
intend to dilute the inhaled smoke with external air. When machines are used to test these ciga-
rettes, the findings tend to assign the content of these cigarettes as low-tar or low-nicotine. How-
ever, smokers cover these ventilation holes with their lips or fingers. There is also evidence that
smokers inhale filtered cigarettes more deeply. The combination of these factors means that these
so-called ‘safer’ cigarettes are, in fact, no safer than others (Kozlowski et al., 1998).
In conclusion, smoking is best understood largely as a manifestation of nicotine addiction. The
design of the Western, manufactured cigarette likely considers the optimization of initiation and
addiction maintenance (U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, 1990). Additional social
cues, achieved by mass-marketing, and policies that enable smoking in social setting, such as bars
and restaurants, might well enforce the addictive properties of smoking, increasing uptake rates and
making cessation less common (U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, 2010a; U.
S. Department of Health and Human Services, 2020).
Recent emergence of e-cigarettes
Alternative nicotine delivery systems include lower-risk nicotine and tobacco products like nicotine
replacement therapy pharmaceuticals, low-nitrosamine smokeless tobacco products, and most nota-
bly electronic -cigarettes (also referred to as ‘vaping’ products). E-cigarettes were introduced around
2010 but have become particularly popular since about 2015, as they mimic the look and feel of con-
ventional cigarettes (unlike nicotine chewing gum or patches). They are hand-held, generate a
smoke-like vapour and hence recreate sensations similar to smoking the smoke from conventional
cigarettes. E-cigarettes can be used with or without nicotine. Much of the recent attention in the US
has been on the ‘JUUL’ (which has high doses of nicotine) and in Japan on the ‘iQOS’ product (which
heats tobacco to generate a nicotine vapour but does not burn it) (Foundation for a Smoke-Free
World, 2018; U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, 2016). There has notable increase
in e-cigarette use in many high-income countries, particularly among youth (Thatcher, 2015). A full
review of e-cigarettes is beyond the scope of this review, but Warner (2019) provides useful sugges-
tions for regulation based on the limited evidence base.
E-cigarettes have lower levels of possible carcinogens and toxins than conventional cigarettes,
such as 450-fold and 120-fold lower levels of acetaldehyde and toluene, respectively
(Goniewicz et al., 2014). E-cigarettes are not completely risk free, as they contain nicotine which
has short-term cardiac and other effects. The recent reports of lung-injury among e-cigarette users
appears to mostly arise from tampering with products to add marijuana and other agents, and not
from the nicotine or flavoring of most e-cigarettes (Blount et al., 2020). Moreover, in contrast to cig-
arettes, long-term studies of e-cigarettes use to determine the mortality risks among users and quit-
ters have not yet been completed. Nonetheless, there is general consensus that e-cigarettes are
considerably safer than cigarettes. The National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medi-
cine, 2018 report noted “conclusive evidence that completely substituting e-cigarettes for combusti-
ble tobacco cigarettes reduces users’ exposure to numerous toxicants and carcinogens present in
combustible tobacco cigarettes” and “substantial evidence that completely switching from regular
Jha. eLife 2020;9:e49979. DOI: https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.49979 8 of 47
Review Article Epidemiology and Global Health
use of combustible tobacco cigarettes to e-cigarettes results in reduced short-term adverse health
outcomes in several organ systems.”
The use e-cigarettes increased most sharply in the US and Japan from about 2015 onwards, and
has led to a major major debate if e-cigarettes act as a ‘gateway’, to encourage youth to smoke cig-
arettes who would not otherwise take up smoking. There have been competing, limited and gener-
ally, short-term studies, and these have methodical challenges in determining if the kids who take up
e-cigarettes are the ones who might have smoked cigarettes anyway. Moreover, limitations about
the sample size, use of many types of vaping products (including some without nicotine), and dura-
tion of follow up that limit definitive conclusions (Warner, 2019).
However, a few key features of the trends in use of e-cigarettes by youth are already clear. First,
even prior to widespread use of e-cigarettes, prevalence and initiation rates of cigarette smoking
were falling in youth in the US, UK and Canada. E-cigarette use seems to have accelerated declines
in cigarette smoking, particularly for the age group cohorts most likely to use e-cigarettes. For
example, from 2010 to 2017, in the US and the UK overall cigarette prevalence fell by an absolute
5% (from 19.3% to 14.0% in the US and 20.1% to 15.1% in UK). At ages 18–24 years, prevalence in
the US by 10% (from 20.1% to 10.4%) and in the UK it fell by 8% (from 25.5% to 17.8%) (Office for
National Statistics, 2018b; Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 2019).
Across the three countries, most e-cigarette experimentation does not appear to turn into regular
use. In the Canadian and UK studies, the youngest age groups appear to have a greater proportion
of e-cigarette among never smokers than at older ages, perhaps reflecting a shift to vaping alone.
Among adolescents, most of the uptake of e-cigarettes has been among current or past cigarette
smokers. In the US, among high school students (15–18 years), only 0.3% were frequent e-cigarette
users (20 or more days of past 30), and 4.6% used any in the past 30 days. As compared to never
smokers, cigarette smokers were much more likely to vape daily (16.9% v 0.2%), or frequently
(21.8% v 0.3%) (Levy et al., 2019) In the UK, among 11–18 year old vapers, only 0.8% were among
never smokers, versus 40.3% of smokers and 12.2% of former smokers (Action on Smoking and
Health, 2019). Finally, in Canada, 83% of vapers were current (60%) or former smokers (23%) with
only 16% of vapers among never smokers (but more in age group 15–19 years;
Environics Research, 2019).
There is little evidence to justify the claim that e-cigarettes leads to increases in cigarette smoking
by youth in the US (Warner, 2019), or the UK (Bauld et al., 2017). Notably, the reported patterns
show that daily e-cigarettes use (typically over the last 30 days) remains generally lower than for cig-
arettes (Levy et al., 2019) suggesting that while youth might be experimenting, e-cigarette is not
fully displacing cigarette use. Moreover, in the US, it appears that even if increased e-cigarette use
by never-smoking adolescents raises their risk of trying smoking, that effect is more than offset by
the longer secular trends of falling cigarette smoking (Warner, 2019).
The major increase in vaping in youth has not occurred in the UK, perhaps because regulations
cap maximal nicotine content at <20 mg/ml (which are the European Union caps for cigarettes). By
contrast, the current Canadian limits are 65 mg/ml and the JUUL product in the US is widely sold at
59 mg/ml. Moreover, the UK has taken mostly a harm reduction strategy toward e-cigarettes, includ-
ing regulations on marketing and promotion. The US and some Canadian provinces, such as Ontario,
have little regulation, and substantial social media campaigns try to increase uptake by young adults
(U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, 2020; Cummings and Hammond, 2020). Finally,
there are differences across the three countries in marketing efforts, regulations, and in the effects
of peer-influences in US high schools.
The most important motivator for adults in several high-income counties to use e-cigarettes has
been to decrease the amount smoked or to quit (Riahi et al., 2019). A Cochrane Collaboration
review concluded that based on three randomized trials, that e-cigarettes containing nicotine did
help smokers stop smoking in the long term compared with placebo e-cigarettes (Hartmann-
Boyce et al., 2016). A more recent randomized trial in the UK found that e-cigarettes achieved
about twice the cessation rates at one year than did users of nicotine patches (which are well estab-
lished to aid cessation; Hajek et al., 2019). Finally, the population-level impact of e-cigarettes on
adult cessation in the US and UK suggests that their introduction has accelerated adult cessation
rates somewhat (Zhu et al., 2017; Beard et al., 2016).
In conclusion, far more epidemiological evidence is needed to settle the ongoing heated debates
about e-cigarettes. The most important question is to better understand the extent to which
Jha. eLife 2020;9:e49979. DOI: https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.49979 9 of 47
Review Article Epidemiology and Global Health
e-cigarettes might help the very large numbers of current smokers in the world to quit, given the
overwhelming evidence on the benefits of quitting cigarettes.
Smoking as a cause of disease
History of studies linking smoking to disease
Lung cancer was a rare disease in most high-income countries in the 19th and early 20th centuries. By
the early 20th century, most deaths were registered and certified by doctors, and these routine mor-
tality statistics showed a very large increase in lung cancer mortality, particularly among urban men.
Several cancer registries also showed a major increase in new-lung cancer cases in men in the early
20th century, for example some 15-fold increases in the UK. The reasons for this marked increase in
lung cancer were believed to be from better detection and diagnosis or from car exhaust (as men
were more exposed than women were). However, researchers also noted a large simultaneous
increase in male smoking.
By the 1930s, preliminary investigation of the parallel rise in cigarette consumption and lung can-
cer adopted ‘case-control’ epidemiology. Two studies published in German language in 1939 and
1943 used a ‘case-control’ methodology that examined the smoking histories of adults with lung
cancer in contrast to cancer-free controls (Müller, 1940; Schairer and Schöniger, 1944). Both stud-
ies showed that most lung cancer cases smoked cigarettes. These studies were noticed within Ger-
many (Bachinger et al., 2008), but were not widely cited in the English-language scientific literature
Figure 3. Survival by smoking among US insured adults.
Ó 1938, The American Association for the Advancement of Science, All Rights Reserved. Figure 3 is reproduced
from Pearl (1938) with permission. It is not covered by the CC-BY 4.0 licence and further reproduction of this
panel would need permission from the copyright holder.
Jha. eLife 2020;9:e49979. DOI: https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.49979 10 of 47
Review Article Epidemiology and Global Health
until much later, due in part to WWII. Curiously, a US mathematician, Raymond Pearl used a different
method-analysis of the insurance records of 7,000 US adults from the early 1930s to report signifi-
cant (perhaps implausibly large given that smoking prevalence peaked after this time period) reduc-
tions in survival among smokers (Pearl, 1938; Figure 3).
While cited by some in the medical literature, Pearl’s finding was also largely ignored. This was, in
part, because the ideas of causation in epidemiology were not well-defined, and most people dis-
missed these findings as chance correlations.
Major breakthroughs came with several near-simultaneous epidemiological studies published
around 1950, that also used the case-control methodology, including by Ernst Wynder and Evarts
Graham in the US and Richard Doll and Bradford Hill in the UK (Wynder and Graham, 1950;
Doll and Hill, 1950). The Doll and Hill paper showed that cigarette smoking was far more commonly
reported among patients with lung cancer than those with other diseases or those free of disease.
The obvious criticism made of these studies was that of ‘recall bias;’ meaning that those with lung
cancer were more likely to remember a history of smoking than those without. However, the marked
differences in the prevalence of smoking between lung cancer cases and controls were far beyond
that which could be expected simply from differing memories. Moreover, Doll and Hill showed that
the prevalence of smoking among a subset of men who were suspected of lung cancer but were
subsequently shown to have other ailments, were very similar to the control men.
Doubts persisted in the popular press and among medical establishments, due, in part, to the
fact that about 80% of UK doctors themselves smoked during the 1950s. Around 1955, further epi-
demiological studies confirmed the striking role of smoking in development of lung cancer using a
series of prospective ‘cohort’ studies, conducted to eliminate the possibility of diseased individuals
remembering their smoking history more accurately than healthy individuals. Doll and Hill recruited
about 40,000 doctors in the UK. This cohort was reasonably homogenous in race, social status and
other factors, had strong medical record-keeping and completed questions promptly. Doll and Hill
followed groups of doctors who smoked and groups who did not. Both of these groups were other-
wise similar in terms of alcohol use and exposure to air pollution. The results of the study were
unequivocal: smokers of 35 or more cigarettes per day had 40 times the risk of dying from lung can-
cer than non-smokers (Doll and Hill, 1964). Eventually, smoking prevalence fell to about 5% among
the UK doctors (Doll et al., 2005). Presumably, the doctors realized that smoking was not only killing
their patients but also them.
In the US, Hammond and Horn (1954) published the results of a cohort study of 180,000 men
that concluded that smoking was ‘beyond a reasonable doubt’ a cause of lung cancer. By 1959,
Hammond and Horn also established a much larger study of 1 million US adult men and women. The
results of this study showed markedly increased risk for men, but importantly, not for women, as the
majority of the women had not smoked since early adolescence (Hammond, 1966). The lack of find-
ing an association of smoking with lung cancer in women was used by the tobacco industry to argue
against a causative role of smoking for disease (U.S. Department of Health, Education, and Wel-
fare, 1964).
Two landmark government reports summarized the cumulative evidence. The 1962 Royal College
of Physicians in the UK documented strong association between smoking and lung cancer, other
lung diseases, heart disease and gastrointestinal problems (Royal College of Physicians, 1962). The
1964 US Surgeon General, Luther Terry, released the Surgeon General’s Advisory Committee on
Smoking and Health (U.S. Department of Health, Education, and Welfare, 1964). This was one of
the first ‘exhaustive’ reports, covering more than 7,000 articles relating to smoking and disease in
the biomedical literature. It concluded that cigarette smoking was a cause of lung cancer and laryn-
geal cancer and chronic bronchitis in men and a probable cause of lung cancer in women.
Subsequent to these two reports, there have been periodic systematic assemblies of global evi-
dence on the hazards of smoking as noted above.
Importance of prolonged smoking to disease risks
The mid-century evidence on the disease risks attributable to smoking was not taken seriously, even
in the countries where it was generated. This was in part because of the potentially misleading delay
of several decades between cause and full effect. Increased mortality from smoking requires early
uptake and continued smoking. Hence, there was a delay of up to 50 years from when the young
men in any particular country took up smoking (followed by the young women taking up smoking, a
Jha. eLife 2020;9:e49979. DOI: https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.49979 11 of 47
Review Article Epidemiology and Global Health
decade or two later) and the time when these studies could document the main hazards in middle
ages for various diseases (most notably lung and other cancers, and emphysema). However, there is
a shorter latency between smoking and vascular diseases (Jha and Peto, 2014).
In the US, cigarette consumption averaged 1, 4 and 10 per-day, in 1910, 1930 and 1950, respec-
tively, after which it stabilized and subsequently fell (Forey et al., 2016; Peto and Lopez, 2001).
Peak lung cancer death rates did not however occur until after 1990 in US men and about 2005 in
US women (Figure 4). Indeed, measurement of the full effects of prolonged smoking from adoles-
cence to middle-age may require 100 years to observe at the population level (Thun et al., 2013).
For example, the full effects of prolonged male smoking (without cessation) were reliably docu-
mented only in 2005, among UK doctors born between 1900 and 1930, who were tracked and fol-
lowed for mortality until the last re-survey in 2001. The UK doctors born between 1900 and 1930
represented those with the highest prevalence of smoking as adults and those who smoked from
early adult life. In other words, these doctors represented ‘peak exposure’ measured at the popula-
tion level (Doll et al., 2005).
Smokers who start smoking may not feel any of the major ill effects until years or decades later,
making the link of smoking to disease counter-intuitive. This underestimation of smoking-related
health risks in adolescence is particularly relevant to the increased risk of developing cancers from
smoking in early-adult life. For example, the risk of developing lung cancer is far higher in individuals
who begin smoking at age 15 and smoke one pack of cigarettes a day until they turn 45, than those
who start at age 30 years and smoke two packs a day until age 45 years (Peto, 1986). In both instan-
ces, the total amount smoked is equal, but early and prolonged smoking markedly increases the risk
of lung, and likely, other cancers. (Clinicians often determine their patients’ ‘pack years’ of smoking,
but this fails to distinguish those at markedly higher risk because they started early).
The two major sources of evidence on prolonged exposure are national lung cancer mortality
data or prospective studies that follow smokers and non-smokers for the development of disease.
Figure 4. Trends in per capita cigarette consumption and age-standardized lung cancer death rates in the US. Adapted from American Cancer
Society (2013).
Jha. eLife 2020;9:e49979. DOI: https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.49979 12 of 47
Review Article Epidemiology and Global Health
Lung cancer trends are useful in high-income countries, including Canada, which have had high com-
pleteness of death certification and reasonably reliable certification of the causes of death by physi-
cians. Death certification and causes of death are more reliable in middle-age (ages 30–69 years) as
compared to older ages (age 70 or older). This various reasons for the difference in reliability have
been reviewed earlier (Doll and Peto, 1981; Jha, 2014).
The age-specific patterns of lung cancer deaths provide a very useful way to examine the rele-
vance of age-specific smoking. Lung cancer is nearly entirely caused by smoking in high-income
countries (exposure to indoor air pollution from solid fuel use does account for a substantial propor-
tion of lung cancer, particularly in women, in China [Liu et al., 1998]), though such exposure has
been uncommon in high-income countries for most of the last century). Moreover, careful reviews of
lung cancer rates in mostly non-smoking populations (such as women in Asia), and in prospective
studies has shown that rates of lung cancer among non-smokers are substantially lower than among
smokers and have changed little over the last few decades (Thun et al., 2008).
Closer examination of national lung cancer mortality trends at specific and reasonably narrow
ages provides insight on the importance of prolonged and early smoking to subsequent mortality
risks. Lung cancer trends can then be related to age-specific different levels and patterns of smoking
recorded for different generations. Consider the trends in lung cancer in three age groups separated
by two decades (representing roughly one generation): 35 to 39, 55 to 59 and 75 to 79 years. Fig-
ure 5 shows that among 35 to 39 year-old and 55 to 59 year-old men, the peak lung cancer death
rates occurred around 1970 and 1990 in the US and in Canada, respectively. These men, who died in
1970 and 1990, were born, on average, in 1933 (= 1970–37 and = 1990–57). This means that the typ-
ical age of uptake of smoking for these men would have been in the decade after WWII. This repre-
sents the period during which a substantial increase occurred in per capita cigarette consumption in
both countries (Figure 2). For men aged 75–79, the peak lung cancer deaths in the US and Canada
occurred in 1990 and thus correspond to a mean birth year of around 1913. This generation of men
in both countries had particularly heavy exposure to high-tar cigarettes and likely smoked in different
subtle fashion, in terms of puffing, inhalation, and other features than subsequent generations.
A more consistent pattern emerges when examining death rates and smoking patterns in the UK.
Here, the lung cancer death rates had peaked about two decades earlier among UK men aged 35 to
39, 55 to 59 and 75 to 79 years, representing a mean year of birth of 1903. This also corresponds to
the observation that the peak increase in male smoking occurred between WWI and WWII in the UK
but during and after WWII in the US and Canada. These data also support the stronger likelihood
that most of the cigarettes smoked and the manner of their smoking were more similar over time in
the UK than they were in the US (Doll and Peto, 1981).
As a further comparison, men in Sweden never took up smoking at levels observed in other West-
ern countries. This lack of increase in smoking has been attributed mostly to the widespread use of
‘snus’, which provides rapid nicotine stimulus to the brain with similar rapidity as cigarettes, in Swe-
den (Ramström et al., 2016).
In Swedish men aged 55 to 59 years, the peak lung cancer death rates in Sweden were only a
quarter of that seen in UK men. Moreover, the mean age of birth of the men in the three age com-
parison groups was approximately 1938; meaning Swedish men who took up smoking during so the
1960s.
Similarly, the lung cancer death rates in women peaked at these age groups about two decades
later than that of men (and indeed have plateaued in older women aged 75–79 only recently). These
findings also correspond to the period in which women typically born around WWII began to smoke
heavily in the 1960s.
The robustness of such analyses is of course affected by differences in death certification and cod-
ing of lung cancer (Doll and Peto, 1981). In all three countries, lung cancer is a reasonably distinct
diagnosis, particularly before older ages (about 70 or 80 years of age), and nearly 100% of deaths
from about 1950 onward were medically certified. The trends in the death rates from lung cancer in
various age groups from 1960 to 2010 have been reasonably similar in the US and Canada, which is
expected given the similarities in the causes of death (World Health Organization, 2016), smoking
patterns (Figure 1), and the procedures for certifying both death and lung cancer in the two coun-
tries. Note, however that the US peak rates at ages 35 to 39 years in men, are about double that of
Canadian men, though similar at ages 55 to 59 years and 75 to 79 years. This may be due in part to
smaller numbers of lung cancer deaths in the smaller Canadian population, or, may reflect subtle
Jha. eLife 2020;9:e49979. DOI: https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.49979 13 of 47
Review Article Epidemiology and Global Health
differences in the type of smoking or undocumented differences in the types of common cigarettes
smoked between the two countries (Fischer et al., 1990a; Fischer et al., 1990b). The cohorts of
men and women born after 1950 have mostly smoked lower-tar cigarettes than the men who began
to smoke either between the two World Wars or just after WWII.
Earlier careful review of US lung cancer death rates in prospective studies of US veterans finds
that lung cancer risks are particularly elevated among those who began to smoke significant
amounts from early adulthood (Doll and Peto, 1981). The age-specific relationship of smoking to
lung cancer is likely similar for selected other cancers, particularly upper aerodigestive cancers,
though this relationship likely differs for other diseases made more common by smoking. Prolonged
smoking and early initiation appear to be a particularly relevant risk factor for emphysema and
chronic lung diseases. Vascular disease is more responsive to short-term effects given the role of
smoking in causing vascular spasm and in the shorter time period for development of atherosclerotic
plaques, which cause heart attacks and strokes.
The peak mortality effect of smoking among men occurred in most high-income countries in the
last quarter of the 20th century. The full effects of persistent smoking on premature mortality in
Figure 5. Trends in age-specific lung cancer death rates among men and women at ages 35–39, 55–59 and 75–79 in selected countries.
Figures provided by Hangchao Pan and Richard Peto, University of Oxford, 2018.
Jha. eLife 2020;9:e49979. DOI: https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.49979 14 of 47
Review Article Epidemiology and Global Health
women can be assessed only in the first quarter of the 21st century. In the US, the lung cancer death
rate among women who never smoked has been low and approximately constant for many decades,
while the lung cancer rate among women who smoke has been increasing steeply. The US female
lung cancer death rate ratio (current-smoker versus never-smoker), has increased greatly over the
last half-century (Figure 6). In the 1960s, it was 3-fold; in the 1980 s, 13-fold and in the 2000 s, 26-
fold (similar to the death rate ratio among men in the US [Thun et al., 2013] or among men or
women in the UK [Pirie et al., 2013]).
This is because US women aged about 60 years who were smokers in the 2000s had smoked since
early adult life, whereas women who were smokers in the 1960s had not. Similar relationships are
seen for chronic lung-disease. The key implication is, of course, that the hazards among men and
women from various diseases are now comparable among women and men who start early in life
and do not quit smoking.
Figure 6. Lung cancer death rates by sex by study period. Adapted from U.S. Department of Health and Human
Services (2014).
Jha. eLife 2020;9:e49979. DOI: https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.49979 15 of 47
Review Article Epidemiology and Global Health
Quantifying mortality from smoking in the US, UK and Canada from
1960 to 2020
Peto et al. (1992) developed a method that provides indirect estimates of tobacco-attributable
mortality across countries which have reasonably high coverage and quality of routine death certifi-
cation, including most high-income countries. This is based on the observation that most lung cancer
deaths occur among smokers, and that non-smoker lung cancer rates are comparably low across
most high-income countries and have been mostly unchanged over the last few decades
(Thun et al., 2008). Lung cancer is then used as an indicator not only of the extent to which smoking
causes lung cancer, but also to what extent if that particular population is affected by smoking expo-
sure. This involves indexing the absolute lung cancer deaths (subtracting the low rates among non-
smokers) to the relative risks from the large US prospective studies (effectively very similar to the
USSGR relative risks shown in Appendix 1—table 1). This allows a reasonable estimate of the extent
to which cancers other than lung, respiratory disease, ischemic heart disease, stroke and other
causes of death are caused by smoking.
Use of lung cancer as an index of smoking is a crude method but is reliable over time, and useful
in settings that meet these conditions such as by social strata (Jha et al., 2006) and including men in
north Mexico, but not in South Mexico (Reynales-Shigematsu et al., 2018). The Peto estimates
(updated to 2015; Peto et al., 2018) provide totals for 1955 to 2015 and I interpolated the annual
results using the trends per decade. I did backward calculations to 1950 using the same annual rate
of change as documented between 1955 and 1965.
These reveal that cummulatively from 1960 to 2020, there were about 29.5 million, 9.3 million
and 2.6 million deaths from smoking in the US, the UK and Canada, respectively (Table 2) or a total
of 41.3 million adult deaths. Over 60% of these deaths occured in males, and these collectively rep-
resented about 22% of all adult deaths in these three countries. Of these deaths, about 40% were
between ages 35-69 years, comprising about 16 million deaths, with an average loss of life of about
20-25 years. The remainder of the deaths occured after the age of 70 years.
Globally, there were about 6 trillion cigarettes consumed worldwide, of which about a third are
consumed in China alone. Global consumption has increased from about 5 trillion cigarettes in 1990
(Jha and Peto, 2014). For the US, UK and Canada I obtained cigarette sales data from global smok-
ing sales statistics (Forey et al., 2016). Under tobacco reporting regulations by the federal govern-
ment of Canada, tobacco manufacturers and importers must give Health Canada annual reports that
include sales data manufacturing information and product information. These data are publicly avail-
able on an aggregated industry basis. As such, the reporting of sales of tobacco in Canada over
time is more reliable versus that of other countries. I lagged the ratio of deaths to cigarette smoke
by 20 years to take into account the delay between the uptake of smoking and the development of
disease as I have discussed above.
During this same period, cigarettes sold in the US, UK and Canada were about 32.6 trillion, 7.0
trillion and 3.2 trillion, respectively. Using the 20 year lag between smoking and disease develop-
ment as a reference point, the relationship of total cigarette sales in Canada and in the US suggests
approximately every 1.0 to 1.2 million cigarettes smoked yielded one death (Figure 7). This estimate
is consistent with another published in 2014 using global sales (Jha and Peto, 2014). However, for
the UK, the relationship shows that every million cigarettes smoked yielded 1.3 deaths. This might
reflect the composition of cigarettes, and the use of higher-tar cigarettes in the UK with the peak of
smoking occurring prior to WWII.
In 2014, cigarettes sales in billions in the US, UK and Canada were 263, 51 and 30, respectively,
each of which in absolute terms is a substantial decline from the peak annual sales. Nonetheless, the
absolute sales have remained steady since about 2005 in Canada, but with continuing declines in the
US and UK. An increase in sales in Canada from 1993 to 1995 was in response to a well-funded
tobacco industry effort to smuggle its own products and to force a reduction in the tax rate
(World Bank, 2019). The effects of the smuggled cigarettes, both in direction consumption but also
in reducing prices of legal cigarette (which raised consumption) were approximately 30 to 40 billion
excess cigarettes over a decade. Hence, eventually, about 30,000-40,000 Canadians will be killed
from this excess consumption (Jha et al., 2020).
Jha. eLife 2020;9:e49979. DOI: https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.49979 16 of 47
Review Article Epidemiology and Global Health
These sales do not, of course, adjust for population size and growth. However, that is deliberate.
If the goal is to quantify the extent to which cigarette sales translate into future deaths, then the
absolute sales totals and absolute death totals is a relevant statistic.
Smoking risks for total mortality and for specific conditions
Key messages for the individual smokers
The main messages for smokers, based on the contemporary epidemiological evidence are three-
fold (Box 1).
Here, I elaborate on the first two of these messages. A following section on cessation provides
greater details of the benefits of cessation.
First, the risk is big. Large epidemiological studies in the UK (Doll et al., 2005; Pirie et al., 2013),
US (Jha et al., 2013; Thun et al., 2013), Japan (Sakata et al., 2012), and India (Jha et al., 2008;
Jha et al., 2015) have examined the eventual effects on mortality in populations where many began
to smoke cigarettes seriously in early adult life and did not quit smoking (Figure 8). Among persis-
tent men or women cigarette smokers, the overall relative risk of death throughout middle age and
well into old age is about two to three-fold higher than otherwise similar people who never begin
smoking. Among smokers of a given age, more than half of those who die in the near future would
not have done so at the rate of people who never smoked.
This increased risk is now seen among women who began smoking early in adult life and did not
quit, chiefly those women born around WWII. The loss of a full decade of life is seen, surprisingly,
among male cigarette smokers in India, despite the later age of uptake and generally fewer
Table 2. Trends in smoking-attributable deaths from 1955 to 2015, (with projections to 2020) by sex in US, UK, and Canada (in
thousands).
Year US UK Canada
Smoking-attributable Total Smoking-attributable Total Smoking-attributable Total
Males
1955 139 882 90 303 8.8 75
1965 235 1 036 126 324 17 87
1975 305 1 063 142 337 26 96
1985 335 1 092 125 325 31 100
1995 341 1 163 95 308 33 111
2005 302 1 199 67 279 29 116
2015 286 1 325 55 264 28 129
1960–2020* 18 040 68 760 6 100 18 370 1 640 6 390
Females
1955 1.4 663 12 285 0 54
1965 19 795 24 307 0.7 61
1975 79 858 43 331 4.2 70
1985 169 983 59 331 11 80
1995 272 1 135 69 332 20 99
2005 302 1 229 66 306 26 113
2013 302 1 288 60 277 30 126
1960–2020* 11 430 62 880 3 210 18 840 919 5 490
Both sexes 1960–2020* 29 470 131 640 9 310 37 210 2 559 11 880
* 1960-2020* 1960–2020 totals by taking totals for 1965, 1975, 1986, 1995, 2005 and 2015 totals multiplied by 10. Note. Author’s calculations based on
Peto et al. (2018).
Cumulatively, from 1960 to 2020, smoking killed about 29.5 million Americans, 9.3 million UK residents, and 2.6 million Canadians, or a total of 41.3 million
adults (Table 2).
Jha. eLife 2020;9:e49979. DOI: https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.49979 17 of 47
Review Article Epidemiology and Global Health
cigarettes smoked (Jha et al., 2008). These findings further suggest that 3-fold higher death rates
among persisting smokers represents that of a fully-mature smoking epidemic, given the fact that
the late 20th century risk among women also reached 3-fold of that versus non-smokers, as observed
for men two decades earlier.
Secondly, many of those killed are of middle age. On average, those killed at ages 35–69 years
lose 23 years of life in the US, UK or Canada (Peto et al., 2018). This continued difference in risk
throughout middle age and into old age leads to an overall reduction in survival by an average of
one decade (Figure 8). The decade of lost life expectancy for typical smokers combines a zero-loss
for some of the smokers who are not killed by smoking and about a 20 to 25 year loss for those
smokers who are killed by smoking.
Although there has been a decrease in the amount of smoking in recent years in US, UK and Can-
ada as noted in Table 1 the contemporary epidemiological evidence finds that smoking as little as
five cigarettes a day is substantially hazardous (Pirie et al., 2013). Despite the reduction in smoking
amount, smoking will continue to be a major cause of excess mortality among the significant minor-
ity of adults that remain smokers.
Similarly, careful reviews (Doll and Peto, 1981), and recent use of indirect-based methods that
rely on lung cancer mortality to estimate smoking-attributable deaths (Peto et al., 1994), find that
the age-standardized rates of cancers not attributable to smoking are falling in Canada (and in nearly
all high-income countries). This is contrary to popular misperceptions about an ‘epidemic’ of cancer.
The 21st century evidence suggests that there is an eventual risk of about three-fold mortality
rate versus that of non-smokers, corresponding to about two-thirds of smokers being killed eventu-
ally by their addiction. Hence, the effect on total mortality is an appropriate starting point to
Figure 7. Number of cigarettes (from 1955 to 1985) per death with a 20 year lag in US, UK, and Canada (from 1975
to 2005). Note. Author’s calculations.
Jha. eLife 2020;9:e49979. DOI: https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.49979 18 of 47
Review Article Epidemiology and Global Health
quantify smoking hazards in high-income countries, which is supported by the specific evidence on
particular diseases.
Key diseases attributable to smoking
The evidence for the range of diseases caused by smoking has expanded considerably since the
early studies focusing mostly on lung cancer. Importantly, the leading causes of death that are due
to smoking are also the major diseases that, even in non-smokers, constitute the leading causes of
death in US, UK and Canada. In each country, vascular, neoplastic, and respiratory disease collec-
tively accounted for about 75% of all current adult deaths from all causes (World Health Organiza-
tion, 2016).
Given the strong evidence that at every age, smokers have about a two to three-fold higher
death rates versus otherwise similar non-smokers, the key issue here is to analyse if the specific con-
ditions that contribute to higher overall excess risk of death is, in fact, due to smoking. This in turn
requires scrutiny of all the scientific evidence linking smoking with particular disease and careful anal-
ysis of ‘negative’ studies that do not find an association between smoking and disease or, indeed,
find that smokers have lower rates of disease than non-smokers. To avoid ‘publication bias,’ where
positive results linking smoking and disease are published, but negative studies that do not support
this link remain unpublished, researchers have outlined methods of comprehensive searches of all
available scientific literature, and statistical methods to ascertain the likely extent of negative studies
sitting on the shelf, impacting final conclusions (IARC Working Group on the Evaluation of Carci-
nogenic Risk to Humans, 2004; U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, 1989). Of
course, the publication bias would almost certainly go in the other direction for most internal
tobacco-industry studies, many of which remain outside searchable scientific arenas.
Box 1. Three main implications for individuals who become
cigarette smokers in adolescence or early adult life.
1. The risk for disease development is big, if they continue smoking.
. Continued smoking eventually kills at least half of men and women who smoke.
Among persistent cigarette smokers, whether men or women, the overall relative risk
of death throughout middle-age and well into old age is at least twofold higher than
otherwise similar never-smokers. Among smokers of a given age, more than half of
those who die in the near-future would not have done so at never-smoker death rates.
. On average, smokers lose at least one decade of life. This average combines a zero
loss for those not killed by tobacco with the loss of much more than one decade for
those who are killed by it.
2. At least half of those killed are middle-aged (ages 30–69 years), losing many years of life.
. Some of those killed in middle-age might have died anyway, but others might have
lived on for another 10, 20, 30, or more years.
. On average, those killed in middle age lose about 20–25 years of never-smoker life
expectancy.
3. Smoking cessation works to reduce health risks.
. Those who stop smoking before age 40 avoid more than 90% of the excess risk
among those who continue to smoke. Those who stop smoking before age 30 avoid
nearly all of the smokers’ excess risk.
. Those who have smoked cigarettes since early adult life but stop at 30, 40, 50, or 60
years of age, gain, respectively, about 10, 9, 6, and 4 years of life expectancy, com-
pared with those who continue smoking.
Source: Author’s calculations from various citations.
Jha. eLife 2020;9:e49979. DOI: https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.49979 19 of 47
Review Article Epidemiology and Global Health
The US Surgeon General and the IARC have periodically assembled expert groups for such sys-
tematic reviews. These expert groups use slightly different criteria to assess the strength of the evi-
dence. The USSGR definitions use three levels: ‘sufficient evidence’ in terms of the risk of a
particular disease to smoking (or, less commonly, a protective effect of smoking), suggestive evi-
dence, or insufficient evidence. Figure 9 shows the adult anatomic sites and cancer sites of which
the 2014 USSGR linked to smoking. The bolded text represents those conditions, which are newly
deemed to have ‘sufficient’ links to smoking.
The list of tobacco-attributable conditions is expanding over time, as highlighted in the 2014
USSGR. This suggests that overall mortality is a robust and valid metric to estimate tobacco-attribut-
able risk (particularly, that since there are very few diseases reduced by smoking, a focus on total
mortality is not misleading). Note further that for most conditions there is a strong correlation
between death and disability (Menon et al., 2019), with only a few exceptions, such as loss of teeth
Figure 8. Survival differences between smokers and non-smokers, adjusting for various factors. Adapted from
Jha and Peto (2014), p. 62.
Jha. eLife 2020;9:e49979. DOI: https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.49979 20 of 47
Review Article Epidemiology and Global Health
or rheumatoid arthritis, conditions that cause far more disability than mortality. The use of mortality
totals is likely to also reflect also on disability totals.
Avoidable proportion of major diseases at non-smoking death rates
The 2014 USSGR published for relevant age groups and for men and women, the relative risks (RR)
for various conditions, after adjusting for differences in age, alcohol use, obesity, education or some
related measure of social status. This full table is attached as Appendix 1—table 1.
The main sources of the USSGR estimates include the second US prospective cancer study, which
surveyed one million Americans, the CPS II study, and the results from five pooled studies of more
contemporary cohorts, represent the most recent period (2000–2010). These include the National
Institutes of Health–American Association of Retired Persons Diet and Health Study
(Schatzkin et al., 2001), the American Cancer Society CPS II Nutrition Cohort (a subset of the origi-
nal CPS II mortality study [Calle et al., 2002]), the Women’s Health Initiative (Paskett et al., 2007),
the Nurses’ Health Study (Holmes et al., 2007) and the Health Professionals Follow-up Study
(Kenfield et al., 2011). These represent US results, but similar results have been reported in Canada
with smaller sample sizes (Manuel et al., 2012). Similarly, among women and men the nationally rep-
resentative US National Health Interview Study reported similar relative risks for lung cancer, vascular
and respiratory disease (Jha et al., 2013), as did the Million Women Study in the UK among women
(Pirie et al., 2013). Finally, the prospective study among Japanese Atomic survivors also reported
similar relative risks (Sakata et al., 2012). For the most part, the smoker: non-smoker relative risks
were unaffected by adjustments for other risk factors in most of the studies, even though smokers
tend to drink alcohol more commonly, and have lower education levels.
Table 3 provides the avoidable proportion of deaths for each major disease. This is calculated by
(RR-1)/RR with the RRs derived from the USSGR report of 2014. This analysis shows that among
smokers, over 90% of deaths from lung cancer at various ages or chronic obstructive deaths at ages
65 or older would have been avoided at non-smoking death rates, reflecting the very high relative
Figure 9. USSGR 2014 estimation of anatomic sites and cancers linked to smoking. Adapted from U.
S. Department of Health and Human Services (2014).
Jha. eLife 2020;9:e49979. DOI: https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.49979 21 of 47
Review Article Epidemiology and Global Health
risks of smoking for these conditions. About half to four-fifths of coronary heart disease deaths
among smokers would have been avoided; the proportion avoidable was even larger in younger
adults. Approximately a third to half of stroke deaths among smokers would have been avoided.
Overall, up to two-thirds of all deaths among smokers would have been avoided at non-smoking
death rates.
The avoidable proportion should be taken as conservative, as the relative risks in the USSGR
report may be underestimates. The prospective studies had enrolled smokers and non-smokers
before they developed disease, and smoking status was collected only at this baseline. Some of
those who reporting smoking at baseline would have quit subsequently, as there have been, in
recent years, increases in cessation by older adults. This cessation would reduce their risk of death,
bringing them closer to the observed mortality rates of non-smokers. Had they not quit, the
observed differences in relative risks between smokers and non-smokers would most likely have
been larger.
Understanding the contemporary risks: specific conditions
Cancers, vascular and respiratory disease
Cancers: The USSGR (U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, 2014). and IARC Reports
(IARC Working Group on the Evaluation of Carcinogenic Risk to Humans, 2004) have previously
concluded that there are sufficiently strong associations to define tobacco use as a cause of several
cancers including lung, tongue, lip, larynx, oropharynx, bladder, kidney, oesophagus, stomach, pan-
creas, cervix and liver.
The 2014 USSGR also found that existing strong evidence for smoking as a cause of squamous
cell lung cancer in men is strongly enforced by recent evidence of these links in women, who typi-
cally begin smoking later in life. Moreover, among smokers, the risk of developing adenocarcinoma
of the lung has risen since the 1960s. This increased risk is likely the result of changes in the design
and composition of cigarettes, which might include use of ventilated filters (leading to deeper inhala-
tion of tobacco smoke), and perhaps changes in nitrosamines levels since the 1950s. There is suffi-
cient evidence for a causal relationship between smoking and hepatocellular cancer. The report
noted a suggestive relationship of smoking to adenomatous polyps and colorectal cancer. Smoking
was found not to be a cause of new prostate cancers, though it is important to note that smokers do
have high risks of death if diagnosed with prostate cancer, as well as a greater chance of more
advanced and poorly differentiated cancers.
Table 3. Proportion of deaths by cause among current smokers that would be avoided at non-smoking death rates, by sex and age.
Among smokers, % avoided at non-smoking death rates
Disease/sex Males Females
Age groups 35–54 55–64 65–74 �75 35–54 55–64 65–74 �75
Lung cancer 93% 95% 96% 96% 92% 95% 96% 96%
Other cancers 43% 46% 57% 54% 22% 52% 51% 48%
Coronary heart disease 74% 67% 64% 49% 80% 69% 70% 56%
Cerebrovascular disease 54% 32% 56% 41%
Aortic aneurysm, other arterial and atherosclerosis 86% 80% 85% 83%
Diabetes mellitus 33% 9% 35% 9%
All vascular at ages 35–64 58% 60% 59% 49%
Influenza, pneumonia, tuberculosis 61% 38% 43% 51%
Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease 97% 96% 97% 95%
All respiratory at ages 35–64 78% 93% 84% 89%
All causes 61% 66% 67% 58% 44% 62% 65% 60%
Notes: Author calculations. The avoidable proportion for each condition and sex is calculated as (RRc-1)/RRc, where RRc refers to the smoker: non-smoker
relative risks (RR) for current smoking in the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (2014) (Appendix 1).
Jha. eLife 2020;9:e49979. DOI: https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.49979 22 of 47
Review Article Epidemiology and Global Health
Cardiovascular disease, including coronary artery disease, stroke, aortic aneurysm, and peripheral
artery disease, is the leading cause of death in most countries worldwide. Hence, while the relative
risks of smoking for specific vascular diseases are smaller than that for cancers and respiratory dis-
ease, vascular mortality dominates the absolute burdens of tobacco-attributable diseases in many
countries.
The chief finding from the 2014 USSGR Report and the more contemporary cohort studies is that
the smoker: non-smoker mortality risks for ischemic heart disease have become more extreme over
time. This is due in part to rapid improvements in the treatment of vascular disease that have con-
tributed to rapidly falling background rates among non-smokers. By contrast, smokers are not
receiving the full benefit of technologies that benefit non-smokers (Jha et al., 2013).
The relative risks for non-fatal heart attack are greater than those for fatal heart attack (Table 4).
This would suggest, for example, that the true population burden of smoking-attributable ischemic
heart disease for the number of hospital admissions is much larger than that derived from mortality
studies. Moreover, the relative risks are greater at younger ages, so that at ages 30–39, about 80%
of the heart attacks in UK men can be attributed to smoking (Parish et al., 1995). Naturally, the
absolute rates are greater at older ages.
For respiratory disease, including emphysema and chronic bronchitis, there have also been sub-
stantial increases in mortality among smokers in the last two to three decades, with the smoker:
non-smoker hazards becoming particularly extreme among women (Thun et al., 2013). The 2014
USSGR also identified that smoking as a cause of tuberculosis death and recurrent tuberculosis, but
stated that evidence was not sufficient to evaluate if smoking causes infection. While tuberculosis
deaths and infection are uncommon in Canada, they remain a major cause of death in low and mid-
dle-income countries (Bates et al., 2007; Gajalakshmi et al., 2003). Smoking compromises the
immune system, which leads to increased risk of pulmonary infection, as well as loss of voice.
Other outcomes
The 2014 USSGR added newer conditions that were not listed as being causally related to smoking
in the 2004 USSGR. Maternal smoking in early pregnancy is a cause of orofacial clefts and might be
linked to clubfoot, gastric and vascular malformations. Maternal smoking might be linked to behav-
ioural disorders and attention deficit in children. Smoking is a cause of ectopic pregnancy, and of
erectile dysfunction in men. Rheumatoid arthritis, congenital effects and colorectal cancer are possi-
bly attributable to smoking.
Table 4. Relative risks for fatal and non-fatal ischemic heart disease by age for men.
STUDY AGE (years) Relative risk
Fatal ischemic heart disease
US 35–69 2.5
CHINA 35–69 1.2
INDIA 30–69 1.6
Non-fatal ischemic heart disease
UK 30–39
40–49
50–59
60–69
70–79
6.3
4.7
3.1
2.5
1.9
INDIA Current
Ever
Former
4.7
3.9
2.6
SEVERAL COUNTRIES Current
Former
3.0
1.9
Note. Author’s calculations based on an earlier review (Jha et al., 2010).
Jha. eLife 2020;9:e49979. DOI: https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.49979 23 of 47
Review Article Epidemiology and Global Health
Diseases not attributable to smoking or protected by smoking
Some conditions are not sufficiently proven to be caused by smoking, or are (less commony) reduced
by smoking. These include Alzheimer’s disease, breast cancer, inflammatory bowel disease and uter-
ine cancer. A popular myth is that smoking protects against dementia and Alzheimer’s disease. How-
ever, the UK doctor’s prospective study (Doll et al., 2005) noted that dementia risks were
unaffected by smoking history. A systematic review of about 50 epidemiological studies found that
smoking modestly raised the risk for Alzheimer’s but had no effect on the development of dementia
(Peters et al., 2008). The 2014 USSGR noted that there is some evidence that smoking reduces the
risk of endometrial cancer in women. Among the inflammatory bowel diseases cases, smoking might
reduce ulcerative colitis but raise the risks of Crohn’s disease. Finally, the 2014 USSGR found that
there was no definitive evidence that smoking causes breast cancer.
The presence of some diseases not attributable to smoking strengthens the argument about the
causal nature of the link between smoking and specific diseases. The strength of association of vari-
ous conditions to smoking also varies, as defined by the relative risk of death between otherwise
similar smokers and non-smokers. For example, there is a strong and consistent relationship of
tobacco smoking to lung and many upper digestive cancers. By contrast, the relationship between
smoking and colorectal cancer is weaker. However, the excess risk for almost all of these conditions
is likely causal. Thus, the strength of the association is less relevant for public health action than is
the list of the most common conditions in the population that accrue the largest absolute number of
deaths.
Reductions in total and in cause-specific mortality from
smoking cessation
In contrast to the long delay between smoking onset and the development of disease, the main
effects of widespread cessation are seen much more rapidly. Worldwide, cessation is the only practi-
cable way to avoid a substantial proportion of tobacco deaths before 2050 (Jha and Chaloupka,
1999), as a substantial reduction in uptake by adolescents will have its main effect on mortality rates
after 2050.
Cessation trends in US, UK and Canada
The prevalence of former smoking in middle-age is a useful measure of the success of tobacco con-
trol. Currently in Canada, the US and the UK, there are as many former as current smokers between
the ages of 45 to 64 years (Figure 10) The short-term relapse rates among smokers considering ces-
sation is very high. However, among those who persist in cessation, few re-start smoking.
There is a large gap in high-income countries between the intent to quit smoking and actual suc-
cess rates. This is mostly a consequence of the strongly addictive nature of cigarettes. Two-thirds of
smokers wish to quit, while only about half of that actually try, while far fewer succeed (U.
S. Department of Health and Human Services, 2020). In 2015, nearly two-thirds (65.8%) of Cana-
dian smokers were seriously considering quitting in the next six months. Of those, about half (48.2%)
were considering quitting within the next thirty days, which was equivalent to 31.1% of all current
smokers. Between 1999 and 2015, the percentage of Canadian smokers seriously considering quit-
ting in the next six months appears to have increased slightly (Reid et al., 2017). In 2015, over half
(52.3%) of Canadian smokers and recent quitters reported having made at least one attempt at suc-
cessful cessation in the past year, while more than one-third had made multiple attempts. From
1999 to 2015, the percentage of smokers and recent quitters who had attempted to quit in the past
12 months appears to have remained fairly stable, at around half (Reid et al., 2017). The US and the
UK reports similar patterns of attempted cessation (Babb, 2017; Office for National Statistics,
2018b).
Reduction in overall mortality from cessation
Smokers who stop smoking before age 40 (preferably well before age 40), avoid more than 90% of
the excess risk for overall mortality among those who continue to smoke. Those who stop before
age 30 avoid 97% of the risk of death. Those who have smoked cigarettes since early adult life but
Jha. eLife 2020;9:e49979. DOI: https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.49979 24 of 47
Review Article Epidemiology and Global Health
stop at 30, 40, or 50 years of age gain, respectively, about 10, 9, and 6 years of life expectancy, com-
pared to those who continue smoking (Jha et al., 2013; Pirie et al., 2013).
The reductions in smoking risk for all deaths and for lung cancer mortality among women in the
UK are shown in Figure 11. Very similar results were seen in the US for these same age groups
among men and women (Jha et al., 2013). The smoker/non-smoker risks quickly converge for vascu-
lar disease, for some cancers other than lung, though less quickly for lung cancers, with intermediate
convergence for respiratory disease. The overall persisting hazard for death from any cause is
reduced but not eliminated. For those who smoke until age 40 years and then stop, the remaining
excess risk of about 20% (relative risk, 1.2, hence 120% risk less 100% baseline risk = 20% excess
risk) is substantial and implies that about one in six of these former smokers who dies before the age
of 80 years would not have died if their death rates had been the same as otherwise similar non-
smokers. However, this 20% excess has to be compared to an excess risk of 200% if they continued
to smoke (RR = 3, hence 300% risk less 100% baseline risk = 200% excess risk). Similarly, for lung
cancer, quitters by age 40 retain a substantial excess risk of 230%, but this is dwarfed by the 2000%
excess risk from continued smoking. In both cases, the relative reduction in excess risk among for-
mer versus current smokers exceeds 90%.
Figure 10. Former and current smoking prevalence, US (2017), UK (2017), and Canada (2014) by sex and age
group. Note. Data from National Center for Health Statistics, 2017, NHIS, Office for National Statistics, 2017,
Adult Smoking habits in Great Britain; Statistics Canada, 2016, Canadian Community Health Survey.
Jha. eLife 2020;9:e49979. DOI: https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.49979 25 of 47
Review Article Epidemiology and Global Health
Similar results on reductions in lung cancer risk in former smokers are seen in other settings. The
excess lung cancer mortality avoided in men who stopped smoking by age 40 was 91% in Germany
and 80% in Italy (Crispo et al., 2004). In countries such as Canada, the UK, US or Poland, where
high mortality rates from smoking were followed by widespread cessation, mortality from smoking
has greatly decreased, for example by 25% per decade in Canada (Peto et al., 2018; Jha, 2009).
Earlier reviews note that the relationships of excess-risk for overall mortality with halving smoking
amount reduces mortality risk far less than cessation (U.S. Department of Health and Human Serv-
ices, 2014). This would imply that the mean reduction in daily amount smoked in the three countries
from 1999 to 2013 (about three cigarettes fewer, per day, per smoker; Table 1) has had only a mini-
mal impact on the risk of death. Cessation remains far more important than reduced smoking
amount.
Reduction in specific diseases from cessation
The US Surgeon General has issued a series of reports on the health benefits of smoking cessation
starting in 1990 (U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, 1990). Those conclusions were
updated in subsequent reports in 2001, 2004, 2006, 2010, 2014 and 2020. A brief summary of the
effects of cessation on cardiovascular disease, cancers and respiratory disease follows.
Cardiovascular disease: In patients with existing heart disease who smoke, cessation significantly
reduces all-cause mortality, deaths due to cardiac causes, sudden death and the risk of both new
and recurrent cardiac events. The reduction in risk of recurrence or death is estimated to be about
30–45%. Smoking cessation benefits people at any age, but the benefits are greater at younger
ages compared with older ages (Parish et al., 1995). The risk of coronary heart disease falls rapidly
after cessation and then declines more slowly. The excess risk falls by about half after five years of
cessation and then gradually approaches the risk of people who have never smoked. Smoking cessa-
tion also reduces inflammatory markers and hypercoagulability, rapidly improves the levels of high-
density lipoprotein cholesterol (which protects against heart attack), and may lead to improved
endothelial function. Smoking cessation reduces the development and progression of markers of
subclinical atherosclerosis, with larger reductions shown in cases where the cessation period has
been substantial.
In patients with existing stroke, smoking cessation reduces risk of stroke morbidity and mortality.
The evidence is strongest for subarachnoid haemorrhage and less consistent for intracerebral hae-
morrhage. After some years of smoking cessation, the risk of stroke approaches that of those who
never smoked.
Figure 11. Relative risks for all-cause mortality and cancer of the lung, by age of quitting, among UK women.
Adapted from Pirie et al. (2013), p. 138.
Jha. eLife 2020;9:e49979. DOI: https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.49979 26 of 47
Review Article Epidemiology and Global Health
Respiratory disease: Smoking cessation reduces asthma symptoms, improves treatment outcomes
and asthma-specific quality of life scores among persons with asthma, and improves peak expiratory
flow among persons with asthma who smoke. However, it is not sufficiently clear if smoking cessa-
tion among smokers lowers the risk of developing asthma. Indeed, the extreme smoker: non-smoker
risks for respiratory disease, particularly for emphysema, match that of lung cancer (Thun et al.,
2013). The benefits of cessation, once disease has begun, may have less impact on lung cancer and
emphysema than on some other cancers and cardiovascular disease.
Cancers: Smoking cessation reduces risk of cancers of the lung, larynx, oral cavity and pharynx,
oesophagus, pancreas, bladder, stomach, colon, rectum, liver, cervix and kidney, and acute myeloid
leukemia.
Estimates of the reduction in excess risk among former smokers
The USSGR 2014 published also a summation of the relative risks for former smokers, based on the
prospective studies noted above. A comparison of excess risk, meaning RR-1 (the risk among non-
smokers) for both former smokers and current smokers is informative. Based on the RRs in the
USSGR report, I calculate the relative reduction in excess risk for various specific conditions
(Table 5).
This analyses shows that, depending on age and sex (and age of cessation, which is not consid-
ered in the USSGR 2014 estimates), that versus current smokers, former smokers have about at least
a three-quarters reduction in mortality from lung cancer, stroke and coronary heart disease. Reduc-
tions in excess mortality risk from chronic obstructive pulmonary disease are also about three quar-
ters for men, but notably smaller in women. Overall, former smokers have only about a quarter of
the excess risk of overall mortality versus continued smokers.
The true gain of life-years from the time of cessation could be somewhat greater than implied
from Table 5. Some deaths may well reflect deaths among smokers who quit because they became
ill. Large scale, well-designed epidemiological studies consider this possible ‘reverse causality’ by,
for example, excluding the first few years of follow-up data (Banks et al., 2015; Jha et al., 2013;
Pirie et al., 2013; Thun et al., 2013). The reductions in risks are of course strongly dependent on
the age at smoking, and the calculation of RR among former smokers is likely not a robust as those
for current smokers, as these prospective studies had slightly different definitions of former smoking
and due to various adjustments to take into account reverse causality.
Table 5. Relative reduction in excess risk among former smokers as compared to excess risk among current smokers, by sex and age.
Reduction in excess risk
Disease/sex Males Females
Age groups 35–54 55–64 65–74 �75 35–54 55–64 65–74 �75
Lung cancer 74% 80% 75% 75% 87% 78% 74% 76%
Other cancers 51% 64% 64% 61% 14% 74% 75% 71%
Coronary heart disease 71% 74% 67% 67% 69% 91% 76% 66%
Cerebrovascular disease 80% 75% 81% 86%
Aortic aneurysm, other arterial and atherosclerosis 81% 82% 78% 79%
Diabetes mellitus 40% 46% 40%
All vascular at ages 35–64 95% 66% 100% 90%
Influenza, pneumonia, tuberculosis 61% 32% 63% 80%
Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease 75% 75% 61% 70%
All respiratory at ages 35–64 65% 79% 84% 52%
All causes 79% 76% 72% 71% 72% 79% 72% 71%
Notes: Author calculations. The reduction in excess risk for each condition and sex is calculated as (1- [RRf-1)/ [RRc-1]), where RRf and RRc refer to the
smoker: non-smoker relative risks (RR) for former and current smoking, respectively in the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, 2014 (Appen-
dix 1).
Jha. eLife 2020;9:e49979. DOI: https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.49979 27 of 47
Review Article Epidemiology and Global Health
Biological evidence of smoking hazards
Thus far, I have focused on the epidemiological evidence of the causal links of smoking to specific
diseases and to overall mortality. Here, I turn briefly to the biological evidence. A common criticism
of the epidemiological studies is that the exact ‘mechanism’ that causes smoking to induce lung can-
cer has not yet been identified. This is mostly irrelevant. As Thun et al. (2002) point out, the epide-
miological evidence of association is so strong between smoking and various diseases, that further
biological evidence on mechanisms is not required to establish causality. Moreover, as smoking
causes a wide range of diseases, it is likely different biological mechanisms apply (for example, there
may be different mechanisms at the cellular level in cancers than in cardiovascular diseases).
Doll and Peto (1981) illustrate that human population trends have distinct advantages in study-
ing smoking as an exposure. In Canada, the US and the UK, there have been substantial earlier
increases and more recent decreases in smoking-attributable mortality and from specific conditions
from about 1970. During that time period, the genetic susceptibility of the relevant populations has
not likely changed; say, towards reduced expression of the genetic factors that predict lung cancer
or genetic factors that decrease addictiveness to nicotine. Increases and the more recent decreases
in smoking account for most of the dramatic changes in smoking-attributable diseases in recent dec-
ades; genetics has likely played only a minor or no role in explaining the marked changes in
tobacco-attributable mortality in recent decades.
Biologic evidence on nicotine addiction
The nicotine in cigarettes is the central ingredient that leads to initiation and sustained smoking.
Prior to about the mid-1980s, the common understanding was that tobacco use did not qualify as a
drug addiction (Koop, 2003). The UK’s Medical Research Council and the US Surgeon General’s
Office began to review their evidence using the logic that tobacco prevention and addiction treat-
ment required a better understanding of the addictive properties of nicotine and cigarettes as an
effective and toxic delivery system. The findings of the 1988 US Surgeon General’s report suggest
that cigarettes and other forms of tobacco (such as chewed tobacco) are addicting and that nicotine
is the major agent responsible for this addiction (U.S. Department of Health and Human Services,
1988). These findings have been supported by many subsequent studies and reports. In 2000, the
British Royal College of Physicians concluded: “Nicotine is an addictive drug, and the primary pur-
pose of smoking tobacco is to deliver a dose of nicotine rapidly to receptors in the brain. . .Tobacco
smoke inhalation is the most highly-optimized vehicle for nicotine administration. . .” (Royal College
of Physicians of London, 2000). In most aspects of dependence, nicotine is on par with other pow-
erfully addictive drugs, such as heroin and cocaine.
The epidemiological evidence on smoking trends and consequences is now supported by better
understanding of the neurobiological mechanisms of nicotine reinforcement and dependence.
Though there are over 4,000chemicals found in cigarette smoke, there is little doubt that nicotine is
the major component responsible for tobacco addiction.
Nicotine is a psychoactive drug that appears to trigger a cascade of neurobiological events in the
brain and throughout the body which can, in turn, act in concert to reinforce tobacco use and affect
subsequent behaviour (Markou and Henningfield, 2003). Much of the psychoactive effects of nico-
tine can be attributed to its rapid delivery to the brain. Absorption of cigarette smoke is accelerated
and complete, with delivery of nicotine to the brain almost 10–16 seconds faster than by intravenous
injection (Jarvis, 2004). Moreover, each subsequent exposure to cigarette smoke leads to the estab-
lishment and strengthening of tolerance to the adverse effects of nicotine, physiological dependence
and the biologically rewarding effects of nicotine. This cascade of effects can lead to increased self-
administration and progression of the dependence process. It is not known if all nicotine-induced
changes in brain function, such as tripling of the levels of certain brain neurotransmitters in some
brain regions (Perry and Chalkley, 1982), and alterations of brain nicotine reinforcement systems
(Laviolette and van der Kooy, 2004; Mansvelder et al., 2002), are fully reversed after nicotine
abstinence. It is plausible that persisting brain alterations may confer a continuing need for nicotine
in some individuals (Henningfield and Slade, 1998). While all adults are susceptible to the biological
effects of nicotine, it also appears plausible that early onset of use is associated with a higher risk of
developing dependence. Jarvis notes that, “in experimental models, if nicotine’s neurobiological
effects are blocked pharmacologically, or if nicotine is removed from cigarette smoke, then smoking
Jha. eLife 2020;9:e49979. DOI: https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.49979 28 of 47
Review Article Epidemiology and Global Health
eventually ceases”. The neurobiological effects of nicotine differ greatly from that of other licit and
illicit substances. For example, for most alcohol drinkers, there is not a comparable neurobiological
dependence on repeat ‘hits’ (ingestions), as there is with nicotine (Jarvis, 2004).
Biological evidence for smoking and cancer
Proctor (2012) reviews the history of the early biological evidence that linked smoking to cancer,
which I summarize. Early studies in the 1930s and early 1940s in Argentina and in Germany (pub-
lished mostly in Spanish and German) examined the application of ‘tobacco juice’ to the skin and
other organs in laboratory animals and showed that painting the tar of cigarette smoke on the
shaved backs of mice generated tumours in the mice. The cigarette industry ridiculed these findings
and funded alternatives to counter these discoveries. Next, pathologists established that smoking
interfered with the small hair-like structures (cilia) in the lungs that were responsible for clearing con-
taminants in the lungs (Hilding, 1956). Investigations on cancer-causing chemicals in cigarette smoke
such as polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons and later benzopyrene were also underway around this
time. The cigarette industry’s own research similarly identified such ingredients in their products. By
the end of the 1950s, cigarette manufacturers had characterized several dozen carcinogens in ciga-
rette smoke, including arsenic, chromium, nickel and a wide variety of polycyclic aromatic
hydrocarbons.
To date, over 7,000 chemicals have been identified in cigarette smoke, including acetone (solvent
and paint stripper), ammonia (powerful and poisonous gas), arsenic (potent ant poison), benzene
(poisonous toxin), butane (flammable chemical in lighter fluid), cadmium (employed in batteries), car-
bon monoxide (poisonous gas in auto exhaust), formaldehyde (preservative for dead bodies), hydro-
gen cyanide (deadly ingredient in rat poison), methanol (jet engine and rocket fuel), polonium-210
(radioactive element) and toluene (poisonous industrial solvent) (IARC Working Group on the Evalu-
ation of Carcinogenic Risk to Humans, 2004; U.S. Department of Health and Human Services,
1989; U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, 2014). Many of these have been classified
independently as carcinogens by the rigorous IARC review process (IARC Working Group on the
Evaluation of Carcinogenic Risk to Humans, 2004).
More recent evidence has identified the role of tobacco smoking in triggering or enabling possi-
ble mechanisms of cancer, most notably somatic mutations (meaning genetic alternations that are
passed on during cell replications). Smoking also appears to alter DNA methylation, one of the main
forms of epigenetic modification (meaning smoking can change how genes express into proteins,
without changing the DNA itself) (Vucic et al., 2014). A recent review of the somatic mutations and
DNA methylation in cancers of types for which tobacco smoking confers an elevated risk, found that
smoking caused multiple mutations, most notably the misreplication of DNA by tobacco carcino-
gens, or indirect activation of DNA editing (Alexandrov et al., 2016). Finally, the p53 protein is
responsible for a wide range of factors that suppress cancerous growth. Smoking-related malignan-
cies have a high genome-wide burden of mutations, including in gene encoding for p53
(Gibbons et al., 2014).
By contrast, one paper suggested that ‘bad luck,’ that is random errors in DNA replication, were
responsible for variation in cancer risk among 25 different types of cancer (Tomasetti and Vogel-
stein, 2015). This paper observed a strong correlation between the number of lifetime stem cell divi-
sions in an organ and the lifetime organ-specific cancer risk in the US. The authors concluded that
luck, far more than ‘environmental or genetic susceptibility,’ accounted for these cancers. As
Blot and Tarone (2015) review, this is a misleading analysis to determine cancer causation. Any par-
ticular cancer usually requires multiple genetic changes (Peto, 2016). Both random errors and those
due to genetic susceptibility or damage from environmental causes, such as smoking, increase with
the total number of stem cell divisions. Hence, both types of mutations would contribute to the
observed positive correlation between stem cell divisions and lifetime cancer risk. Blot and Tarone-
conclude, “. . .the mutation rates and the totals of lifetime stem cell divisions at various organs or tis-
sues are not likely to differ widely among different human populations, and thus even if most
mutations in the majority of cancers are the result of random replication errors, the large geographic
variation in cancer rates observed in most organs suggests that the percentage of cancers arising
entirely by such random errors is relatively low” (Blot and Tarone, 2015).
Jha. eLife 2020;9:e49979. DOI: https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.49979 29 of 47
Review Article Epidemiology and Global Health
Biological evidence for smoking and vascular disease and diabetes
The US Surgeon General provides detailed reviews of possible mechanisms that link smoking to vas-
cular disease. The 2004 Surgeon General’s report provided a detailed overview of mechanisms link-
ing smoking with cardiovascular diseases development. The report concluded that smoking (1)
promotes harm to the linings of the cardiac arteries; (2) produces a substantial shift in blood based
factors, clotting, and inflammation, all of which can contribute to sudden heart attack; (3) diminishes
the ability of the blood to carry oxygen; (4) increases physiologic demands of the heart; and (5)
causes irregular heartbeats (arrhythmias and spasm) (U.S. Department of Health and Human Serv-
ices, 1990; U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, 2004; U.S. Department of Health
and Human Services, 2014). Through these mechanisms, smoking results in substantial adverse
alterations in the haemostatic balance of the cardiovascular system, which explains the relationships
between smoking and subclinical and clinical manifestations of atherosclerosis.
The USSGR 2010 report reviewed in detail the mechanisms through which cigarette smoking
causes coronary heart disease (U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, 2010b), conclud-
ing that smoking produces insulin resistance that could, in tandem with chronic inflammation, accel-
erate the development of damage to the arteries supplying the heart and kidney, and other organs.
The 2014 USSGR expanded on the research related to mechanisms through which smoking affects
cardiovascular function, focusing on how smoking affects coronary artery narrowing, blood clotting
and inflammation (U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, 2014). Csordas and Bernhard
(2013) thoroughly reviewed the biology of these effects of smoking and found similar conclusions. A
recent examination in rat models noted that nicotine alone increases the body’s stress response,
raising blood glucose levels, and thus diabetes (Duncan et al., 2019). This finding might help explain
the higher prevalence of diabetes among cigarette smokers. It would also suggest similar effects on
diabetes from prolonged use of nicotine in e-cigarettes.
Most of these mechanisms take less time from exposure to disease than is the case with cancer.
Hence, these findings may help to explain why smoking cessation induces much faster reversibility of
heart disease risk than it does for common cancers. These findings also help to explain why the rela-
tive risks for heart attack are much greater in younger than in older smokers (Table 4).
Scientific and popular understanding of smoking risks
Despite about 40,000 studies since about 1950 on the relationship between smoking and disease,
there continues to be widespread ignorance about the hazards of smoking by the public, non-
experts and even some experts. For example, adults do not know that smoking is a cause of stroke
based on numerous surveys, particularly in low-income countries or among less educated adults in
high-income countries (Jha and Chaloupka, 1999; Jha and Chaloupka, 2000). What is surprising
however, is the extent to which even informed professionals can be unaware of the hazards of
smoking.
This confusion about smoking hazards in part reflects definitions of causality. Consider lung can-
cer, which is among the most widely-studied of the tobacco-attributable diseases. Despite the com-
mon myth, smoking is not the only cause of lung cancer. Smoking is a cause of about 90% of lung
cancer deaths in high-income countries. However lung cancer occurs (albeit rarely) in non-smokers.
These rare occurrences may be related to factors such as radon exposure, though it is useful to note
the rate of lung cancer among non-smokers has changed little over time (Thun et al., 2008). Hence,
smoking is not a necessary cause of disease. Some smokers do not die a premature death from their
smoking, and not every smoker will develop lung cancer (or heart disease or other tobacco-attribut-
able conditions). Hence, smoking is not a sufficient cause of disease. With that said, smoking is an
important cause of lung cancer and other diseases. In epidemiological terms, when we state that
smoking is an important cause of lung cancer, we are stating that, among people of the same age,
smokers have a (statistically significant) increased probability of developing lung cancer in the near
future than do otherwise similar non-smokers. Similarly, smoking is an important cause of vascular
and respiratory disease and other diseases (U.S. Department of Health and Human Services,
1989).
Once causality is established for a particular condition, it is important to then consider the impli-
cations for public health. Here, we have to understand the relevant concept of the combination of
two risks, together, as a cause of disease. For example, asbestos was used widely among shipyards
Jha. eLife 2020;9:e49979. DOI: https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.49979 30 of 47
Review Article Epidemiology and Global Health
in the UK that were built during WWI and WWII, prior to awareness of the hazards of asbestos on
lung cancer and respiratory disease. Similar Canadian workers faced lower risks in part as the type of
asbestos exposure was less carcinogenic than in the UK (Peto, 1985). Thus, large numbers of male
UK shipyard workers were exposed to asbestos dust during each working day for many years. In
these men, lung cancer developed at about ten times the rate of its development in otherwise simi-
lar men not exposed to asbestos dust (Barlow et al., 2017). Among these male shipyard workers,
many smoked, and smoking made new lung cancer ten times more likely. Thus, shipyard workers
who smoked and were exposed to asbestos dust were, by age 60 years, 100 times as likely to get
lung cancer as men who had never smoked and who had not been exposed to asbestos dust
(Markowitz et al., 2013).
If around 1950, we took 100 smokers who were exposed to asbestos and died of lung cancer, 90
of those 100 lung cancer deaths would not have happened if the individual had not smoked. Simi-
larly, 90 of those 100 lung cancer deaths would not have happened if the individual had not been
exposed to the particular types of asbestos dust. Thus, smoking and asbestos are each a cause of 90
of these 100 lung cancer deaths. The attributed fractions obviously add up to over 100%. Naturally,
it follows that avoidance of both smoking and asbestos exposure would not avoid much more than
the 90 deaths that each caused. Moreover, using the same analogy as above for asbestos, the frac-
tions caused by genetic factors and caused by environmental factors are not mutually exclusive
(Doll and Peto, 1981). A specific disease has both genetic and environmental causes.
In addition to misunderstanding of causality, two additional aspects of the divergence between
the scientific evidence and popular understanding: underestimation of smoking hazards and confu-
sion with other risks.
Underestimation of the hazards of smoking
Widespread underestimation of the hazards of smoking arises from the long delay between uptake
of smoking and the development of most diseases, as discussed earlier. Smoking is so common that
many people appear to believe that something so widely used cannot be harmful. Finally, as smok-
ing does not kill each of its users, there is always the reference to individual anecdote: many people
will personally know a relative or family friend who smoked to age 85 and died peacefully in his
sleep. Of course, the many mothers and fathers who died early in adult life and smoked usually
do not appear often in these anecdotes.
Consider two examples of the misunderstanding of the hazards of smoking and the benefits of
cessation. The first is excerpted from the notable journal The Economist, which is read widely by
government officials and academics around the world:
“The public-health rhetoric often implies that smoking must be daft, because it is deadly. In fact,
most smokers (two-thirds or more) do not die of smoking-related disease. They gamble and win.
Moreover, the years lost to smoking come from the end of life, when people are most likely to die
of something else anyway. [Then US President] Bill Clinton’s mother, who died of cancer at the age
of 70 after smoking two packs a day for most of her life, might, as Mr. Clinton notes, have extended
her life by not smoking; but she might also have extended it by eating better or exercising more,
and in any case she could never have been sure.” (The Economist, 1998).
The second is by Nobel-Prize winning economist Angus Deaton, who, in his 2013 book, The Great
Escape, wrote:
“Although smokers are ten to twenty times more likely to die of lung cancer than non-smokers,
the vast majority of smokers do not die of the disease; the Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer center
has an online calculator that estimates the risks. For example, a 50 year old man who has smoked a
pack a day for thirty years has a one percent chance of developing lung cancer if he quits now and a
two percent chance if he does not.” (Deaton, 2013, p. 135).
The epidemiological evidence does not support either assertion. Firstly, smoking kills at least half
of all those who smoke continuously and the years of life lost are substantial in middle-age. More-
over, The Economist quote confuses the fact that ‘eating better’ and ‘exercising more’ do little to
offset the harmful effects of smoking. The confusion of big and small risks is a common mistake in
media reporting of scientific research, as I take up further in the next section.
Angus Deaton substantially underestimates the actual risks of death from lung cancer. Among US
men aged 50 who continue to smoke, close to 16–20%, not 2%, will be killed by lung cancer. Quit-
ting smoking by age 50 reduces the risk of death from lung cancer by about two-thirds, not by one-
Jha. eLife 2020;9:e49979. DOI: https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.49979 31 of 47
Review Article Epidemiology and Global Health
half (Jha, 2009; Peto et al., 2000; U.S. Department of Health and Human Services,
2014; Pirie et al., 2013; Figure 11). Reassuringly, The Economist has changed its stance on tobacco
completely, and now argues for much higher excise taxation and other approaches to reduce
tobacco deaths (The Economist, 2017).
It is therefore unsurprising to note that among US adults surveyed randomly (Oklahoma Tobacco
Research Center, 2017), there was widespread lack of awareness of the levels of risk conferred by
smoking. While 82% of the adults in the US survey knew that smoking caused heart disease, emphy-
sema, leukemia and various cancers, only 41% knew that smoking kills on average 1,200 Americans
every day. Only 37% knew that more people die from smoking then from murder, AIDS, suicide
drugs, car crashes and alcohol combined. Similarly, 90% of the respondents stated that smoking is
highly addictive and that nicotine is the addictive drug in tobacco. High proportions of this popula-
tion believed that it was not easy to quit smoking. However less than 65% of respondents knew that
cigarette companies intentionally designed cigarettes with enough nicotine to create and sustain
addiction. Just over 60% knew that nicotine affects the brain, making cessation quite difficult for
most. This survey also noted low levels of awareness regarding the fact that low-tar and light ciga-
rettes are as equally harmful as regular cigarettes (U.S. Department of Health and Human Services,
2014). More recently, the perception of risk of e-cigarettes as being as harmful as cigarettes
has become common, and mostly likely a consequence of the considerable media attention focused
on youth gateways to smoking or to addiction (McNeill et al., 2020).
Confusion of the large hazards of smoking with the smaller hazards of
most other exposures
Let’s consider one of the statements made by the British American Tobacco, a global multi-national
cigarette manufacturing, in response to requests made by the US Congress in 2003 (Waxman, 2003)
about their belief of the causal role of cigarette smoking:
“. . .that causes of lung cancer, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, and cardiovascular dis-
eases are complex, and the mechanism of causation, as well as the possible role of any cigarette
smoke constituent in causation, have not been scientifically established” (Waxman, 2003).
Over the last decade, many tobacco companies have admitted that smoking causes disease, but
most continue to fudge their belief in causality. Indeed many politicians have made similar argu-
ments that minize the hazards of smoking. For argument’s sake, let’s extend the tobacco industry
concerns about causality to a widely held suggestion that other ‘complex’ factors are responsible for
smoking harms at the population level or in particular individuals. These other factors, based on
common sense, should be closely associated with being a smoker. These might include lack of exer-
cise, poor nutrition, alcohol drinking, peer pressure to smoke, low social status, psychology influen-
ces, and stress. Additional factors that might also be more common in smokers could include poor
in-utero environment, poorer access to medical treatment, food choices, and the emerging area of
science on the gut microbiome environment (Finlay and the Microbiome, 2020).
A noted UK geneticist, Sir Ronald Fisher, attacked the Doll and Hill studies of the early 1950s,
suggesting that the case-control study design could not establish causality, instead hypothesizing
that there was an underlying gene that resulted both in smoking and in lung cancer. Fisher was later
reported to have received funding from the tobacco industry and eventually recanted some of his
criticisms of Doll and Hill (Christopher, 2016).
Careful epidemiological studies have been able to examine many, but certainly not all of the first
list of factors that by common sense occur in smokers. These find, for the most part, that ‘adjust-
ment’ for such differences between smokers and non-smokers makes little difference to the
observed smoker: non-smoker relative risks. What then of unmeasured variables or as yet unknown
variables, as these are, by definition, bound to exist in any study? It would be expected that even
undetermined factors should, for the most part, also correlate with known factors. Thus a mystery
factor, either behavioural, environmental or genetic, that I will call ‘Zulu’ likely correlates closely with
poor nutrition, lack of exercise as well as to smoking. It follows that, were Zulu the main true expla-
nation for the observed smoker: non-smoker risks, adjustment for a closely correlated surrogate like
lack of exercise would reduce the observed smoking relative risks. Most careful studies find, in fact,
little diminution of smoker: non-smoker risks with such adjustment. This suggests that ‘residual con-
founding’ with unknown or unexplained risk factors does not explain most of the large observed
Jha. eLife 2020;9:e49979. DOI: https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.49979 32 of 47
Review Article Epidemiology and Global Health
risks for smoking. It also suggests that smoking acts independently of the other factors, even though
they may be correlated.
Indeed, adjustment for smoking explains many of these other factors. Consider low social status,
which is well described as a risk factor for many diseases. The UK Million Women’s study examined
the social differences in hospitalization or death from ischemic heart disease. Heart disease death or
hospitalization was strongly associated with lower levels of education or greater (neighborhood)
deprivation, with clear dose-responses. However, smoking, alcohol consumption, physical inactivity
and body mass index accounted for most of the risk factors, and of these four factors, smoking
accounted for the biggest share (Floud et al., 2016; Jha et al., 2019).
Any particular disease can have in fact two (or more) causes. Therefore, obesity and smoking may
both contribute to heart disease and avoidance of either might have prevented a particular heart
attack. However, from a population health perspective, what is useful is to understand the compara-
tive risks for each and to what extent are these risks avoidable.
I now review some of these major identified ‘other factors’ beginning first with obesity (presumed
to be both ‘physiological’ and ‘based on lifestyle choices’ in tobacco industry parlance), then turning
to alcohol, and finally genetics and environment. I selected these factors as the WHO has identified
these as major risk factors for adult health (World Health Organization, 2016) and because clini-
cians and the public often turn to genetic differences to explain disease occurrence. Moreover,
smoking and drinking, and to a lesser extent obesity are strongly correlated in healthy as well as in
diseased individuals (Thun et al., 1997).
Comparison with obesity
Smoking risks are substantially greater than those of obesity for adults in high-income countries.
Obesity (at its most extreme called severe obesity) is defined as excess body fat, and measured by
body-mass index (BMI; or weight divided by height squared). Higher BMI causes a loss of premature
life (Finucane et al., 2011). The loss of a decade of life requires a BMI of around 43, which is well
above the averages seen in any country including the most obese populations of the US. More mod-
erate levels of obesity, meaning of BMI of around 32, contibute to an average of three years of life
loss. Hence, at the population level, a 2 kg per meter extra BMI if overweight or a 10% higher smok-
ing prevalence both reduce life expectancy by one year (Figure 12; Peto et al., 2010).
These individual risks also translate to the overall life expectancy gaps at the population level.
About 15% of American smoke cigarettes, and smoking accounts, on average, for 10 years of life
lost. Thus, smoking is reducing American life expectancy by about 1.5 years of life (i.e. 15% X 10
years). The mean BMI in the US is 28 and about 30% of the American population is modestly obese.
If modest obesity accounts for 3 years of life lost, then obesity is reducing American life expectancy
by 0.9 years (i.e. 30% X 3 years). Hence, smoking causes more lost life than does obesity in the US.
Figure 12. Life expectancy: loss of 3 years with moderate obesity and 10 years with smoking. Note: 2 kg/m2 extra
BMI (if overweight) or 10% smoking prevalence shortens life by ~1 year. Adapted from Peto et al. (2010), p. 856.
Jha. eLife 2020;9:e49979. DOI: https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.49979 33 of 47
Review Article Epidemiology and Global Health
Moreover, the main mechanisms for increased mortality from higher BMI from vascular disease are
due to hypertension, ‘bad’ lipids and development of diabetes. Most of these factors driven by
higher BMI are very treatable even without reducing weight (Yusuf et al., 2004; Yusuf et al., 2020).
By contrast, the only plausible way to reduce smoking risks is by quitting (Jha et al., 2013).
Comparison with alcohol
Heavy alcohol use increases the death rate from some conditions (most notably, road traffic and
other injuries, suicide, poisoning, liver cirrhosis, certain cancers and perhaps haemorrhagic stroke)
(Thun et al., 1997); and recent studies have documented hazards from drinking for ischemic stroke
and no protective effect for ischemic heart disease (Millwood et al., 2019). Thus, the overall survival
of otherwise comparable drinkers and non-drinkers in Canada, the US and the UK are similar (the
slightly greater survival in drinkers shown in earlier studies is mostly likely due to ‘reverse causality’
whereby sicker people give up drinking). This balance of risks is distinct from the extreme binge-
drinking patterns of vodka among Russian men, in whom loss of life from such binge-drinking
exceeds that of smoking (Zaridze et al., 2009; Zaridze et al., 2014). However, the hazards of smok-
ing are observed in both drinkers and non-drinkers (Table 6).
Even epidemiologists often underestimate the extreme hazards of tobacco. Consider the follow-
ing comparisons. Firstly, among 1,000 male smokers aged 20, at least 500 (and perhaps up to 670),
will die from smoking throughout their lifetimes. Of these, at least 250 will die from smoking in mid-
dle-age (meaning before 70 years). By contrast, only 20 would die from road accidents or violence
and 30 from all alcohol-related conditions (Jha and Chaloupka, 2000).
Comparison with genetics
To return to the idea of causation; a common statement made by people (including doctors) is that
‘genetics was responsible’ for a particular person’s heart attack or lung cancer, even though they
may have also smoked. At the population level, both genetics and smoking could for example, play
roles in causing either disease. The population-based evidence should also guide the magnitude of
the risk. For example, no single genetic factor has been identified that explains a significant propor-
tion of heart attacks, although the combination of all tested factors suggest just over a quarter of
heritability of heart disease (McPherson and Tybjaerg-Hansen, 2016).
However, smoking alone accounts for at least a quarter of the deaths from heart attack in the US
(U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, 2014). Moreover, the largest identified single
genetic factor (the relative risk from a specific lipid factor (lipoprotein (a), Loci SLC22A3-LPAL2-LPA
SNP, rs2048327) carries a relative risk of 1.4, which is comparable to smoking 3–4 cigarettes a day.
Similarly, a range of genetic factors has recently been suggested to modestly predict lung cancer
risk in smokers and non-smokers (Timofeeva et al., 2012). These genetic factors do not negate the
importance of smoking in explaining lung cancer risks.
Table 6. Estimated probability of death (%) from any cause between ages 35 and 69 in the US
population, by combination of alcohol drinking and smoking, in 1990.
Sex and alcohol drinking status Smokers Non-smokers
MEN
Drinkers 43 22
Non-drinkers 46 26
WOMEN
Drinkers 28 14
Non-drinkers 30 17
Adapted from Alcohol consumption and mortality among middle-aged and elderly US adults, by Thun et al. (1997),
New England Journal of Medicine, 337(24), p. 1712.
Jha. eLife 2020;9:e49979. DOI: https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.49979 34 of 47
Review Article Epidemiology and Global Health
Comparison to environmental pollutants and other exposures
Doll and Peto (1981) conducted an exhaustive review of the possible causes of cancer in the US in
the late 1970s. Their focus was on the widely held belief that ‘pollutants’ in the environment were a
major cause of cancer. They documented the available epidemiological evidence on the environmen-
tal exposures most commonly believed to be linked to cancer, such as pesticides, food additives,
industrial products, ultraviolet light, and pollution. (They did not specifically study ambient air pollu-
tion). They concluded that tobacco smoking accounted for more of the proportions of cancer deaths
than did a reasonable summation of all of the known risk factors, including nearly every known pol-
lutant. Table 7 shows their summary results.
Doll and Peto also pointed out that, excluding smoking-attributable cancers, there was no ‘epi-
demic’ of cancer, as was commonly believed at that time. In fact cancer death rates except those
attributable to smoking were falling modestly. Finally, they pointed out that smoking causes more
death from causes other than cancer than it does from cancer itself.
Future research directions and conclusions
In this review, I have considered the cause, nature and extent of tobacco related diseases in high-
income countries between 1960 and 2020. I have drawn on existing epidemiological evidence, with
careful re-interpretation of risks in individuals and rates among populations. It follows naturally to
ask what additional epidemiological or biological evidence is needed on the consequences of smok-
ing in high-income countries. A full treatise on research priorities is beyond the scope of this review,
but a few priorities should be considered. First, the rapidly changing prevalence of smoking, includ-
ing increases in cigarette cessation require ongoing studies to document the benefits of quitting,
particularly on various diseases and at different ages (U.S. Department of Health and Human Serv-
ices, 2020). Second, the emergence of e-cigarettes demands further documentation of the long-
term risks (and possible benefits) of their use among adults and by adolescents. The current state of
evidence is mostly insufficient for conclusions on the net effects of e-cigarettes on population health.
Third, research to better understand how risks are perceived and internalized by individuals and gov-
ernments is needed to ensure that epidemiological studies on the consequences of smoking are
incorporated into decision-making.
Based on the existing epidemiological and biological evidence, I provide four overall conclusions.
Firstly, in much of North America and Western Europe, the biggest cause of premature death,
defined as death before 70 years, is the smoking of manufactured cigarettes. Smoking as an
Table 7. Proportions of cancer deaths in the United States in the 1970s attributed to various
different factors, as defined by Doll and Peto (1981).
Factor or class of factors
Percent of all cancer deaths
Best estimate Range of acceptable estimates
Tobacco 30 25–40
Alcohol 3 2–4
Food additives <1 �5–2
Reproductive and sexual behaviour 7 1–13
Occupation 4 2–8
Pollution 2 <1–5
Industrial products <1 <1–2
Medicines and medical procedures 1 0.5–3
Geophysical factors (mostly Ultraviolet light) 3 2–4
Infection 10? 1-?
Diet 35 10–70
Unknown ? ?
Adapted from The causes of cancer: Quantitative estimates of avoidable risks of cancer in the United States today,
Doll and Peto (1981), Journal of the National Cancer Institute, 66(6), p. 1192–1308.
Jha. eLife 2020;9:e49979. DOI: https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.49979 35 of 47
Review Article Epidemiology and Global Health
important cause of many diseases in many populations has been recognized widely in the scientific
literature for the last five decades. However, three surprising features of health hazards of smoking
have been established reliably only in the last decade. The first feature is that risk of developing dis-
ease among smokers is big. The second feature is that for smokers to develop these big risks, they
need to start smoking early in adult life and to continue smoking. If smokers don’t start early in life,
their risks are substantially smaller. Third, if smokers stop smoking before they develop some serious
disease, then their risks are substantially reduced. However, most smokers whom start early in adult
life and who continue to smoke are eventually killed by their tobacco use. This is because in every
year during middle age, the death rates among smokers are about three-fold higher than that of
similar non-smokers (taking into account differences between smokers and non-smokers in heavy
alcohol use, obesity patterns or different social status). So up to two-thirds of the mortality among
smokers would not be happening if they had the non-smoker death rates. Most of this excess risk
arises from diseases that are caused by smoking. This includes disease such as lung cancer, emphy-
sema, heart attack, stroke, cancer of the upper aerodigestive areas, bladder cancer and various
other conditions. Thus this excess risk is a cause and effect relationship.
Secondly, from 1960 to 2020, smoking has likely killed 29.5 million Americans, 9.3 million UK resi-
dents, and 2.6 million Canadians, or a total of 41.3 million adults. This constitutes a crude ratio of
one death per million cigarettes smoked in the US and Canada, but slightly more than one death
per million cigarettes smoked in the UK.
Third, cessation, particularly before age 40 avoids nearly all the excess risk of continued smoking.
Cessation at any age is effective, restoring substantial years of like lost versus continued smoking.
Finally, there continues to be widespread, serious underestimation of the hazards of smoking by
the public, non-experts and even some experts.
Acknowledgements
The author thanks Richard Peto for guidance on an earlier version of the manuscript. The author
also thanks Varsha Malhotra and Om Prakash Malhotra for editorial assistance, Daphne Wu and Ben-
jamin Wong for graphics support, and Vedika Jha and Shivani Shah for assistance on references.
Additional information
Competing interests
Prabhat Jha: Reviewing Editor at eLife.
Funding
Funder Grant reference number Author
Canadian Institutes of Health
Research
FDN154277 Prabhat Jha
National Institutes of Health R01TW0599101 Prabhat Jha
The funders had no role in study design, data collection and interpretation, or the
decision to submit the work for publication.
Author ORCIDs
Prabhat Jha https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7067-8341
References
Action on Smoking and Health. 2016. Smoking Statistics: Who Smokes and How Much. London, UK: Action on
Smoking and Health.
Action on Smoking and Health. 2019. Use of E-Cigarettes Among Young People in Great Britain. London, UK:
Action on Smoking and Health.
Jha. eLife 2020;9:e49979. DOI: https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.49979 36 of 47
Review Article Epidemiology and Global Health
Alexandrov LB, Ju YS, Haase K, Van Loo P, Martincorena I, Nik-Zainal S, Totoki Y, Fujimoto A, Nakagawa H,
Shibata T, Campbell PJ, Vineis P, Phillips DH, Stratton MR. 2016. Mutational signatures associated with tobacco
smoking in human Cancer. Science 354:618–622. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aag0299, PMID: 27
811275
American Cancer Society. 2013. Cancer Facts & Figures. US: American Cancer Society. https://www.cancer.org/
research/cancer-facts-statistics/all-cancer-facts-figures/cancer-facts-figures-2013.html.
Babb S. 2017. Quitting smoking among adults—United States, 2000–2015. MMW: Morbidity and Mortality
Weekly Report 65:1457–1464. DOI: https://doi.org/10.15585/mmwr.mm6552a1
Bachinger E, McKee M, Gilmore A. 2008. Tobacco policies in nazi Germany: not as simple as it seems. Public
Health 122:497–505. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.puhe.2007.08.005, PMID: 18222506
Banks E, Joshy G, Weber MF, Liu B, Grenfell R, Egger S, Paige E, Lopez AD, Sitas F, Beral V. 2015. Tobacco
smoking and all-cause mortality in a large australian cohort study: findings from a mature epidemic with current
low smoking prevalence. BMC Medicine 13:38. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s12916-015-0281-z, PMID: 25
857449
Barlow CA, Sahmel J, Paustenbach DJ, Henshaw JL. 2017. History of knowledge and evolution of occupational
health and regulatory aspects of asbestos exposure science: 1900-1975. Critical Reviews in Toxicology 47:286–
316. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/10408444.2016.1258391, PMID: 28328293
Bates MN, Khalakdina A, Pai M, Chang L, Lessa F, Smith KR. 2007. Risk of tuberculosis from exposure to tobacco
smoke: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Archives of Internal Medicine 167:335–342. DOI: https://doi.
org/10.1001/archinte.167.4.335, PMID: 17325294
Bauld L, MacKintosh AM, Eastwood B, Ford A, Moore G, Dockrell M, Arnott D, Cheeseman H, McNeill A. 2017.
Young people’s Use of E-Cigarettes across the United Kingdom: Findings from Five Surveys 2015-2017.
International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health 14:e973. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3390/
ijerph14090973, PMID: 28850065
Beard E, West R, Michie S, Brown J. 2016. Association between electronic cigarette use and changes in quit
attempts, success of quit attempts, use of smoking cessation pharmacotherapy, and use of stop smoking
services in England: time series analysis of population trends. BMJ 354:i4645. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1136/
bmj.i4645, PMID: 27624188
Blot WJ, Tarone RE. 2015. Doll and Peto’s quantitative estimates of cancer risks: holding generally true for 35
years. JNCI Journal of the National Cancer Institute 107:djv044. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/jnci/djv044,
PMID: 25739419
Blount BC, Karwowski MP, Shields PG, Morel-Espinosa M, Valentin-Blasini L, Gardner M, Braselton M, Brosius
CR, Caron KT, Chambers D, Corstvet J, Cowan E, De Jesús VR, Espinosa P, Fernandez C, Holder C, Kuklenyik
Z, Kusovschi JD, Newman C, Reis GB, et al. 2020. Vitamin E acetate in Bronchoalveolar-Lavage fluid associated
with EVALI. New England Journal of Medicine 382:697–705. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMoa1916433,
PMID: 31860793
Bondurant S, Wallace R, Shetty P, Stratton K. 2001. Clearing the Smoke: Assessing the Science Base for Tobacco
Harm Reduction. Washington, DC, US: National Academies Press.
Calle EE, Rodriguez C, Jacobs EJ, Almon ML, Chao A, McCullough ML, Feigelson HS, Thun MJ. 2002. The
american Cancer society Cancer prevention study II nutrition cohort: rationale, study design, and baseline
characteristics. Cancer 94:2490–2501. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/cncr.101970, PMID: 12015775
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. 2018. Cigarette smoking among U.S. adults lowest ever recorded:
14% in 2017. https://www.cdc.gov/media/releases/2018/p1108-cigarette-smoking-adults.html [Accessed
February 12, 2020].
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. 2019. Current cigarette smoking among adults in the united
states. https://www.cdc.gov/tobacco/data_statistics/fact_sheets/adult_data/cig_smoking/index.htm [Accessed
February 12, 2020].
Christopher B. 2016. Why the father of modern statistics didn’t believe smoking caused cancer. https://
priceonomics.com/why-the-father-of-modern-statistics-didnt-believe/ [Accessed February 12, 2020].
Crispo A, Brennan P, Jöckel KH, Schaffrath-Rosario A, Wichmann HE, Nyberg F, Simonato L, Merletti F,
Forastiere F, Boffetta P, Darby S. 2004. The cumulative risk of lung Cancer among current, ex- and never-
smokers in european men. British Journal of Cancer 91:1280–1286. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/sj.bjc.
6602078, PMID: 15292933
Csordas A, Bernhard D. 2013. The biology behind the atherothrombotic effects of cigarette smoke. Nature
Reviews Cardiology 10:219–230. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/nrcardio.2013.8, PMID: 23380975
Cummings KM, Hammond D. 2020. E-cigarettes: striking the right balance. The Lancet Public Health 1:pii:
S2468-2667(20)30004-9. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/S2468-2667(20)30004-9
Deaton A. 2013. The Great Escape: Health, Wealth, and the Origins of Inequality. Princeton: Princeton University
Press.
Doll R, Peto R, Boreham J, Sutherland I. 2005. Mortality from Cancer in relation to smoking: 50 years
observations on british doctors. British Journal of Cancer 92:426–429. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/sj.bjc.
6602359, PMID: 15668706
Doll R, Hill AB. 1950. Smoking and carcinoma of the lung. BMJ 2:739–748. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.2.
4682.739
Doll R, Hill AB. 1964. Mortality in relation to smoking: ten years’ OBSERVATIONS of british doctors. BMJ 1:
1399–1410. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.1.5395.1399, PMID: 14135164
Jha. eLife 2020;9:e49979. DOI: https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.49979 37 of 47
Review Article Epidemiology and Global Health
Doll R, Peto R. 1981. The causes of Cancer: quantitative estimates of avoidable risks of Cancer in the united
states today. JNCI: Journal of the National Cancer Institute 66:1192–1308. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/jnci/
66.6.1192
Duncan A, Heyer MP, Ishikawa M, Caligiuri SPB, Liu XA, Chen Z, Micioni Di Bonaventura MV, Elayouby KS, Ables
JL, Howe WM, Bali P, Fillinger C, Williams M, O’Connor RM, Wang Z, Lu Q, Kamenecka TM, Ma’ayan A,
O’Neill HC, Ibanez-Tallon I, et al. 2019. Habenular TCF7L2 links nicotine addiction to diabetes. Nature 574:
372–377. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-019-1653-x, PMID: 31619789
Encyclopaedia Britannica. 2018. Cigarillo. https://www.britannica.com/topic/cigarillo [Accessed February 12,
2020].
Environics Research. 2019. Vapers panel survey to measure attitudes and behaviours regarding vaping products.
http://epe.lac-bac.gc.ca/100/200/301/pwgsc-tpsgc/por-ef/health/2019/083-18-e/report.pdf [Accessed February
12, 2020].
Finlay BB, the Microbiome. 2020. Are noncommunicable diseases communicable? Science 367:250–251.
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aaz3834
Finucane MM, Stevens GA, Cowan MJ, Danaei G, Lin JK, Paciorek CJ, Singh GM, Gutierrez HR, Lu Y, Bahalim
AN, Farzadfar F, Riley LM, Ezzati M. 2011. National, regional, and global trends in body-mass index since 1980:
systematic analysis of health examination surveys and epidemiological studies with 960 country-years and 9�1
million participants. The Lancet 377:557–567. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(10)62037-5
Fischer S, Spiegelhalder B, Eisenbarth J, Preussmann R. 1990a. Investigations on the origin of tobacco-specific
nitrosamines n mainstream smoke of cigarettes. Carcinogenesis 11:723–730. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/
carcin/11.5.723
Fischer S, Castonguay A, Kaiserman M, Spiegelhalder B, Preussmann R. 1990b. Tobacco-specific nitrosamines in
canadian cigarettes. Journal of Cancer Research and Clinical Oncology 116:563–568. DOI: https://doi.org/10.
1007/BF01637075, PMID: 2254375
Floud S, Balkwill A, Moser K, Reeves GK, Green J, Beral V, Cairns BJ. 2016. The role of health-related
behavioural factors in accounting for inequalities in coronary heart disease risk by education and area
deprivation: prospective study of 1.2 million UK women. BMC Medicine 14:145. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/
s12916-016-0687-2
Forey B, Hamling J, Hamling J, Thornton A, Lee P. 2016. International smoking statistics web edition. http://
www.pnlee.co.uk/iss3.htm [Accessed February 12, 2020].
Foundation for a Smoke-Free World. 2018. Global trends in nicotine. https://www.smokefreeworld.org/sites/
default/files/fsfw-report-trends-in-nicotine-1005201811.pdf [Accessed February 12, 2020].
Gajalakshmi V, Peto R, Kanaka TS, Jha P. 2003. Smoking and mortality from tuberculosis and other diseases in
India: retrospective study of 43000 adult male deaths and 35000 controls. The Lancet 362:507–515.
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(03)14109-8
Gibbons DL, Byers LA, Kurie JM. 2014. Smoking, p53 mutation, and lung Cancer. Molecular Cancer Research 12:
3–13. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1158/1541-7786.MCR-13-0539, PMID: 24442106
Goniewicz ML, Knysak J, Gawron M, Kosmider L, Sobczak A, Kurek J, Prokopowicz A, Jablonska-Czapla M,
Rosik-Dulewska C, Havel C, Jacob P, Benowitz N. 2014. Levels of selected carcinogens and toxicants in vapour
from electronic cigarettes. Tobacco Control 23:133–139. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1136/tobaccocontrol-2012-
050859
Hajek P, Phillips-Waller A, Przulj D, Pesola F, Myers Smith K, Bisal N, Li J, Parrott S, Sasieni P, Dawkins L, Ross L,
Goniewicz M, Wu Q, McRobbie HJ. 2019. A randomized trial of E-Cigarettes versus Nicotine-Replacement
therapy. New England Journal of Medicine 380:629–637. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMoa1808779,
PMID: 30699054
Hammond EC. 1966. Smoking in relation to the death rates of one million men and women. In: Haenszel W (Ed).
Epidemiological Study of Cancer and Other Chronic Diseases. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Health,
Education and Welfare, Public Health Service. p. 127–204.
Hammond EC, Horn D. 1954. The relationship between human smoking habits and death rates: a follow-up study
of 187,766 men. Journal of the American Medical Association 155:1316–1328. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1001/
jama.1954.03690330020006, PMID: 13174399
Hartmann-Boyce J, McRobbie H, Bullen C, Begh R, Stead LF, Hajek P, Cochrane Tobacco Addiction Group.
2016. Electronic cigarettes for smoking cessation. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 11:CD010216.
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD010216.pub3
Henningfield JE, Slade J. 1998. Tobacco-dependence medications: public health and regulatory issues. Food
and Drug Law Journal 53:75–114. PMID: 10342981
Hilding AC. 1956. Ciliary streaming through the larynx and distribution of laryngeal epithelium. The
Laryngoscope 66:1362–1363. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1288/00005537-195610000-00015
Holmes MD, Murin S, Chen WY, Kroenke CH, Spiegelman D, Colditz GA. 2007. Smoking and survival after breast
Cancer diagnosis. International Journal of Cancer 120:2672–2677. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/ijc.22575,
PMID: 17278091
IARC Working Group on the Evaluation of Carcinogenic Risk to Humans. 2004. Tobacco Smoke and
Involuntary Smoking. 83 Lyon, France: International Agency for Research on Cancer.
International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC). 2004. IARC Monographs on the Evaluation of
Carcinogenic Risks to Humans: Tobacco Smoke and Involuntary Smoking. Lyon, France: International Agency
for Research on Cancer.
Jha. eLife 2020;9:e49979. DOI: https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.49979 38 of 47
Review Article Epidemiology and Global Health
International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC). 2012. Personal Habits and Indoor Combustions. 100
International Agency for Research on Cancer.
Jarvis MJ. 2004. ABC of smoking cessation: why people smoke. British Medical Journal 328:277–279.
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.328.7434.277
Jha P, Peto R, Zatonski W, Boreham J, Jarvis MJ, Lopez AD. 2006. Social inequalities in male mortality, and in
male mortality from smoking: indirect estimation from national death rates in England and Wales, Poland, and
north america. The Lancet 368:367–370. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(06)68975-7
Jha P, Jacob B, Gajalakshmi V, Gupta PC, Dhingra N, Kumar R, Sinha DN, Dikshit RP, Parida DK, Kamadod R,
Boreham J, Peto R, RGI-CGHR Investigators. 2008. A nationally representative case-control study of smoking
and death in India. New England Journal of Medicine 358:1137–1147. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1056/
NEJMsa0707719, PMID: 18272886
Jha P. 2009. Avoidable global Cancer deaths and total deaths from smoking. Nature Reviews Cancer 9:655–664.
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/nrc2703, PMID: 19693096
Jha P, Mony P, Moore JA, Zatonski W. 2010. Avoidance of worldwide vascular deaths and total deaths from
smoking. In: Yusuf S, Cairns J. A, Camm A. J (Eds). Evidence-Based Cardiology. Oxford, UK: John Wiley &
Sons, Ltd. p. 111–124. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/9781444309768.ch9
Jha P, Ramasundarahettige C, Landsman V, Rostron B, Thun M, Anderson RN, McAfee T, Peto R. 2013. 21st-
century hazards of smoking and benefits of cessation in the united states. New England Journal of Medicine
368:341–350. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMsa1211128, PMID: 23343063
Jha P. 2014. Reliable direct measurement of causes of death in low- and middle-income countries. BMC
Medicine 12:19. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/1741-7015-12-19, PMID: 24495839
Jha P, MacLennan M, Chaloupka FJ, Yurekli A, Ramasundarahettige C, Palipudi K, Zatonksi W, Asma S, Gupta
PC. 2015. Global hazards of tobacco and the benefits of smoking cessation and tobacco taxes. In: Gelband H,
Jha P, Sankaranarayanan R, Horton S (Eds). Disease Control Priorities. 3 Washington, DC: Cancer World Bank.
Jha P, Gelband H, Irving H, Mishra S. 2019. Tobacco Taxation, Tobacco-Related Diseases and Poverty in Low-
and Middle-Income Countries. In: Reducing Social Inequalities in Cancer: Evidence and Priorities for Research.
IARC, Social Inequalities and Cancer.
Jha P, Hill C, Wu DCN, Peto R. 2020. Cigarette prices, smuggling, and deaths in France and Canada. The Lancet
395:27–28. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(19)31291-7
Jha P, Chaloupka FJ. 1999. Curbing the Epidemic: Governments and the Economics of Tobacco Control.
Washington, DC: World Bank.
Jha P, Chaloupka FJ (Eds). 2000. Tobacco Control in Developing Countries. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/her/16.3.384
Jha P, Peto R. 2014. Global effects of smoking, of quitting, and of taxing tobacco. New England Journal of
Medicine 370:60–68. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMra1308383, PMID: 24382066
Kenfield SA, Stampfer MJ, Giovannucci E, Chan JM. 2011. Physical activity and survival after prostate Cancer
diagnosis in the health professionals follow-up study. Journal of Clinical Oncology 29:726–732. DOI: https://
doi.org/10.1200/JCO.2010.31.5226, PMID: 21205749
Koop CE. 2003. Tobacco addiction: accomplishments and challenges in science, health, and policy. Nicotine &
Tobacco Research 5:613–619. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/1462220031000158726, PMID: 14577977
Kozlowski LT, Mehta NY, Sweeney CT, Schwartz SS, Vogler GP, Jarvis MJ, West RJ. 1998. Filter ventilation and
nicotine content of tobacco in cigarettes from Canada, the united kingdom, and the united states. Tobacco
Control 7:369–375. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1136/tc.7.4.369, PMID: 10093170
Laviolette SR, van der Kooy D. 2004. The neurobiology of nicotine addiction: bridging the gap from molecules
to behaviour. Nature Reviews Neuroscience 5:55–65. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/nrn1298, PMID: 14708004
Levy DT, Warner KE, Cummings KM, Hammond D, Kuo C, Fong GT, Thrasher JF, Goniewicz ML, Borland R.
2019. Examining the relationship of vaping to smoking initiation among US youth and young adults: a reality
check. Tobacco Control 28:629–635. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1136/tobaccocontrol-2018-054446, PMID: 304591
82
Liu BQ, Peto R, Chen ZM, Boreham J, Wu YP, Li JY, Campbell TC, Chen JS. 1998. Emerging tobacco hazards in
China: 1. retrospective proportional mortality study of one million deaths. BMJ 317:1411–1422. DOI: https://
doi.org/10.1136/bmj.317.7170.1411, PMID: 9822393
Mansvelder HD, Keath JR, McGehee DS. 2002. Synaptic mechanisms underlie nicotine-induced excitability of
brain reward Areas. Neuron 33:905–919. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/S0896-6273(02)00625-6, PMID: 119066
97
Manuel DG, Perez R, Bennett C, Rosella L, Taljaard M, Roberts M, Sanderson R, Tuna M, Tanuseputro P, Manson
H. 2012. Seven More Years: The Impact of Smoking, Alcohol, Diet, Physical Activity and Stress on Health and
Life Expectancy in Ontario. Toronto, Canada: Institute for Clinical Evaluative Sciences.
Markou A, Henningfield JE. 2003. Background paper on the neurobiology of nicotine addiction. Paper Presented
at the Disease Control Priorities Project Nicotine Addiction Workshop, Mumbai.
Markowitz SB, Levin SM, Miller A, Morabia A. 2013. Asbestos, asbestosis, smoking, and lung cancer. New
findings from the North American insulator cohort. American Journal of Respiratory and Critical Care Medicine
188:90–96. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1164/rccm.201302-0257OC, PMID: 23590275
McNeill A, Brose LS, Calder R, Bauld L, Robson D. 2020. Vaping in England: An Evidence Update Including
Mental Health and Pregnancy, March 2020: A Report Commissioned by Public Health England. London: Public
Health England.
Jha. eLife 2020;9:e49979. DOI: https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.49979 39 of 47
Review Article Epidemiology and Global Health
McPherson R, Tybjaerg-Hansen A. 2016. Genetics of coronary artery disease. Circulation Research 118:564–578.
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1161/CIRCRESAHA.115.306566, PMID: 26892958
Menon GR, Singh L, Sharma P, Yadav P, Sharma S, Kalaskar S, Singh H, Adinarayanan S, Joshua V, Kulothungan
V, Yadav J, Watson LK, Fadel SA, Suraweera W, Rao MVV, Dhaliwal RS, Begum R, Sati P, Jamison DT, Jha P.
2019. National burden estimates of healthy life lost in India, 2017: an analysis using direct mortality data and
indirect disability data. The Lancet Global Health 7:e1675–e1684. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/S2214-109X(19)
30451-6, PMID: 31708148
Merriman D. 2012. Understand, Measure and Combat Tobacco Smuggling. Washington, DC: World Bank
Economics of Tobacco Toolkit.
Millwood IY, Walters RG, Mei XW, Guo Y, Yang L, Bian Z, Bennett DA, Chen Y, Dong C, Hu R, Zhou G, Yu B, Jia
W, Parish S, Clarke R, Davey Smith G, Collins R, Holmes MV, Li L, Peto R, et al. 2019. Conventional and genetic
evidence on alcohol and vascular disease aetiology: a prospective study of 500000 men and women in China.
The Lancet 393:1831–1842. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(18)31772-0
Müller FH. 1940. Tabakmißbrauch und lungencarcinom. Zeitschrift Für Krebsforschung 49:57–85. DOI: https://doi.
org/10.1007/BF01633114
National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine.Eaton DL, Kwan LY, Stratton K (Eds). 2018. Public
Health Consequences of E-Cigarettes. Washington, DC: National Academies Press. DOI: https://doi.org/10.
17226/24952
National Center for Health Statistics. 2008. 2007 National Health Interview Survey (NHIS): Public Use Data
release:NHIS Survey Description. Hyattsville, MD: Department of Health and Human Services, Centers for
DiseaseControl and Prevention, National Center for Health Statistics.
National Institutes of Health, National Cancer Institute. 1996. The FTC Cigarette Test Method for Determining
Tar, Nicotine, and Carbon Monoxide Yields of U.S. Cigarettes: Report of the NCI Expert Committee. Bethesda,
US: US Department of Health and Human Services, Public Health Service, National Institutes of Health.
Newbold KB, Neligan D. 2012. Disaggregating Canadian immigrant smoking behaviour by country of birth.
Social Science & Medicine 75:997–1005. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.socscimed.2012.05.008
Office for National Statistics. 2018a. Adult Smoking Habits in Great Britain. London, UK: Office for National
Statistics.
Office for National Statistics. 2018b. Adult smoking habits in the UK: 2017. https://www.ons.gov.uk/
peoplepopulationandcommunity/healthandsocialcare/healthandlifeexpectancies/bulletins/
adultsmokinghabitsingreatbritain/2017 [Accessed February 12, 2020].
Oklahoma Tobacco Research Center. 2017. Oklahoma Tobacco Research Centre Research Study: Court-
Ordered Corrections of Tobacco Industry Racketeering. Oklahoma: Oklahoma Tobacco Research Center.
Parish S, Collins R, Peto R, Youngman L, Barton J, Jayne K, Clarke R, Appleby P, Lyon V, Cederholm-Williams S,
Marshall J, Sleight P. 1995. Cigarette smoking, tar yields, and non-fatal myocardial infarction: 14000 cases and
32000 controls in the United Kingdom. BMJ 311:471–477. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.311.7003.471
Paskett ED, Reeves KW, Rohan TE, Allison MA, Williams CD, Messina CR, Whitlock E, Sato A, Hunt JR. 2007.
Association between cigarette smoking and colorectal Cancer in the women’s Health Initiative. JNCI Journal of
the National Cancer Institute 99:1729–1735. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/jnci/djm176
Pearl R. 1938. Tobacco smoking and longevity. Science 87:216–217. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1126/science.87.
2253.216, PMID: 17813231
Perry M, Chalkley R. 1982. Histone acetylation increases the solubility of chromatin and occurs sequentially over
most of the chromatin. A novel model for the biological role of histone acetylation. The Journal of Biological
Chemistry 257:7336–7347. PMID: 7085629
Peters R, Poulter R, Warner J, Beckett N, Burch L, Bulpitt C. 2008. Smoking, dementia and cognitive decline in
the elderly, a systematic review. BMC Geriatrics 8:36. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2318-8-36
Peto J. 1985. Problems in dose response and risk assessment: The example of asbestos. In: Castellani A (Ed).
Epidemiology and Quantitation of Environmental Risk in Humans From Radiation and Other Agents. 96 Boston,
MA: Springer. p. 175–185. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4615-9445-1_11
Peto R. 1986. Influence of dose and duration of smoking on lung Cancer rates. IARC Scientific Publications 74:
23–33. PMID: 3623669
Peto R, Boreham J, Lopez AD, Thun M, Heath C. 1992. Mortality from tobacco in developed countries: indirect
estimation from national vital statistics. The Lancet 339:1268–1278. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/0140-6736
(92)91600-D
Peto R, Lopez AD, Boreham J, Thun M, Heath CJ. 1994. Mortality From Smoking in Developed Countries 1950-
2000. Indirect Estimates From National Vital Statistics.. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
Peto R, Darby S, Deo H, Silcocks P, Whitley E, Doll R. 2000. Smoking, smoking cessation, and lung Cancer in the
UK since 1950: combination of national statistics with two case-control studies. BMJ 321:323–329. DOI: https://
doi.org/10.1136/bmj.321.7257.323, PMID: 10926586
Peto R, Whitlock G, Jha P. 2010. Effects of obesity and smoking on US life expectancy. The New England Journal
of Medicine 362:855–856. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMc1000079, PMID: 20200394
Peto R. 2016. Epidemiology, multistage models, and short-term mutagenicity tests. International Journal of
Epidemiology 45:621–637. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/ije/dyv199, PMID: 27582437
Peto R, Lopez AD, Pan H, Boreham J, Thun M. 2018. Mortality from smoking in developed countries, 1950-2020:
trends in smoking-attributed mortality and total mortality. https://gas.ctsu.ox.ac.uk/tobacco/SMK_ALL_PAGES.
pdf [Accessed February 12, 2020].
Jha. eLife 2020;9:e49979. DOI: https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.49979 40 of 47
Review Article Epidemiology and Global Health
Peto R, Lopez AD. 2001. Future worldwide health effects of current smoking patterns. In: Koop E. C, Pearson C.
E, Schwarz M. R (Eds). Jossey-Bass. New York: Critical issues in global health.
Pirie K, Peto R, Reeves GK, Green J, Beral V, Million Women Study Collaborators. 2013. The 21st century
hazards of smoking and benefits of stopping. Lancet 381:133–141. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736
(12)61720-6
Proctor RN. 2012. The history of the discovery of the cigarette–lung cancer link: evidentiary traditions, corporate
denial, global toll: Table 1. Tobacco Control 21:87–91. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1136/tobaccocontrol-2011-
050338
Ramström L, Borland R, Wikmans T. 2016. Patterns of smoking and snus use in Sweden: implications for public
health. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health 13:1110. DOI: https://doi.org/10.
3390/ijerph13111110
Reid JL, Hammond D, Rynard VL, Madill CL, Burkhalter R. 2017. Tobacco Use in Canada: Patterns and Trends,
2017 Edition. Waterloo, Ontario, Canada: Propel Centre for Population Health Impact, University of Waterloo.
Reynales-Shigematsu LM, Guerrero-López CM, Hernández Ávila M, Irving H, Jha P. 2018. Divergence and
convergence in cause-specific premature adult mortality in Mexico and US mexican hispanics from 1995 to
2015: analyses of 4.9 million individual deaths. International Journal of Epidemiology 47:97–106. DOI: https://
doi.org/10.1093/ije/dyx185, PMID: 29040557
Riahi F, Rajkumar S, Yach D. 2019. Tobacco smoking and nicotine delivery alternatives: patterns of product use
and perceptions in 13 countries. F1000Research 8:80. DOI: https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.17635.2,
PMID: 31131094
Royal College of Physicians. 1962. Smoking and Health: A Report of the Royal College of Physicians on Smoking
in Relation to Cancer of the Lung and Other Diseases London, UK: Pitman Medical Publishing.
Royal College of Physicians of London. 2000. Nicotine Addiction in Britain: A Report of the Tobacco Advisory
Group of the Royal College of Physicians. London, UK: Royal College of Physicians of London.
Sakata R, McGale P, Grant EJ, Ozasa K, Peto R, Darby SC. 2012. Impact of smoking on mortality and life
expectancy in Japanese smokers: a prospective cohort study. BMJ 345:e7093. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1136/
bmj.e7093, PMID: 23100333
Schairer E, Schöniger E. 1944. Lungenkrebs und tabakverbrauch. Zeitschrift Für Krebsforschung 54:261–269.
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01628727
Schatzkin A, Subar AF, Thompson FE, Harlan LC, Tangrea J, Hollenbeck AR, Hurwitz PE, Coyle L, Schussler N,
Michaud DS, Freedman LS, Brown CC, Midthune D, Kipnis V. 2001. Design and serendipity in establishing a
large cohort with wide dietary intake distributions. American Journal of Epidemiology 154:1119–1125.
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/aje/154.12.1119
Statistics Canada. 2019. Table 13-10-0096-10, smokers, by age group. https://www150.statcan.gc.ca/t1/tbl1/en/
tv.action?pid=1310009610 [Accessed February 12, 2020].
Thatcher A. 2015. E-cigarettes more popular than tobacco among youth. Canadian Medical Association Journal
187:E184. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1503/cmaj.109-5010
The Economist. 1998. Tobacco and tolerance: blowing smoke. The Economist. https://www.economist.com/
leaders/2000/07/20/blowing-smoke [Accessed December 20, 1998].
The Economist. 2017. How to cut smoking in poor countries. The Economist. https://www.economist.com/
leaders/2017/06/01/how-to-cut-smoking-in-poor-countries [Accessed June 1, 2017].
Thun MJ, Peto R, Lopez AD, Monaco JH, Henley SJ, Heath CW, Doll R. 1997. Alcohol consumption and mortality
among middle-aged and elderly U.S. adults. New England Journal of Medicine 337:1705–1714. DOI: https://
doi.org/10.1056/NEJM199712113372401, PMID: 9392695
Thun MJ, Henley SJ, Calle EE. 2002. Tobacco use and Cancer: an epidemiologic perspective for geneticists.
Oncogene 21:7307–7325. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/sj.onc.1205807, PMID: 12379875
Thun MJ, Hannan LM, Adams-Campbell LL, Boffetta P, Buring JE, Feskanich D, Flanders WD, Jee SH, Katanoda
K, Kolonel LN, Lee IM, Marugame T, Palmer JR, Riboli E, Sobue T, Avila-Tang E, Wilkens LR, Samet JM. 2008.
Lung Cancer occurrence in never-smokers: an analysis of 13 cohorts and 22 Cancer registry studies. PLOS
Medicine 5:e185. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pmed.0050185, PMID: 18788891
Thun MJ, Carter BD, Feskanich D, Freedman ND, Prentice R, Lopez AD, Hartge P, Gapstur SM. 2013. 50-year
trends in smoking-related mortality in the united states. New England Journal of Medicine 368:351–364.
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMsa1211127, PMID: 23343064
Thun MJ, Burns DM. 2001. Health impact of “Reduced yield” cigarettes: A critical assessment of the
epidemiological evidence. Tobacco Control 10:i4–i11. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1136/tc.10.suppl_1.i4,
PMID: 11740038
Timofeeva MN, Hung RJ, Rafnar T, Christiani DC, Field JK, Bickeböller H, Risch A, McKay JD, Wang Y, Dai J,
Gaborieau V, McLaughlin J, Brenner D, Narod SA, Caporaso NE, Albanes D, Thun M, Eisen T, Wichmann HE,
Rosenberger A, et al. 2012. Influence of common genetic variation on lung Cancer risk: meta-analysis of 14 900
cases and 29 485 controls. Human Molecular Genetics 21:4980–4995. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/hmg/
dds334, PMID: 22899653
Tomasetti C, Vogelstein B. 2015. Variation in cancer risk among tissues can be explained by the number of stem
cell divisions. Science 347:78–81. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1260825, PMID: 25554788
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. 1988. The Health Consequences of Smoking: Nicotine
Addiction: A Report of the Surgeon General Rockville, MD, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services,
Public Health Service, Centers for Disease Control, National Center for Chronic Disease Prevention and Health
Promotion, Office on Smoking and Health.
Jha. eLife 2020;9:e49979. DOI: https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.49979 41 of 47
Review Article Epidemiology and Global Health
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. 1989. Reducing the Health Consequences of Smoking: 25
Years of Progress. a Report of the Surgeon General. Rockville, MD: U.S. Department of Health and Human
Services, Public Health Service, Centers for Disease Control, National Center for Chronic Disease Prevention
and Health Promotion, Office on Smoking and Health.
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. 1990. The Health Benefits of Smoking Cessation: A Report of
the Surgeon General. Rockville, MD: Department of Health and Human Services, Centers for Disease Control,
National Center for Chronic Disease Prevention and Health Promotion, Office on Smoking and Health.
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. 2004. The Health Consequences of Smoking: A Report of the
Surgeon General. Atlanta, GA: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Centers for Disease Control
and Prevention, National Center for Chronic Disease Prevention and Health Promotion, Office on Smoking and
Health .
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. 2010a. Ending the Tobacco Epidemic: A Tobacco Control
Strategic Action Plan for the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. Washington, DC: Office of the
Assistant Secretary for Health.
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. 2010b. How Tobacco Smoke Causes Disease—The Biology
and Behavioral Basis for Smoking-Attributable Disease: A Report of the Surgeon General. Atlanta, GA: U.S.
Department of Health and Human Services, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, National Center for
Chronic Disease Prevention and Health Promotion, Office on Smoking and Health .
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. 2014. Smoking—50 Years of Progress: A Report of the
Surgeon General. Atlanta, GA: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Centers for Disease Control
and Prevention, National Center for Chronic Disease Prevention and Health Promotion, Office on Smoking and
Health.
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. 2016. E-Cigarette Use Among Youth and Young Adults; a
Report of the Surgeon General. Atlanta, US: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Centers for
Disease Control and Prevention, National Center for Chronic Disease Prevention and Health Promotion, Office
on Smoking and Health.
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. 2020. Smoking Cessation: A Report of the Surgeon General.
Rockville, MD: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Public Health Service, Office of the Surgeon
General.
U.S. Department of Health, Education, and Welfare. 1964. Smoking and Health: Report of the Advisory
Committee to the Surgeon General. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Health, Education, and Welfare,
Public Health Service.
Vucic EA, Chari R, Thu KL, Wilson IM, Cotton AM, Kennett JY, Zhang M, Lonergan KM, Steiling K, Brown CJ,
McWilliams A, Ohtani K, Lenburg ME, Sin DD, Spira A, Macaulay CE, Lam S, Lam WL. 2014. DNA methylation
is globally disrupted and associated with expression changes in chronic obstructive pulmonary disease small
airways. American Journal of Respiratory Cell and Molecular Biology 50:912–922. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1165/
rcmb.2013-0304OC, PMID: 24298892
Warner KE. 2019. How to Think-Not Feel-about tobacco harm reduction. Nicotine & Tobacco Research 21:1299–
1309. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/ntr/nty084, PMID: 29718475
Waxman HA. 2003. Tobacco industry statements in the US department of justice lawsuit. Tobacco Control 12:
94–101. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1136/tc.12.1.94, PMID: 12612372
World Bank. 2019. Confronting Illicit Tobacco Trade: A Global Review of Country Experiences (English). WBG
Global Tobacco Control Program. Washington, US: World Bank Group.
World Health Organization. 2016. Summary Tables of Mortality Estimates by Cause, Age and Sex, by Country,
2000–2015 Geneva: World Health Organization .
World Health Organization. 2017. WHO Report on the Global Tobacco Epidemic 2017: Monitoring Tobacco
Use and Prevention Policies Geneva, World Health Organization.
Wynder EL, Graham EA. 1950. Tobacco smoking as a possible etiologic factor in Bronchiogenic Carcinoma; a
study of 684 proved cases. Journal of the American Medical Association 143:329–336. DOI: https://doi.org/10.
1001/jama.1950.02910390001001, PMID: 15415260
Yusuf S, Hawken S, Ôunpuu S, Dans T, Avezum A, Lanas F, McQueen M, Budaj A, Pais P, Varigos J, Lisheng L.
2004. Effect of potentially modifiable risk factors associated with myocardial infarction in 52 countries (the
INTERHEART study): case-control study. The Lancet 364:937–952. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736
(04)17018-9
Yusuf S, Joseph P, Rangarajan S, Islam S, Mente A, Hystad P, Brauer M, Kutty VR, Gupta R, Wielgosz A, AlHabib
KF, Dans A, Lopez-Jaramillo P, Avezum A, Lanas F, Oguz A, Kruger IM, Diaz R, Yusoff K, Mony P, et al. 2020.
Modifiable risk factors, cardiovascular disease, and mortality in 155Not Def722 individuals from 21 high-
income, middle-income, and low-income countries (PURE): a prospective cohort study. The Lancet 395:795–
808. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(19)32008-2
Zaridze D, Brennan P, Boreham J, Boroda A, Karpov R, Lazarev A, Konobeevskaya I, Igitov V, Terechova T,
Boffetta P, Peto R. 2009. Alcohol and cause-specific mortality in Russia: a retrospective case–control study of
48557 adult deaths. The Lancet 373:2201–2214. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(09)61034-5
Zaridze D, Lewington S, Boroda A, Scélo G, Karpov R, Lazarev A, Konobeevskaya I, Igitov V, Terechova T,
Boffetta P, Sherliker P, Kong X, Whitlock G, Boreham J, Brennan P, Peto R. 2014. Alcohol and mortality in
Russia: prospective observational study of 151000 adults. The Lancet 383:1465–1473. DOI: https://doi.org/10.
1016/S0140-6736(13)62247-3
Jha. eLife 2020;9:e49979. DOI: https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.49979 42 of 47
Review Article Epidemiology and Global Health
Zhu SH, Zhuang YL, Wong S, Cummins SE, Tedeschi GJ. 2017. E-cigarette use and associated changes in
population smoking cessation: evidence from US current population surveys. BMJ 358:j3262. DOI: https://doi.
org/10.1136/bmj.j3262, PMID: 28747333
Jha. eLife 2020;9:e49979. DOI: https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.49979 43 of 47
Review Article Epidemiology and Global Health
Appendix 1
Appendix 1—table 1. Relative risks for various diseases by smoking status, adults 35 or older in the
United States.
Current smokers (years
of age)
Former smokers
(years of age)
35-
54
55-
64
65-
74
�75 35-
54
55-
64
65-
74
�75
MALES
Lung Cancer 14.33 19.03 28.29 22.51 4.4 4.57 7.79 6.46
Other Cancers 1.74 1.86 2.35 2.18 1.36 1.31 1.49 1.46
Coronary heart disease 3.88 2.99 2.76 1.98 1.83 1.52 1.58 1.32
Other heart disease 2.22 1.66 1.32 1.15
Cerebrovascular disease 2.17 1.48 1.23 1.12
Other vascular diseases 7.25 4.93 2.2 1.72
Diabetes mellitus 1.5 1 1.53 1.06
Other cardiovascular diseases 2.4 2.51 1.07 1.51
Influenza, pneumonia, tuberculosis 2.58 1.62 1.62 1.42
Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease 29.69 23.01 8.13 6.55
Influenza, pneumonia, tuberculosis, chronic obstructive
pulmonary disease
4.47 15.17 2.22 3.98
All Causes 2.55 2.97 3.02 2.4 1.33 1.47 1.57 1.41
FEMALES
Lung Cancer 13.3 18.95 23.65 23.08 2.64 5 6.8 6.38
Other Cancers 1.28 2.08 2.06 1.93 1.24 1.28 1.26 1.27
Coronary heart disease 4.98 3.25 3.29 2.25 2.23 1.21 1.56 1.42
Other heart disease 1.85 1.75 1.29 1.32
Cerebrovascular disease 2.27 1.7 1.24 1.1
Other vascular diseases 6.81 5.77 2.26 2.02
Diabetes mellitus 1.54 1.1 1.29 1.06
Other cardiovascular diseases 2.44 1.98 1 1.1
Influenza, pneumonia, tuberculosis 1.75 2.06 1.28 1.21
Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease 38.89 20.96 15.72 7.06
Influenza, pneumonia, tuberculosis, chronic obstructive
pulmonary disease
6.43 9 1.85 4.84
All Causes 1.79 2.63 2.87 2.47 1.22 1.34 1.53 1.43
Source: USSGR Report, 2014. Analyses of Cancer Prevention Study II (CPS-II) and updated analyses of
the pooled contemporary cohort population described in Thun et al. (2013) provided to the Centers
for Disease Control and Prevention, National Center for Chronic Disease Prevention and Health
Promotion, Office on Smoking and Health. See Table 12.3 of the USSGR Report for important details
on each condition.
Appendix 1—table 2. Estimates of smoking-attributable deaths in US, UK, and Canada from 1950
to 2015.
US UK Canada
Continued on next page
Jha. eLife 2020;9:e49979. DOI: https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.49979 44 of 47
Review Article Epidemiology and Global Health
Appendix 1—table 2 continued
US UK Canada
Year
No of cigarettes
sold nationally
Deaths
from
smoking at
all ages
Cigs/
death no
lag
Cigs/
death 20
year lag
No of
cigarettes sold
nationally
Deaths
from
smoking
at all
ages
Cigs/
death no
lag
Cigs/
death
20 year
lag
No of
cigarettes sold
nationally
Deaths
from
smoking
at all
ages
Cigs/
death no
lag
Cigs/
death 20
year lag
Year
No of cigarettes
sold nationally
Deaths
from
smoking at
all ages
Cigs/
death no
lag
Cigs/
death 20
year lag
No of
cigarettes sold
nationally
Deaths
from
smoking
at all
ages
Cigs/
death no
lag
Cigs/
death
20 year
lag
No of
cigarettes sold
nationally
Deaths
from
smoking
at all
ages
Cigs/
death no
lag
Cigs/
death 20
year lag
1950 3,60,19,90,00,000 82,350 43,74,001 85,14,50,00,000 78,000 10,91,603 17,17,20,00,000 4,350 39,47,586
1951 3,79,72,50,00,000 93,660 40,54,292 89,33,50,00,000 82,800 10,78,925 15,67,20,00,000 5,240 29,90,840
1952 3,94,10,90,00,000 1,04,970 37,54,492 90,40,00,00,000 87,600 10,31,963 17,84,40,00,000 6,130 29,10,930
1953 3,86,82,60,00,000 1,16,280 33,26,677 92,69,50,00,000 92,400 10,03,193 21,00,00,00,000 7,020 29,91,453
1954 3,68,72,50,00,000 1,27,590 28,89,921 95,23,00,00,000 97,200 9,79,733 22,11,60,00,000 7,910 27,95,954
1955 3,82,06,10,00,000 1,38,900 27,50,619 98,67,00,00,000 1,02,000 9,67,353 24,57,60,00,000 8,800 27,92,727
1956 3,93,15,40,00,000 1,50,210 26,17,362 99,56,00,00,000 1,06,800 9,32,210 27,00,00,00,000 9,690 27,86,378
1957 4,09,43,60,00,000 1,61,520 25,34,894 1,02,25,00,00,000 1,11,600 9,16,219 30,14,40,00,000 10,580 28,49,149
1958 4,36,35,40,00,000 1,72,830 25,24,758 1,04,02,00,00,000 1,16,400 8,93,643 32,40,40,00,000 11,470 28,25,109
1959 4,53,68,10,00,000 1,84,140 24,63,783 1,06,60,00,00,000 1,21,200 8,79,538 33,82,20,00,000 12,360 27,36,408
1960 4,70,13,60,00,000 1,95,450 24,05,403 1,10,90,00,00,000 1,26,000 8,80,159 34,28,90,00,000 13,250 25,87,849
1961 4,88,11,90,00,000 2,06,760 23,60,800 1,13,40,00,00,000 1,30,800 8,66,972 36,69,90,00,000 14,140 25,95,403
1962 4,94,46,30,00,000 2,18,070 22,67,451 1,09,90,00,00,000 1,35,600 8,10,472 38,68,30,00,000 15,030 25,73,719
1963 5,09,58,80,00,000 2,29,380 22,21,589 1,15,20,00,00,000 1,40,400 8,20,513 39,87,70,00,000 15,920 25,04,837
1964 4,97,44,70,00,000 2,40,690 20,66,754 1,14,40,00,00,000 1,45,200 7,87,879 40,63,90,00,000 16,810 24,17,549
1965 5,11,46,40,00,000 2,52,000 20,29,619 1,12,00,00,00,000 1,50,000 7,46,667 43,01,30,00,000 17,700 24,30,113
1966 5,22,53,30,00,000 2,64,800 19,73,312 1,17,60,00,00,000 1,53,500 7,66,124 46,27,60,00,000 18,950 24,42,005
1967 5,27,80,00,00,000 2,77,600 19,01,297 1,19,10,00,00,000 1,57,000 7,58,599 46,86,40,00,000 20,200 23,20,000
1968 5,23,00,80,00,000 2,90,400 18,00,992 1,21,80,00,00,000 1,60,500 7,58,879 46,26,90,00,000 21,450 21,57,063
1969 5,10,53,10,00,000 3,03,200 16,83,809 1,24,90,00,00,000 1,64,000 7,61,585 46,58,20,00,000 22,700 20,52,070
1970 5,32,76,90,00,000 3,16,000 16,85,978 1,27,90,00,00,000 1,67,500 7,63,582 49,82,30,00,000 23,950 20,80,292
1971 5,28,85,80,00,000 3,28,800 16,08,449 1,22,40,00,00,000 1,71,000 7,15,789 50,86,40,00,000 25,200 20,18,413
1972 5,51,01,70,00,000 3,41,600 16,13,047 1,30,50,00,00,000 1,74,500 7,47,851 53,29,10,00,000 26,450 20,14,783
1973 5,90,30,00,00,000 3,54,400 16,65,632 1,37,40,00,00,000 1,78,000 7,71,910 54,86,30,00,000 27,700 19,80,614
1974 5,99,00,00,00,000 3,67,200 16,31,264 1,37,00,00,00,000 1,81,500 7,54,821 57,12,28,01,000 28,950 19,73,154
1975 6,07,20,00,00,000 3,80,000 15,97,895 10,05,424 1,32,60,00,00,000 1,85,000 7,16,757 5,33,351 57,75,57,95,000 30,200 19,12,444 8,13,775
1976 6,13,50,00,00,000 3,92,400 15,63,456 10,01,922 1,30,60,00,00,000 1,84,900 7,06,328 5,38,453 60,74,48,85,000 31,380 19,35,783 8,60,421
1977 6,17,00,00,00,000 4,04,800 15,24,209 10,11,453 1,25,90,00,00,000 1,84,800 6,81,277 5,53,301 61,78,65,71,000 32,560 18,97,622 9,25,799
1978 6,16,00,00,00,000 4,17,200 14,76,510 10,45,911 1,25,20,00,00,000 1,84,700 6,77,856 5,63,184 61,61,00,13,000 33,740 18,26,023 9,60,403
1979 6,21,50,00,00,000 4,29,600 14,46,695 10,56,054 1,24,30,00,00,000 1,84,600 6,73,348 5,77,465 63,86,56,38,000 34,920 18,28,913 9,68,557
1980 6,31,50,00,00,000 4,42,000 14,28,733 10,63,656 1,21,50,00,00,000 1,84,500 6,58,537 6,01,084 64,34,33,00,000 36,100 17,82,363 9,49,834
1981 6,40,00,00,00,000 4,54,400 14,08,451 10,74,206 1,10,30,00,00,000 1,84,400 5,98,156 6,14,967 66,37,56,00,000 37,280 17,80,461 9,84,415
1982 6,34,00,00,00,000 4,66,800 13,58,183 10,59,261 1,02,00,00,00,000 1,84,300 5,53,445 5,96,310 66,15,74,00,000 38,460 17,20,161 10,05,798
1983 6,00,00,00,00,000 4,79,200 12,52,087 10,63,414 1,01,60,00,00,000 1,84,200 5,51,574 6,25,407 62,78,51,03,500 39,640 15,83,883 10,05,979
1984 6,00,40,00,00,000 4,91,600 12,21,318 10,11,894 99,00,00,00,000 1,84,100 5,37,751 6,21,401 62,13,39,14,500 40,820 15,22,144 9,95,566
1985 5,94,00,00,00,000 5,04,000 11,78,571 10,14,810 97,75,00,00,000 1,84,000 5,31,250 6,08,696 59,30,44,61,105 42,000 14,12,011 10,24,119
Continued on next page
Jha. eLife 2020;9:e49979. DOI: https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.49979 45 of 47
Review Article Epidemiology and Global Health
Appendix 1—table 2 continued
US UK Canada
Year
No of cigarettes
sold nationally
Deaths
from
smoking at
all ages
Cigs/
death no
lag
Cigs/
death 20
year lag
No of
cigarettes sold
nationally
Deaths
from
smoking
at all
ages
Cigs/
death no
lag
Cigs/
death
20 year
lag
No of
cigarettes sold
nationally
Deaths
from
smoking
at all
ages
Cigs/
death no
lag
Cigs/
death 20
year lag
1986 5,83,80,00,00,000 5,14,900 11,33,812 10,14,824 95,00,00,00,000 1,82,000 5,21,978 6,46,154 55,76,23,21,860 43,100 12,93,789 10,73,689
1987 5,75,00,00,00,000 5,25,800 10,93,572 10,03,804 96,00,00,00,000 1,80,000 5,33,333 6,61,667 52,87,70,31,890 44,200 11,96,313 10,60,271
1988 5,62,50,00,00,000 5,36,700 10,48,072 9,74,489 97,00,00,00,000 1,78,000 5,44,944 6,84,270 51,33,89,17,800 45,300 11,33,309 10,21,391
1989 5,40,00,00,00,000 5,47,600 9,86,121 9,32,306 98,00,00,00,000 1,76,000 5,56,818 7,09,659 47,76,46,41,600 46,400 10,29,410 10,03,922
1990 5,25,00,00,00,000 5,58,500 9,40,018 9,53,928 1,02,50,00,00,000 1,74,000 5,89,080 7,35,057 46,44,08,01,080 47,500 9,77,701 10,48,905
1991 5,10,00,00,00,000 5,69,400 8,95,680 9,28,799 97,90,00,00,000 1,72,000 5,69,186 7,11,628 39,13,45,12,000 48,600 8,05,237 10,46,584
1992 5,00,00,00,00,000 5,80,300 8,61,623 9,49,538 92,80,00,00,000 1,70,000 5,45,882 7,67,647 35,20,01,50,365 49,700 7,08,253 10,72,254
1993 4,85,00,00,00,000 5,91,200 8,20,365 9,98,478 88,90,00,00,000 1,68,000 5,29,167 8,17,857 30,34,98,69,580 50,800 5,97,438 10,79,980
1994 4,86,00,00,00,000 6,02,100 8,07,175 9,94,851 88,30,00,00,000 1,66,000 5,31,928 8,25,301 45,93,47,44,885 51,900 8,85,063 11,00,632
1995 4,87,00,00,00,000 6,13,000 7,94,454 9,90,538 88,00,00,00,000 1,64,000 5,36,585 8,08,537 45,70,99,99,540 53,000 8,62,453 10,89,732
1996 4,87,00,00,00,000 6,12,400 7,95,232 10,01,796 87,20,00,00,000 1,60,700 5,42,626 8,12,694 47,33,83,59,350 53,200 8,89,819 11,41,821
1997 4,80,00,00,00,000 6,11,800 7,84,570 10,08,500 84,00,00,00,000 1,57,400 5,33,672 7,99,873 45,64,03,20,710 53,400 8,54,688 11,57,052
1998 4,65,00,00,00,000 6,11,200 7,60,798 10,07,853 84,00,00,00,000 1,54,100 5,45,101 8,12,459 45,55,66,36,420 53,600 8,49,937 11,49,441
1999 4,35,00,00,00,000 6,10,600 7,12,414 10,17,851 84,00,00,00,000 1,50,800 5,57,029 8,24,271 44,87,29,65,600 53,800 8,34,070 11,87,094
2000 4,30,00,00,00,000 6,10,000 7,04,918 10,35,246 81,50,00,00,000 1,47,500 5,52,542 8,23,729 43,36,81,94,700 54,000 8,03,115 11,91,543
2001 4,25,00,00,00,000 6,09,400 6,97,407 10,50,213 79,00,00,00,000 1,44,200 5,47,850 7,64,910 42,08,73,29,210 54,200 7,76,519 12,24,642
2002 4,15,00,00,00,000 6,08,800 6,81,669 10,41,393 76,00,00,00,000 1,40,900 5,39,390 7,23,918 37,62,74,91,460 54,400 6,91,682 12,16,129
2003 4,00,00,00,00,000 6,08,200 6,57,678 9,86,518 74,00,00,00,000 1,37,600 5,37,791 7,38,372 35,81,79,32,599 54,600 6,56,006 11,49,910
2004 3,88,00,00,00,000 6,07,600 6,38,578 9,88,150 72,00,00,00,000 1,34,300 5,36,113 7,37,156 34,57,89,18,606 54,800 6,31,002 11,33,831
2005 3,76,00,00,00,000 6,07,000 6,19,440 9,78,583 70,00,00,00,000 1,31,000 5,34,351 7,46,183 32,97,06,21,643 55,000 5,99,466 10,78,263
2006 3,80,72,63,50,521 6,01,800 6,32,646 9,70,090 67,50,00,00,000 1,41,700 4,76,359 6,70,430 30,21,71,91,194 55,300 5,46,423 10,08,360
2007 3,61,66,52,82,882 5,96,600 6,06,211 9,63,795 64,50,00,00,000 1,39,400 4,62,697 6,88,666 28,70,47,13,382 55,400 5,18,136 9,54,459
2008 3,46,41,92,70,754 5,91,400 5,85,761 9,51,133 61,50,00,00,000 1,37,100 4,48,578 7,07,513 27,55,93,82,153 55,500 4,96,565 9,25,026
2009 3,18,02,91,35,770 5,86,200 5,42,527 9,21,187 58,50,00,00,000 1,34,800 4,33,976 7,27,003 28,62,75,07,225 55,600 5,14,883 8,59,076
2010 3,00,48,93,90,443 5,81,000 5,17,193 9,03,614 52,50,00,00,000 1,32,500 3,96,226 7,73,585 31,65,36,15,884 55,700 5,68,288 8,33,767
2011 2,92,76,91,35,560 5,75,800 5,08,456 8,85,724 50,30,00,00,000 1,30,200 3,86,329 7,51,920 31,17,80,12,116 55,800 5,58,746 7,01,335
2012 2,87,48,65,11,382 5,70,600 5,03,832 8,76,271 46,00,00,00,000 1,27,900 3,59,656 7,25,567 31,34,74,37,105 55,900 5,60,777 6,29,699
2013 2,73,78,73,72,153 5,65,400 4,84,237 8,57,800 41,60,00,00,000 1,25,600 3,31,210 7,07,803 31,46,78,96,967 56,000 5,61,927 5,41,962
2014 2,62,68,12,73,103 5,60,200 4,68,906 8,67,547 39,70,00,00,000 1,23,300 3,21,979 7,16,139 29,47,82,34,315 56,000 5,26,397 8,20,263
2015 2,62,68,12,73,103 5,55,000 4,73,300 8,77,477 39,70,00,00,000 1,21,000 3,28,099 7,27,273 29,47,82,34,315 56,000 5,26,397 8,16,250
US UK CANADA
TOTALS
since 1950
3,12,38,43,
79,95,671
2,79,01,300 63,06,95,
50,00,000
98,63,000 27,73,85,
14,67,659
23,67,750
Average
cigarettes
per death
with no
lag
12,95,403 6,23,238 14,72,021
Average
cigarettes
per death
with 20
year lag
9,83,910 7,01,972 9,95,413
Note. Author’s calculations. Tobacco sales to deaths are shown in the column entitled ‘Deaths from
Jha. eLife 2020;9:e49979. DOI: https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.49979 46 of 47
Review Article Epidemiology and Global Health
smoking at all ages’. For particular years, some data were missing. In this case, I interpolated these
data or did forward projections based on earlier years. These more uncertain numbers are shown in
italics.
Jha. eLife 2020;9:e49979. DOI: https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.49979 47 of 47
Review Article Epidemiology and Global Health
Template for Systematic Reivew
STUDY TITLE:
INVESTIGATOR(S): names
ABSTRACT
RESEARCH QUESTION
OBJECTIVES AND SPECIFIC AIM(S):
BACKGROUND
RESEARCH METHODS
Eligibility criteria:
Types of studies
Types of participants
Types of interventions ((if applicable)
Types of outcome measures
Search Strategy and Information Sources
Methods of the Review (data collection process):
Assessment of methodological quality
Data extraction
Data synthesis
REVIEW RESULTS
Description of the selected studies
Methodological quality
Results of individual studies:
DISCUSSION
Limitations
Conclusions
Implications for practice
Implications for research
REFERENCES: (USE ENDNOTE)
3/16/2022 Page 2 of 2
2
PLEASE USE THIS PICOT, OBJECTVE, AND STATEMENT BELOW TO CPMPLETE THE ATTACHED TEMPLATE
Question 1: PICOT
P= The research will use secondary research conducted within the last 10 years.
I= A systematic research review method will be applied to provide a review of the existing research regarding the topic.
C= Comparison between the mortality rates between active smokers and non-smokers who quit smoking before age 4
O= Determine impacts of smoking on mortality rates of individuals.
T= The time needed for the research is one and half months to complete an adequate review of existing research.
Question 2: Objective
Determine the risks of smoking and advantages of ceasing the habit.
Statement
Due to the persistence of the smoking behaviors within the contemporary society, there is an increase in awareness regarding the hazardousness of the behavior. The research aims at increasing advocacy against by incorporating various research results regarding adverse health impacts of smoking to provide a more generalizable result for reducing smoking behaviors, especially among the young populations.
Please use the attached article to prepare 17-18 slide power points with 6 references
Please use the attached article to write 6-8 pages paper APA format summarizing the article, the objective of the article, the population targeted and the benefits or impact of smoking . 4 references.
Needs help with similar assignment?
We are available 24x7 to deliver the best services and assignment ready within 3-12 hours? PAY FOR YOUR FIRST ORDER AFTER COMPLETION..
Get Answer Over WhatsApp
Order Paper Now
