Skip to main content
Erschienen in: BMC Medicine 1/2020

Open Access 01.12.2020 | Research article

Global burden of disease due to smokeless tobacco consumption in adults: an updated analysis of data from 127 countries

verfasst von: Kamran Siddiqi, Scheherazade Husain, Aishwarya Vidyasagaran, Anne Readshaw, Masuma Pervin Mishu, Aziz Sheikh

Erschienen in: BMC Medicine | Ausgabe 1/2020

Abstract

Background

Smokeless tobacco (ST) is consumed by more than 300 million people worldwide. The distribution, determinants and health risks of ST differ from that of smoking; hence, there is a need to highlight its distinct health impact. We present the latest estimates of the global burden of disease due to ST use.

Methods

The ST-related disease burden was estimated for all countries reporting its use among adults. Using systematic searches, we first identified country-specific prevalence of ST use in men and women. We then revised our previously published disease risk estimates for oral, pharyngeal and oesophageal cancers and cardiovascular diseases by updating our systematic reviews and meta-analyses of observational studies. The updated country-specific prevalence of ST and disease risk estimates, including data up to 2019, allowed us to revise the population attributable fraction (PAF) for ST for each country. Finally, we estimated the disease burden attributable to ST for each country as a proportion of the DALYs lost and deaths reported in the 2017 Global Burden of Disease study.

Results

ST use in adults was reported in 127 countries; the highest rates of consumption were in South and Southeast Asia. The risk estimates for cancers were also highest in this region. In 2017, at least 2.5 million DALYs and 90,791 lives were lost across the globe due to oral, pharyngeal and oesophageal cancers that can be attributed to ST. Based on risk estimates obtained from the INTERHEART study, over 6 million DALYs and 258,006 lives were lost from ischaemic heart disease that can be attributed to ST. Three-quarters of the ST-related disease burden was among men. Geographically, > 85% of the ST-related burden was in South and Southeast Asia, India accounting for 70%, Pakistan for 7% and Bangladesh for 5% DALYs lost.

Conclusions

ST is used across the globe and poses a major public health threat predominantly in South and Southeast Asia. While our disease risk estimates are based on a limited evidence of modest quality, the likely ST-related disease burden is substantial. In high-burden countries, ST use needs to be regulated through comprehensive implementation of the World Health Organization Framework Convention for Tobacco Control.
Hinweise

Supplementary information

Supplementary information accompanies this paper at https://​doi.​org/​10.​1186/​s12916-020-01677-9.

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Abkürzungen
CI
Confidence intervals
DALYs
Disability-adjusted life years
DHS
Demographic and Health Surveys
GATS
Global Adult Tobacco Survey
ICS
Individual Country Survey
PAF
Population attributable fraction
SEBS
Special Europe Barometer Survey
ST
Smokeless tobacco
STEPS
STEPwise Approach to Surveillance
TSNA
Tobacco-specific nitrosamines
WHO
World Health Organization

Background

Smokeless tobacco (ST) refers to various tobacco-containing products that are consumed by chewing, keeping in the mouth or sniffing, rather than smoking [1]. ST products of many different sorts are used by people in every inhabited continent of the world (Table 1) [1]. For example, in Africa, toombak and snuff are commonly used, while in South America, chimó is the product of choice. In Australia, indigenous people use pituri or mingkulpa [2], and in Central Asia, nasvay consumption is very common. In North America, plug or snuff are favoured, and even in Western Europe, where ST products are largely banned, there are exemptions allowing people in Nordic countries to use snus [3]. All the above products vary in their preparation methods, composition and associated health risks (Table 1), but it is in South and Southeast Asia where the greatest diversity of ST products exists, accompanied by the highest prevalence of use [4]. Here, the level of cultural acceptability is such that ST products are often served like confectionery at weddings and other social occasions.
Table 1
Smokeless tobacco products consumed most commonly across the world
Smokeless tobacco products
Regions (WHO)
Countries (highest consumption)
Other ingredients
Preparation and use
pHa
Nicotinea (mg/g)
Total TSNAa (ng/g)
Snus (Swedish)
Europe (region A)
Nordic countries (Denmark, Finland, Iceland, Norway, Sweden)
Water, sodium carbonate, sodium chloride, moisturisers, flavouring
A heat treatment process; placed between the gum and upper lip
6.6–7.2
7.8–15.2
601–723
Plug, Snuff (US), Snus (US)
Americas (regions A and B)
The USA, Canada, Mexico
Sweeteners, liquorice
Plug; air cured
4.7–7.8
3.9–40.1
313–76,500
Dry or moist snuff; finely ground and fire cured
Snus; steam cured
Snuff; kept between lip and gum, dry snuff can be inhaled too
Chimó
Americas (region B)
Venezuela, Colombia
Sodium bicarbonate, brown sugar, Mamo’n tree ashes
Tobacco paste made from tobacco leaves; placed between the lip or cheek and gum and left there for some time
6.9–9.4
5.3–30.1
9390
Nass (Naswar)
Europe (region B) and Eastern Mediterranean (region D)
Uzbekistan, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Iran
Lime, ash, flavourings (cardamom), indigo
Sundried and powdered; placed between lip or cheek and gum
8.4–9.1
8.9–14.2
478–1380
Toombak
Eastern Mediterranean (region D) and Africa (region D)
Sudan, Chad
Mixed with moist sodium bicarbonate
Fermented and grounded; placed and kept in mouth
7.3–10.1
9.6–28.2
295,000–992,000
Snuff (North and West African)
Africa (region D)
Nigeria, Ghana, Algeria, Cameroon, Chad, Senegal
Dried tobacco leaves mixed with potassium nitrate and other salts
Dry snuff; finely ground and inhaled as a pinch
9.0–9.4
2.5–7.4
1520–2420
Moist snuff is placed in mouth
Snuff (South African)
Africa (region E)
South Africa
Dried tobacco leaves mixed with ash
Dry snuff; finely ground and inhaled as a pinch
6.5–10.1
1.2–17.2
1710–20,500
Khaini
South East Asia (regions B and D),Western Pacific (region B), Eastern Mediterranean (region D), and Europe (region A)
India, Bangladesh, Nepal, Bhutan
Slaked lime, menthol, flavourings, areca nut
Shredded; kept in mouth between lips and gum
9.6–9.8
2.5–4.8
21,600–23,900
Zarda
Bangladesh, India, Pakistan, Myanmar, Thailand, Indonesia, Nepal, Maldives, Sri Lanka, UK
Served wrapped in a betel leaf with lime, catechu, areca nuts
Shredded tobacco leaves are boiled with lime and saffron; the mixture is dried then chewed and spat
5.2–6.5
9.5–30.4
5490–53,700
Gutkha
India, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Nepal, Myanmar, Sri Lanka, UK
Betel nut, catechu, flavourings, sweeteners
Commercially manufactured; sucked, chewed, and spat
7.4–8.9
0.2–4.2
83–23,900
Afzal
Eastern Mediterranean (region B)
Oman
Dried tobacco mixed with various additives
Fermented; kept in mouth between lips and gums, users suck the juice, and spit out the rest
10.4
48.7
3573
Iq’mik
Americas (region A)
The USA
Tobacco combined with fungus or plant ash
Involves a burning process to make fungus ash; chewed
11.0
35.0–43.0
15–4910
Rapé
Americas (region B)
Brazil
Tobacco mixed with finely ground plant materials (tonka bean, cinnamon, clove buds, etc.) or alkaline ashes
Nasal snuff; air cured or heated, then pulverised, finely sifted, and mixed
5.2–10.2
6.3–47.6
88–24,200
Pituri/Mingkulpa
Western Pacific (region B)
Australia
Tobacco mixed with wood ash
Chewed as quid, kept in mouth and/or held against skin
5.47–11.6
4.8
15,280
WHO World Health Organization, TSNA tobacco-specific nitrosamines
aFigures are adapted from [1, 2, 1823]
ST products contain nicotine and are highly addictive. Often, they also contain carcinogens, such as tobacco-specific nitrosamines (TSNA), arsenic, beryllium, cadmium, nickel, chromium, nitrite and nitrate, in varying levels depending on the product [5, 6]. The pH of the products also varies widely, with some (e.g. khaini, zarda) listing slaked lime among their ingredients [7]. Raising the pH in this way increases the absorption of nicotine and enhances the experience of using the ST product, increasing the likelihood of dependence. The elevated pH also increases the absorption of carcinogens, leading to higher toxicity and greater risk of harm [7].
The harmful nature of many ST products, and the fact that 300 million people around the world use ST [8], make ST consumption a global public health issue. Many ST products lead to different types of head and neck cancers [9, 10]. An increased risk of cardiovascular deaths has been reported [11], and its use in pregnancy is associated with stillbirths and low birth weight [12, 13].
Because of the diversity described above, ST should not be considered as a single product, but rather as groups of products with differences in their toxicity and addictiveness, depending on their composition. As a consequence, it is difficult to estimate the global risks of ST to human health and to agree on international policies for ST prevention and control. Several country-specific studies [14, 15] have been carried out, and in 2015, we published an estimate of the global burden of disease associated with ST use [16]. We used a novel approach, whereby we classified ST products according to their availability in different geographical regions of the world. For example, ST products in South Asia pose a much greater risk to health than those available in Nordic countries, where the manufacturing process removes many of the toxins from the finished product [6, 17]. Using this approach, we estimated the worldwide burden of disease attributable to ST consumption, measured in terms of disability adjusted life years (DALYs) lost and the numbers of deaths in 2010 [16]. Here, we update this estimate to include data up to 2019, providing an indication of how the global ST arena has changed in the intervening years.

Methods

Our methods for updating the estimates of ST disease burden were broadly the same as those used in our earlier publication; these are well described elsewhere [16]. Here, we will summarise these methods and explain any modification made, particularly in relation to the revised timelines. We assessed disease burden for individual countries by varying their populations’ exposure to ST, using the comparative risk assessment method [15]. These individual estimates were then summarised for 14 World Health Organization (WHO) sub-regions (Additional file 1: Appendix 1) as well as for the world.
We first searched the literature to identify the latest point prevalence of ST use among adults ≥ 15 years in men and women for each country (see Additional file 1: Appendix 2 for detailed methods). We searched for the latest estimates for x countries included in our previous study as well as those additional y countries where estimates have been made available since 2014 for the first time. We derived single estimates for each country preferring nationally representative surveys using internationally comparable methods over non-standardised national or sub-national surveys.
We also updated risk estimates for individual diseases caused by ST; however, we kept to the original list of conditions, i.e. cancers of the oral cavity, pharynx and oesophagus, ischemic heart disease and stroke. We only searched for papers published since our last literature search; our updated search strategies can be found in Additional file 1: Appendix 3. As before, all searches and data extraction were independently scrutinised by a second researcher and any discrepancies were arbitrated by a third researcher. All case definitions for diseases and exposure (ST use) used in the retrieved articles were checked for accuracy and consistency and all analyses undertaken in these studies were assessed to see if they controlled for key confounders (mainly smoking and alcohol). We assessed study quality using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale for assessing non-randomised studies in meta-analysis [24]. For all new studies, we log transformed their risk estimates and 95% confidence intervals to effect sizes and standard errors and added these to the rerun of our random-effects meta-analyses to estimate pooled risk estimates for individual conditions. Where possible, we pooled effect sizes to obtain country-specific risk estimates. For all outcomes in the meta-analyses, we conducted a GRADE assessment to assess the quality of evidence. We also pooled these effect sizes to obtain non-specific global risk estimates. Given that the risk varies from country to country, depending upon which products are locally popular, we used country-specific risk estimates where possible. In countries with no estimates, we used estimates of those countries where similar ST products were consumed. For other countries without estimates that consumed ST products known to contain high levels of TSNAs, we applied non-specific global estimates. Where no information was available on the composition of ST, we did not apply any estimates. Details on how these statistically significant estimates were applied to each WHO sub-region can be found in web Additional file 1: Appendix 4.
Based on the extent to which the included studies adjusted for potential confounders, we categorised them as ‘best-adjusted’ and ‘others’. We carried out a sensitivity analysis for all risks and attributable disease burden estimates including only ‘best-adjusted’ studies. A sensitivity analysis was also carried out by estimating risk estimates separating out cohort from case-control studies.
For each country, we used their point prevalence of ST use and the allocated risk estimate for each condition to estimate its population attributable fraction (PAF) as below:
$$ {\displaystyle \begin{array}{c}\mathrm{PAF}={\mathrm{P}}_{\mathrm{e}}\left({\mathrm{RR}}_{\mathrm{e}}-1\right)/\left[1+{\mathrm{P}}_{\mathrm{e}}\left({\mathrm{RR}}_{\mathrm{e}}-1\right)\right]\\ {}{\mathrm{P}}_{\mathrm{e}}=\Pr \mathrm{evalence}\kern0.75em {\mathrm{RR}}_{\mathrm{e}}=\operatorname{Re}\mathrm{lative}\ \mathrm{risk}\end{array}} $$
Using the 2017 Global Burden of Disease (GBD) Study, we also extracted the total disease burden (B) in terms of number of deaths and DALYs lost due to the conditions associated with ST use for both men and women. The attributable burden (AB) due to ST was then estimated in deaths and DALYs lost for these conditions for both men and women using the following equation.
$$ \mathrm{AB}=\mathrm{PAF}\times \mathrm{B} $$

Results

ST consumption was reported in 127 countries (Fig. 1). These estimates were extracted from nationally representative cross-sectional surveys conducted either as part of international (97/127) or national (30/127) health and tobacco surveillance (Additional file 1: Appendix 5a). A variety of age ranges (as young as 15 or as old as 89, including no upper age limit) were used to define adults.
ST consumption was more common among males than females in 95 countries (Table 2). Among males, Myanmar (62.2%), Nepal (31.3%), India (29.6%), Bhutan (26.5%) and Sri Lanka (26.0%) had the highest consumption rates. Among females, Mauritania (28.3%), Timor Leste (26.8%), Bangladesh (24.8%), Myanmar (24.1%) and Madagascar (19.6%) had the highest consumption rates. Within Europe, Sweden (25.0% males, 7.0% females) and Norway (20.1% males, 6.0% females) had the highest ST (snus) consumption rates.
Table 2
Prevalence of smokeless tobacco use (%) in different countries of the world according to WHO sub-regional classification
WHO sub-regions
Country
M
F
Source
Year
Africa (region D)
Algeria*
10
0.8
Algeria Adult Tobacco Survey [25]
2010
Benin*
9
3
STEPS [26]
2015
Burkina Faso*
5.6
11.6
STEPS [26]
2013
Cameroon*
2.2
3.8
GATS [27]
2013
Cape Verde
3.5
5.8
STEPS [26]
2007*
Chad
1.9
0.4
STEPS [26]
2008
Comoros
7.72
2.99
DHS [28]
2012
Gabon
0.48
0.34
DHS [28]
2012
Gambia
0.8
1.4
STEPS [26]
2010 *
Ghana
1.33
0.2
DHS [28]
2008
Guinea
1.4
1.5
STEPS [26]
2009
Liberia*
1.1
3.1
STEPS [26]
2011
Madagascar
24.66
19.6
DHS [28]
2009
Mali
5
1.2
STEPS [26]
2007
Mauritania
5.7
28.3
STEPS [26]
2006
Niger
4.55
2.3
DHS [29]
2012
Nigeria*
2.9
0.9
GATS [27]
2012
Sao Tome & Principe
3.8
1.9
STEPS [26]
2009
Senegal*
0.3
1
GATS [27]
2015
Seychelles**
0.3
0.4
The Seychelles Heart Study IV [25]
2013–14
Sierra Leone
2.9
12.1
STEPS [26]
2009
Togo
5.1
2.2
STEPS [26]
2010
Africa (region E)
*Botswana*
1.5
6.5
STEPS [26]
2014
*Burundi
0.03
0.31
DHS [28]
2011
Congo (Brazzaville)
8.3
1.54
DHS [28]
2012
Congo (Republic)
8.67
3.22
DHS [28]
2013
Côte d’Ivoire
0.61
1.27
DHS [28]
2012
Eritrea*
11.6
0.1
STEPS [26]
2011
Ethiopia*
2.6
0.8
GATS [27]
2016
Kenya*
5.3
3.8
GATS [27]
2014
*Lesotho
1.3
9.1
DHS [29]
2009
*Malawi
1.9
5
STEPS [26]
2009
Mozambique
10.94
0.82
DHS [28]
2011
Namibia
1.8
2.3
DHS [29]
2006–07
Rwanda*
0.6
3.3
STEPS [26]
2012
*South Africa*
1.4
8.4
South African Social Attitude Survey [25]
2007
Swaziland*
2.7
1.8
STEPS [26]
2014 *
*Tanzania
2.03
0.83
DHS [28]
2010
Uganda*
1.7
3
GATS [27]
2013
Zambia*
2.2
6.8
STEPS [26]
2017
Zimbabwe
1.6
0.4
DHS [30]
2011
Americas (region A)
*Canada*
0.8
CTADS [31]
2015*
USA
6.5
0.4
ICS [30]
2010
Americas (region B)
Argentina
0.1
0.2
GATS [27]
2012
Barbados
0
0.6
STEPS [26]
2007*
*Brazil
0.6
0.3
GATS [27]
2008
Costa Rica**
0.1
0
GATS [27]
2015
Dominican Republic
1.9
0.3
DHS [29]
2007*
Grenada
2.2
0.3
STEPS [26]
2011
Mexico*
0.4
0
GATS [27]
2015
Panama**
1
0.5
GATS [27]
2013
Paraguay
3
1.6
STEPS [25]
2011
St Kitts & Nevisa
0.3
0.1
STEPS [26]
2007
St Lucia**
1.3
0.2
STEPS [26]
2012*
Trinidad & Tobago
0.5
0.3
STEPS [26]
2011
*Uruguay**
0.3
GATS [27]
2009
Venezuela
6.2
0.9
National Survey of Drugs in the General Population [25]
2011
Americas (region D)
Haiti
2.5
DHS [29]
2005–06*
Eastern Mediterranean (region B)
Kuwait**
0.5
0
STEPS [26]
2014
Libya
2.2
0.1
STEPS [26]
2009
Qatar**
1.3
0
GATS [27]
2013
Saudi Arabia*
1.5
0.3
Saudi Health Information Survey [25]
2014
Tunisia
8.6
2.2
ICS [30]
2005–06
Eastern Mediterranean (region D)
Egypt*
0.4
0
STEPS [26]
2017
Iraq*
0.4
0.02
STEPS [26]
2015
Morocco**
4.4
STEPS [26]
2017
Pakistan*
11.4
3.7
GATS [27]
2014
Sudan*
14.3
0.2
STEPS [26]
2016
Yemen
13.7
4.8
National Health and Demographic Survey [25]
2013
Europe (region A)
Austria*
2.8
0.5
Representative Survey on Substance Abuse [32]
2015
Belgium
1.1
0.6
SEBS [33]
2012
Cyprus
2.1
0.4
SEBS [33]
2012
Czech Republic*
2.2
1.2
The use of tobacco in the Czech Republic [25]
2015
Denmark*
2.3
0.9
Monitoring Smoking Habits in the Danish Population [25]
2015
Finland*
5.6
0.4
Health Behaviour and Health among the Finnish Adult Population [25]
2014
France
1.2
0.6
SEBS [33]
2012
Germany
3.4
3.4
SEBS [33]
2012
Iceland*
13
3
May–December Household Surveys done by Gallup [25]
2015
Ireland
2.2
0.9
SEBS [33]
2012
Italy
1.8
1.5
SEBS [33]
2012
Luxembourg
1.8
1
SEBS [33]
2012
Malta
5.5
1.5
SEBS [33]
2012
Netherlands
0.3
0.1
The Dutch Continuous Survey of Smoking Habits [25]
2011
Norway*
21
6
Statistics Norway Smoking Habits Survey [25]
2015
Portugal
4.4
1.1
SEBS [33]
2012
Slovenia
1.8
0.4
SEBS [33]
2012
Spain
0.4
0.2
SEBS [33]
2012
Sweden*
25
7
National Survey of Public Health [25]
2015
Switzerland*
4.2
1.2
Addiction Monitoring survey [25]
2013
United Kingdom
1.6
0.5
SEBS [33]
2012
Europe (Region B)
Azerbaijan*
0.2
0
National study of risk factors for non-communicable diseases [25]
2011
Armenia
1.8
0
DHS [29]
2005
Bulgaria
0.3
0
SEBS [33]
2012
Georgia
1
0.2
Survey of Risk Factors of Non-Communicable Diseases [25]
2010
*Kazakhstan**
2.8
0
GATS [27]
2014
Kyrgyzstan*
10.1
0.1
STEPS [26]
2013
Poland
1
0.1
GATS [27]
2009
*Romania
0.4
0.2
GATS [27]
2011
Slovakia*
1.9
0.8
Tobacco and Health Education Survey [25]
2014
Uzbekistan*
23.2
0.2
STEPS [26]
2014
Europe (region C)
Latvia*
0.1
0
Health Behaviour among Latvian Adult Population [25]
2014
Lithuania
1.2
0.2
SEBS [33]
2012
Moldova*
0.1
0
DHS [29]
2013
Russia*
0.8
0.1
GATS [27]
2016
Ukraine*
0.4
0
GATS [27]
2017
South East Asia (region B)
Indonesia*
3.9
4.8
Basic Health Research [25]
2013
Sri Lanka*
26
5.3
STEPS [26]
2014
Thailand
1.1
5.2
GATS [27]
2011
South East Asia (region D)
Bangladesh*
16.2
24.8
GATS [27]
2017
Bhutan*
26.5
11
STEPS [26]
2014
India*
29.6
12.8
GATS [27]
2017
Maldives*
3.9
1.4
STEPS [26]
2011
Myanmar*
62.2
24.1
STEPS [26]
2014
Nepal*
31.3
4.8
STEPS [26]
2013
Timor Leste*
16.1
26.8
National survey for non-communicable disease risk factors and injuries [34]
2014
Western Pacific (region A)
Australia*
0.6
0.3
National Drug Strategy Household Survey [25]
2013
Brunei Darussalam**
1.3
2.7
Knowledge, Attitudes and Practices Survey on Non-communicable Diseases [25]
2014–15
Western Pacific (region B)
Cambodia*
0.8
8.6
National Adult Tobacco Survey of Cambodia [25]
2014
China
0.7
0
GATS [27]
2010
Lao People’s Democratic Republic*
0.5
8.6
National Adult Tobacco Survey [25]
2015
Malaysia*
20.4
0.8
National Health And Morbidity Survey [25]
2015
Marshall Islands**
13.7
4
STEPS [26]
2002
Micronesia
22.4
3
STEPS [26]
2002
Mongolia*
0.8
0.2
STEPS [26]
2015
Niue**
0.3
0.2
STEPS [26]
2011
Philippines*
2.7
0.7
GATS [27]
2015
Vietnam*
0.8
2
GATS [27]
2015
CTADS Canadian Tobacco Alcohol and Drugs Survey, DHS the Demographic and Health Surveys, ICS Individual Country Survey, GATS Global Adult Tobacco Survey, SEBS The Special Europe Barometer Survey, STEPS STEPwise approach to Surveillance, WHO World Health Organization
aPopulations of St Kitts and Nevis are tiny and unlikely to affect our estimates
*Countries included in the earlier paper (n = 55), but with updated values
**New countries not included in the earlier paper (n = 12)
Our post-2014 systematic literature search identified an additional four studies demonstrating a causal association between ST and oral cancer; these included two Pakistan-based and one India-based case-control studies and one US-based cohort study (Table 3). No new studies were found for pharyngeal and oesophageal cancers. PRISMA flow diagrams describing the selection process of the studies identified in the literature searches are provided in Additional file 1: Appendix 5b,c. By adding the new studies to the list of studies selected in our first estimates and revising the meta-analyses, we found that the pooled estimates were statistically significant for cancers of the mouth (Fig. 2). The non-specific pooled estimate for oral cancers, based on 36 studies, were 3.94 (95% CI 2.70–5.76). The country-specific relative risk for oral cancers for India was higher (RR 5.32, 95% CI 3.53–8.02) than no-specific estimates and for the USA remained statistically insignificant (RR 0.95, 95% CI 0.70–1.28). Since no new studies were added for pharyngeal and oesophageal cancers, their non-specific risk estimates of 2.23 (95% CI 1.55–3.20) and 2.17 (95% CI 1.70–2.78) remained as per our original estimates, respectively. For cardiovascular diseases, we identified another three Swedish studies for ischaemic heart disease and another two (one in Asia and one in Sweden) for stroke (Table 3). In the absence of any new non-Swedish studies on ischaemic heart disease (Fig. 3), we considered the relative risk (adjusted odds ratio 1.57, 95% CI 1.24–1.99) of myocardial infarction due to ST identified in the 52-country INTERHEART study [35] (conducted across nine WHO regions) as a valid estimate. However, the country-specific (Sweden) relative risk for ischaemic heart disease (RR 0.94, 95% CI 0.87–1.03) and both country-specific (RR 1.02, 95% CI 0.93–1.13 [Sweden]) and non-specific relative risks for stroke (RR 1.03, 95% CI 0.94–1.14) remained statistically insignificant. The GRADE assessment was moderate for oral, pharyngeal and oesophageal cancers and low for IHD (see Additional file 1: Appendix 7).
Table 3
Smokeless tobacco use and risk of cancers, ischaemic heart disease, and stroke—studies included in meta-analysis
Country
Study period
Study design
Exposure status
Inclusion of cigarette/alcohol users
Outcome
Odds ratio/relative risk (95% CIs)
Comments
Quality assessment (NOS)a
Reference
Cancers
 India
2001–2004
Case–control
SLT with or without additives
No/no
Oral cancer
0.49 (0.32–0.75)
Exclusive SLT users
Selection****
Comparability**
Exposure*
[36]
 India
1996–1999
Case–control
Ever SLT users
Yes/yes
Oral cancer
7.31 (3.79–14.1)
Never drinkers adjusted for smoking
Selection****
Comparability**
Exposure*
[37]
9.19 (4.38–19.28)
Never smokers adjusted for alcohol
 India
1982–1992
Case–control
Tobacco quid chewing
Yes/no
Oral cancer
5.80 (3.60–9.34)
Adjusted for smoking
Selection***
Comparability*
Exposure*
[38]
Pharyngeal cancer
1.20 (0.80–1.80)
Lung cancer
0.70 (0.40–1.22)
 India
Not clear
Case–control
Chewing tobacco
No/no
Oral cancer
10.75 (6.58–17.56)
Exclusive SLT users
Selection**
Comparability*
Exposure0
[39]
 India
1990–1997
Cohort
Current SLT users
No/no
Oral cancer
5.50 (3.30–9.17)
Exclusive SLT users
Selection****
Comparability*
Outcome**
[40]
Former SLT users
9.20 (4.60–18.40)
 India
1990–1997
Cohort
Current SLT user
Yes/yes
Oral cancer
2.40 (1.70–3.39)
Adjusted for smoking and alcohol
Selection****
Comparability*
Outcome***
[41]
Former SLT users
2.10 (1.30–3.39)
 India
Not clear
Case–control
Ever SLT users
No/no
Oral cancer
4.23 (3.11–5.75)
Exclusive SLT users
Selection***
Comparability**
Exposure0
[42]
Pharyngeal cancer
2.42 (1.74–3.37)
Laryngeal cancer
2.80 (2.07–3.79)
Oesophageal cancer
1.55 (1.15–2.07)
 India
1968
Case–control
Tobacco
Yes/no
Oral cancer
4.63 (3.50–6.14)
Exclusive chewers and non-chewers data available
Selection***
Comparability**
Exposure0
[43]
Pharyngeal cancer
3.09 (2.31–4.13)
Laryngeal cancer
2.29 (1.72–3.05)
Oesophageal cancer
3.82 (2.84–5.13)
 India
2005–2006
Case–control
Tobacco flakes
Yes/yes
Oral cancer
7.60 (4.90–11.79)
Adjusted for smoking and alcohol
Selection****
Comparability**
Exposure*
[44]
Gutkha
12.70 (7.00–23.04)
Mishiri
3.00 (1.90–4.74)
 India
Not clear
Case–control
Chewing tobacco
Yes/yes
Oral cancer
5.00 (3.60–6.94)
Adjusted for smoking and alcohol
Selection****
Comparability*
Exposure*
[45]
 India
1982–1984
Case–control
Chewing tobacco
Yes/no
Oral cancer
10.20 (2.60–40.02)
Adjusted for smoking
Selection***
Comparability**
Exposure*
[46]
 India
1980–1984
Case–control
SLT users
No/no
Oral cancer
1.99 (1.41–2.81)
Exclusive SLT users
Selection**
Comparability0
Exposure*
[47]
 India
1952–1954
Case–control
Chewing tobacco
No/no
Oral cancer
4.85 (2.32–10.14)
Exclusive SLT users
Selection***
Comparability**
Exposure0
[48]
Pharyngeal cancer
2.02 (0.94–4.33)
Laryngeal cancer
0.76 (0.37–1.56)
 India
1983–1984
Case–control
Snuff (males only)
Yes/yes
Oral cancer
2.93 (0.98–8.76)
Adjusted for smoking and alcohol; adjusted effect size is only among males
Selection***
Comparability0
Exposure*
[49]
 India
Not given
Case–control
Tobacco chewing
Yes/yes
Oropharyngeal cancer
7.98 (4.11–13.58)b
Adjusted for smoking and alcohol
Selection***
Comparability**
Exposure0
[50]
 India
1991–2003
Case–control
Chewing tobacco
No/no
Oral cancer
5.88 (3.66–7.93)
Exclusive SLT users
Selection****
Comparability**
Exposure**
[51]
 India
1950–1962
Case–control
Tobacco with or without paan or lime
Yes/no
Oral and oropharyngeal cancer
41.90 (34.20–51.33)
Exclusive chewer data available; data of habit was not available for the whole cohort
Selection**
Comparability**
Exposure0
[52]
 Pakistan
1996–1998
Case–control
Naswar
Yes/yes
Oral cancer
9.53 (1.73–52.50)
Adjusted for smoking and alcohol
Selection***
Comparability**
Exposure*
[53]
Paan with tobacco
8.42 (2.31–30.69)
 Sweden
1973–2002
Cohort
Snus
Yes/yes
Oral and pharyngeal cancer combined
3.10 (1.50–6.41)
Adjusted for smoking and alcohol
Selection**
Comparability**
Outcome***
[54]
 India
1993–1999
Case–control
Chewing tobacco
Yes/yes
Oral cancer
5.05 (4.26–5.99)
Adjusted for smoking and alcohol
Selection***
Comparability**
Exposure*
[55]
Pharyngeal cancer
1.83 (1.43–2.34)
Oesophageal cancer
2.06 (1.62–2.62)
 Norway
1966–2001
Cohort
Chewing tobacco plus oral snuff
No/no
Oral cancer
1.10 (0.50–2.42)
Adjusted for smoking, might be confounded by alcohol use
Selection***
Comparability*
Outcome***
[56]
Oesophageal cancer
1.40 (0.61–3.21)
Pancreatic cancer
1.67 (1.12–2.49)
Lung cancer
0.80 (0.61–1.05)
 Sweden
1988–1991
Case–control
Oral snuff
Yes/yes
Oral cancer
1.40 (0.80–2.45)
Adjusted for smoking and alcohol
Selection**
Comparability**
Exposure*
[57]
Laryngeal cancer
0.90 (0.50–1.62)
Oesophageal cancer
1.20 (0.70–2.06)
Pharyngeal cancer
0.70 (0.40–1.22)
 Sweden
1969–1992
Cohort
Snus
No/no
Oral cancer
0.80 (0.40–1.60)
Exclusive SLT users
Selection***
Comparability*
Outcome***
[58]
Lung cancer
0.80 (0.50–1.28)
Pancreatic cancer
2.00 (1.20–3.33)
 Sweden
2000–2004
Case–control
Oral snuff
Yes/yes
Oral cancer
0.70 (0.30–1.63)
Adjusted for smoking and alcohol
Selection***
Comparability**
Exposure**
[59]
 Sweden
1980–1989
Case–control
Oral snuff
Yes/yes
Oral cancer
0.80 (0.50–1.28)
Adjusted for smoking and alcohol
Selection**
Comparability**
Exposure***
[60]
 USA
1972–1983
Case–control
Oral snuff
Yes/yes
Oral cancer
0.80 (0.40–1.60)
Not clear if adjusted for smoking and alcohol
Selection**
Comparability0
Exposure*
[61]
Chewing tobacco
1.00 (0.70–1.43)
 USA
Not given
Case–control
SLT use
Yes/yes
Oral cancer
0.90 (0.38–2.13)
Adjusted for smoking and alcohol
Selection***
Comparability**
Exposure*
[10]
Pharyngeal cancer
1.59 (0.84–3.01)
Laryngeal cancer
0.67 (0.19–2.36)
 India
2001–2004
Case–control
Chewing tobacco
No/no
Pharyngeal cancer
3.18 (1.92–5.27)
Exclusive SLT users
Selection***
Comparability**
Exposure*
[62]
Laryngeal cancer
0.95 (0.52–1.74)
 Pakistan
1998–2002
Case–control
Snuff dipping
No/no
Oesophageal cancer
4.10 (1.30–12.93)
Adjusted for areca nut
Selection***
Comparability**
Exposure**
[63]
Quid with tobacco
14.20 (6.40–31.50)
 India
2008–2012
Case–control
Nass chewing
No/no
Oesophageal cancer
2.88 (2.06–4.03)
Exclusive SLT users
Selection***
Comparability**
Exposure**
[64]
Gutkha chewing
2.87 (0.87–9.47)
 India
2007–2011
Case–control
Oral snuff
Yes/yes
Oesophageal cancer
3.86 (2.46–6.06)
Adjusted for smoking and alcohol
Selection**
Comparability**
Exposure*
[65]
 India
2011–2012
Case–control
Chewing tobacco
Yes/yes
Oesophageal cancer
2.63 (1.53–4.52)
Adjusted for smoking and alcohol
Selection***
Comparability**
Exposure*
[66]
 Sweden
1995–1997
Case–control
Oral snuff
Yes/yes
Oesophageal adenocarcinoma
1.20 (0.70–2.06)
Adjusted for smoking and alcohol
Selection***
Comparability**
Exposure*
[67]
Squamous cell carcinoma
1.40 (0.90–2.18)
 Sweden
1969–1993
Cohort
Oral snuff
Yes/no
Oesophageal adenocarcinoma
1.30 (0.80–2.11)
Adjusted for smoking
Selection**
Comparability*
Outcome**
[68]
Squamous cell carcinoma
1.20 (0.80–1.80)
 Sweden
1974–1985
Cohort
SLT users
No/NA
Lung cancer
0.90 (0.20–4.05)
Adjusted for age, region of origin
Selection***
Comparability*
Outcome**
[69]
 Morocco
1996–1998
Case–control
SLT users
Yes/no
Lung cancer
1.05 (0.28–3.94)
Adjusted for smoking
Selection**
Comparability**
Exposure**
[70]
 USA
1977–1984
Case–control
SLT users
Yes/no
Oesophageal cancer
1.20 (0.10–14.40)
Adjusted for smoking
Selection***
Comparability**
Exposure**
[71]
 USA
1986–1989
Case–control
SLT users
Yes/no
Pancreatic cancer
1.40 (0.50–3.92)
Adjusted for smoking
Selection***
Comparability*
Exposure**
[72]
 USA
2000–2006
Case–control
Chewing tobacco
Yes/yes
Pancreatic cancer
0.60 (0.30–1.20)
Adjusted for smoking and alcohol
Selection****
Comparability**
Exposure*
[73]
Oral snuff
0.50 (0.10–2.50)
 Pakistan
2014–2015
Case–control
Ever use of naswar
Yes/yes
Oral cancer
21.20 (8.40–53.8)
Adjusted for smoking; restricted control for alcohol due to cultural sensitivity
Selection****
Comparability**
Exposure***
[74]
 India
March–July, 2013
Case–control
Gutkha
Yes/yes
Oral cancer
5.10 (2.00–10.30)
Adjusted for smoking and alcohol
Selection***
Comparability*
Exposure**
[75]
Chewing tobacco
6.00 (2.30–15.70)
Supari with tobacco
11.40 (3.40–38.20)
Quid with tobacco
6.40 (2.60–15.50)
 Pakistan
1996–1998
Case–control
Quid with tobacco
Yes/yes
Oral cancer
15.68 (3.00–54.90)
Adjusted for smoking and alcohol
Selection**
Comparability*
Exposure***
[76]
Cardiovascular diseases (ischaemic heart disease and stroke)
 52 countries
1999–2003
Case–control
Chewing tobacco
Yes/yes
Myocardial infarction
1.57 (1.24–1.99)
Adjusted for smoking, diet, diabetes, abdominal obesity, exercise, hypertension
Selection****
Comparability**
Exposure*
[35]
 Pakistan
2005–2011
Case–control
Dippers (Naswar)
No/NA
Myocardial infarction
1.46 (1.21–1.78)
Adjusted for age, gender, region, ethnicity, diet, socioeconomic status
Selection****
Comparability**
Exposure**
[77]
Chewers (Paan/Supari/Gutkha)
1.71 (1.46–2.00)
 Bangladesh
2006–2007
Case–control
Ever SLT users
Yes/NA
Myocardial infarction, angina pectoris
2.80 (1.10–7.30)
Adjusted for age, gender, smoking, hypertension
Selection** Comparability** Exposure**
[78]
 Bangladesh
2010
Case–control
Ever SLT users
No/NA
Myocardial infarction, angina pectoris
0.77 (0.52–1.13)
Adjusted for age, gender, area of residence, hypertension, diabetes, stress
Selection*** Comparability** Exposure*
[79]
 India
2013
Case–control
Current SLT users
Yes/yes
Stroke
1.50 (0.80–2.79)
Adjusted for age, smoking, alcohol, diabetes, hypertension
Selection** Comparability** Exposure*
[80]
 Sweden
1989–1991
Case–control
Current snuff users
No/NA
Myocardial infarction
0.89 (0.62–1.29)
Adjusted for age
Selection**** Comparability** Exposure*
[81]
 Sweden
1991–1993
Case–control
Current snuff users
No/NA
Myocardial infarction
0.58 (0.35–0.94)
Adjusted for heredity, education, marital status, hypertension, diabetes, cholesterol
Selection**** Comparability** Exposure**
[82]
 Sweden
1985–2000
Case–control
Current snuff users
No/NA
Stroke
0.87 (0.41–1.83)
Adjusted for education, marital status, diabetes, hypertension, cholesterol
Selection**** Comparability** Exposure**
[83]
 Sweden
1998–2005
Case–control
Current snuff users
No/NA
Myocardial infarction
0.73 (0.35–1.50)
Adjusted for age, hospital catchment area
Selection*** Comparability** Exposure**
[84]
Former snuff users
1.20 (0.46–3.10)
 Sweden
1988–2003
Cohort
Current use of snuff
No/NA
Ischaemic heart disease
0.77 (0.51–1.15)
Adjusted for age, socioeconomic status, residential area, self-reported health, longstanding illnesses, physical activity
Selection*** Comparability** Outcome***
[85]
Stroke
1.07 (0.65–1.77)
 Sweden
1978–2004
Cohort
Ever snuff users
No/NA
Myocardial infarction
0.99 (0.90–1.10)
Adjusted for age, BMI, region of residence
Selection** Comparability** Outcome***
[86]
 Sweden
1985–1999
Case–control
Current snuff users
No/NA
Myocardial infarction
0.82 (0.46–1.43)
Adjusted for BMI, leisure time, physical activity, education, cholesterol
Selection**** Comparability** Exposure*
[87]
Former snuff users
0.66 (0.32–1.34)
 Sweden
1978–2003
Cohort
Ever snuff users
No/NA
Stroke
1.02 (0.92–1.13)
Adjusted for age, BMI, region of residence
Selection** Comparability** Outcome***
[88]
 Sweden
1998–2005
Cohort
Current snuff users
No/NA
Ischaemic heart disease
0.85 (0.51–1.42)
Adjusted for age, hypertension, diabetes, cholesterol
Selection*** Comparability** Outcome*
[89]
Former snuff users
1.07 (0.56–2.04)
Current snuff users
Stroke
1.18 (0.67–2.08)
Former snuff users
1.35 (0.65–2.82)
 Sweden
1991–2004
Cohort
Current snuff users
No/NA
Myocardial infarction
0.75 (0.30–1.87)
Adjusted for age, marital status, occupation, diabetes, BMI, hypertension, physical activity
Selection*** Comparability** Outcome**
[90]
Stroke
0.59 (0.20–1.50)
BMI body mass index, NA not applicable, NOS Newcastle-Ottawa Scale, SLT smokeless tobacco
aNOS for assessing the quality of non-randomised studies in meta-analyses based on selection, comparability, and exposure/outcome. Number of stars (*) indicates the number of criteria met for each of these three categories
bEffect sizes are for oral and pharyngeal cancers combined and were included in the meta-analysis for oral cancer only
We found that most of the included studies adjusted for potential confounders (35/38 for oral, 10/10 for pharyngeal and 15/16 for oesophageal cancers; and 13/16 for IHD) and classified as providing ‘best adjusted’ estimates. According to a sensitivity analysis restricted to only ‘best-adjusted’ studies, the overall risk estimates (RR/OR) for oral cancer increased from 3.94 to 4.46 and for oesophageal cancer from 2.17 to 2.22 (see Additional file 1: sensitivity analysis #1). Separate risk estimates for cohort and case-control studies are included in the Additional file 1: sensitivity analysis #2).
The above risk estimates were included in the mathematical model to estimate the population attributable fraction (PAF), as follows (also see Additional file 1, Appendix 4 for detailed justification): For oral, pharyngeal and oesophageal cancers, Sweden- and US-based country-specific risk estimates were applied to Europe A and America A regions, respectively. Similarly, India-based country-specific risk estimates were applied to Southeast Asia B and D and Western Pacific B regions. No risk estimates were applied to Europe C due to the non-existence of any risk estimates or information about the toxicity of ST products. For all other regions, non-specific country estimates were applied. A few exceptions were made to the above assumptions: a Pakistan-based country-specific estimate was applied for oral cancers for Pakistan and an India-based estimate for the other two cancers; for the UK, India-based country specific estimates were applied due to the predominant use of South Asian products in the country. For ischaemic heart disease, the INTERHEART disease estimates were applied to all WHO regions except two, i.e. Europe A due to the availability of Sweden-based country specific estimates and Europe C due to the non-availability of relevant information. As previously stated, an exception was made for the UK and the INTERHEART estimates were applied.
According to our 2017 estimates, 2,556,810 DALYs lost and 90,791 deaths due to oral, pharyngeal and oesophageal cancers can be attributed to ST use across the globe (Table 4). By applying risk estimates obtained from the INTERHEART study, 6,135,017 DALYs lost and 258,006 deaths from ischaemic heart disease can be attributed to ST use. The overall global disease burden due to ST use amounts to 8,691,827 DALYs lost and 348,798 deaths. The attributable disease burden estimates when restricted to only ‘best adjusted’ studies, did not change significantly; the DALYs lost attributable to ST increased to 8,698,142 and deaths to 349,222.
Table 4
Number of deaths and DALYs lost from SLT use in 2017, by WHO sub-region as defined in Additional file 1: Appendix 1
WHO sub-regionsa
Mouth cancer
Pharyngeal cancer
Oesophageal cancer
Ischaemic heart disease
All causes
M
F
All
M
F
All
M
F
All
M
F
All
M
F
All
Deaths
 Africa D
184
83
267
120
37
157
294
124
418
3414
1497
4911
4012
1741
5753
 Africa E
305
149
454
95
41
136
449
276
725
2231
1797
4027
3079
2263
5343
 Americas A
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
10,298
565
10,863
10,298
565
10,863
 Americas B
1189
112
1301
46
4
50
103
12
115
1275
260
1535
2613
389
3001
 Americas D
0
3
3
0
1
1
0
2
2
0
76
76
0
82
82
 Eastern Mediterranean B
27
3
31
21
1
22
13
1
14
818
122
940
879
128
1007
 Eastern Mediterranean D
5488
3756
9244
611
138
749
752
269
1021
13,062
1982
15,045
19,913
6146
26,059
 Europe A
69
14
84
30
3
33
246
42
288
0
0
0
346
60
405
 Europe B
286
5
291
85
1
86
189
2
192
6552
163
6715
7112
170
7283
 Europe C
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
 Southeast Asia B
663
467
1130
394
148
542
260
123
383
5014
3349
8363
6330
4087
10,418
 Southeast Asia D
25,966
9829
35,795
16,378
4499
20,876
9366
3493
12,859
147,065
50,509
197,573
198,774
68,329
267,103
 Western Pacific A
8
2
11
3
1
4
8
2
10
53
23
76
73
27
100
 Western Pacific B
781
173
954
611
44
655
1841
49
1890
7084
798
7883
10,317
1065
11,382
 Worldwide
34,966
14,597
49,563
18,394
4918
23,312
13,519
4397
17,916
196,867
61,140
258,006
263,746
85,052
348,798
DALYs
 Africa D
5350
2499
7849
3823
1245
5068
7860
3166
11,027
78,500
31,152
109,651
95,533
38,062
133,595
 Africa E
9242
4105
13,348
3174
1323
4497
12,358
6590
18,948
59,082
32,930
92,012
83,856
44,948
128,804
 Americas A
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
180,756
6870
187,626
180,756
6870
187,626
 Americas B
2283
315
2598
1321
104
1425
2562
261
2823
28,177
4397
32,575
34,344
5077
39,421
 Americas D
0
68
68
0
34
34
0
62
62
0
1745
1745
0
1909
1909
 Eastern Mediterranean B
758
90
848
593
42
634
301
23
324
16,420
1919
18,339
18,072
2073
20,145
 Eastern Mediterranean D
177,353
126,901
304,254
19,303
4655
23,958
20,904
7393
28,298
324,744
46,679
371,423
542,305
185,628
727,933
 Europe A
1618
272
1890
686
76
763
4959
682
5641
0
0
0
7263
1030
8293
Europe B
5714
106
5820
2642
30
2672
4871
55
4926
141,562
2177
143,740
154,789
2369
157,158
Europe C
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
 Southeast Asia B
17,730
10,792
28,523
11,164
4319
15,484
6608
2951
9558
122,177
68,896
191,073
157,679
86,958
244,637
 Southeast Asia D
767,549
258,275
1,025,824
471,141
131,531
602,672
252,556
87,759
340,314
3,697,819
1,114,976
4,812,796
5,189,065
1,592,540
6,781,606
 Western Pacific A
201
48
249
78
15
93
166
24
191
809
233
1042
1255
320
1575
 Western Pacific B
20,556
3795
24,351
18,452
1324
19,776
40,948
1055
42,003
157,624
15,371
172,995
237,580
21,545
259,124
 Worldwide
1,008,356
407,266
1,415,621
532,378
144,696
677,074
354,093
110,021
464,114
4,807,671
1,327,346
6,135,017
6,702,497
1,989,330
8,691,827
Among these figures, three quarters of the total disease burden was among men. Geographically, > 85% of the disease burden was in South and Southeast Asia, India accounting for 70%, Pakistan for 7% and Bangladesh for 5% DALYs lost due to ST use (Additional file 1: Appendix 6).

Discussion

ST consumption is now reported in at least two thirds of all countries; however, health risks and the overall disease burden attributable to ST use vary widely depending on the composition, preparation and consumption of these products. Southeast Asian countries share the highest disease burden not only due to the popularity of ST but also due to the carcinogenic properties of ST products. In countries (e.g. Sweden) where ST products are heavily regulated for their composition and the levels of TSNAs, the risk to the population is minimal.
We found ST prevalence figures in 12 countries that did not previously report ST use; new figures were also obtained for 55 countries included in the previous estimates [16]. Among these 55 countries: 19 reported a reduction in ST use among both men and women (e.g. Bangladesh, India, Nepal), 14 only among men (e.g. Laos, Pakistan) and eight only among women (e.g. Bhutan, Sri Lanka) (Fig. 4a, b). On the other hand, 13 countries showed an incline in ST use among both men and women (e.g. Indonesia, Myanmar, Malaysia, Timor Leste) and one country (Sweden) among men only. Overall, our updated ST-related disease burden in 2017 was substantially higher than that for 2010—by approximately 50% for cancers and 25% for ischaemic heart disease. This occurred despite a substantial reduction in ST prevalence in India (constituting 70% of the disease burden) and little change in the disease risk estimates. We are now reporting ST use in 12 more countries; however, the main reason for the increased burden of disease was a global rise in the total mortality and DALYs lost—oral, pharyngeal and oesophageal cancers, in particular. The disease burden due to these cancers lags several decades behind the risk exposure. Therefore, a significant reduction in ST-related disease burden as a result of a reduced prevalence will not become apparent for some time to come. Among other studies estimating ST-related global disease burden, our mortality estimates were far more conservative than those reported by Sinha et al. (652,494 deaths); however, their methods were different from ours [9]. Moreover, Sinha et al.’s estimates included a number of additional diseases such as cervical cancer, stomach cancer and stroke. None of these risks were substantiated in our systematic reviews and meta-analyses. On the other hand, our estimates of 2,556,810 DALYs lost and 90,791 deaths due to cancers are close to those estimated by the GBD Study for 2017, i.e.1,890,882 DALYs lost and 75,962 deaths due to cancers [91]. A reason for the slight difference between these two estimates might be that ours included pharyngeal cancers in the estimates while GBD Study only included oral and oesophageal cancers.
Our methods have several limitations. These have been described in detail elsewhere [16] but are summarised here. Our estimates were limited by the availability of reliable data and caveated by several assumptions. The ST use prevalence data were not available for a third of countries despite reports of ST use there. Where prevalence data were available, there were very few studies providing country-specific disease risks—a particular limitation in Africa and South America. In the absence of country-specific risk estimates, the model relied on assuming that countries that share similar ST products also share similar disease risks. For example, oral cancers risk estimates were only available from five countries (India, Norway, Pakistan, Sweden and the USA). For other countries, the extrapolated risks were based on similarities between ST products sold there and in the above five countries. The estimates for ischemic heart disease must be interpreted with caution, in particular, as the risk estimates for most countries were extrapolated from a single (albeit multi-country) study (INTERHEART). However, we excluded those regions from the above extrapolation where the INTERHEART study was not conducted. As previously noted, the total disease burden observed in 2017 is a consequence of risk exposure over several decades. Therefore, the attributable risk based on the prevalence figures gathered in the last few years may not be accurate. If ST prevalence has been declining in a country over the last few decades, the disease burden obtained by applying more recent prevalence figures may underestimate attributable disease burden. This may well be the case in India where ST use has declined by 17% between the 2009 and 2017 GATS surveys [92]. On the other hand, if ST use is on the rise (e.g. in Timor Leste), the attributable disease burden for 2017 could be an overestimate.
While we found a few more recent ST prevalence surveys and observational studies on the risks associated with ST use, big evidence gaps still remain. The ST surveillance data for many countries are either absent or outdated. The biggest gap is in the lack of observational studies on the risks associated with various types of ST used both within and between countries. While longitudinal studies take time, global surveillance of ST products, their chemical composition and risk profile can help improve the precision of future estimates. As cancer registries become more established around the globe, their secondary data analysis can also provide opportunities to estimate ST-related risks.
ST is the main form of tobacco consumption by almost a quarter of all tobacco users in the world. Yet, its regulation and control lags behind that of cigarettes. The diversity in the composition and toxicity of ST products and the role of both formal and informal sectors in its production, distribution and sale make ST regulation a particular challenge. In a recent policy review of 180 countries that are signatories to WHO FCTC, we found that only a handful of countries have addressed ST control at par with cigarettes [93]. The regulatory bar is often much lower for ST than cigarettes [94]. Where ST control policies are present, there are gaps in their enforcement [95]. On the other hand, Sweden has demonstrated what can be achieved through strong regulations; ST-related harm has not only been reduced significantly, but snus is now used to reduce harm from smoking. Countries where ST use is popular and poses risks to health need to prioritise ST control and apply WHO FCTC articles comprehensively and evenly across all forms of tobacco.

Conclusions

ST is consumed across the globe and poses a major public health threat predominantly in South and Southeast Asia. While our disease risk estimates are based on a limited number of studies with modest quality, the likely disease burden attributable to ST is substantial. In high-burden countries, ST use needs to be regulated through comprehensive implementation and enforcement of the WHO FCTC.

Supplementary information

Supplementary information accompanies this paper at https://​doi.​org/​10.​1186/​s12916-020-01677-9.
Given that this is a secondary analysis of anonymised data that were already publicly available, ethics approval and consent to participate were not applicable.
As above, consent for publication was not applicable.

Competing interests

None declared
Open AccessThis article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://​creativecommons.​org/​licenses/​by/​4.​0/​. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://​creativecommons.​org/​publicdomain/​zero/​1.​0/​) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data.

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Literatur
2.
Zurück zum Zitat Moghbel N, Ryu B, Cabot PJ, Ratsch A, Steadman KJ. In vitro cytotoxicity of Nicotiana gossei leaves, used in the Australian Aboriginal smokeless tobacco known as pituri or mingkulpa. Toxicol Lett. 2016;254:45–51.PubMed Moghbel N, Ryu B, Cabot PJ, Ratsch A, Steadman KJ. In vitro cytotoxicity of Nicotiana gossei leaves, used in the Australian Aboriginal smokeless tobacco known as pituri or mingkulpa. Toxicol Lett. 2016;254:45–51.PubMed
3.
Zurück zum Zitat Maki J. The incentives created by a harm reduction approach to smoking cessation: snus and smoking in Sweden and Finland. Int J Drug Policy. 2015;26:569–74.PubMed Maki J. The incentives created by a harm reduction approach to smoking cessation: snus and smoking in Sweden and Finland. Int J Drug Policy. 2015;26:569–74.PubMed
4.
Zurück zum Zitat Palipudi K, Rizwan SA, Sinha DN, Andes LJ, Amarchand R, Krishnan A, et al. Prevalence and sociodemographic determinants of tobacco use in four countries of the World Health Organization: South-East Asia region: findings from the Global Adult Tobacco Survey. Indian J Cancer. 2014;51(Suppl 1):S24–32.PubMed Palipudi K, Rizwan SA, Sinha DN, Andes LJ, Amarchand R, Krishnan A, et al. Prevalence and sociodemographic determinants of tobacco use in four countries of the World Health Organization: South-East Asia region: findings from the Global Adult Tobacco Survey. Indian J Cancer. 2014;51(Suppl 1):S24–32.PubMed
6.
Zurück zum Zitat Stanfill SB, Connolly GN, Zhang L, Jia LT, Henningfield JE, Richter P, et al. Global surveillance of oral tobacco products: total nicotine, unionised nicotine and tobacco-specific N-nitrosamines. Tob Control. 2011;20:e2.PubMed Stanfill SB, Connolly GN, Zhang L, Jia LT, Henningfield JE, Richter P, et al. Global surveillance of oral tobacco products: total nicotine, unionised nicotine and tobacco-specific N-nitrosamines. Tob Control. 2011;20:e2.PubMed
7.
Zurück zum Zitat Sankhla B, Kachhwaha K, Hussain SY, Saxena S, Sireesha SK, Bhargava A. Genotoxic and carcinogenic effect of gutkha: a fast-growing smokeless tobacco. Addict Health. 2018;10:52–63.PubMedPubMedCentral Sankhla B, Kachhwaha K, Hussain SY, Saxena S, Sireesha SK, Bhargava A. Genotoxic and carcinogenic effect of gutkha: a fast-growing smokeless tobacco. Addict Health. 2018;10:52–63.PubMedPubMedCentral
9.
Zurück zum Zitat Sinha DN, Suliankatchi RA, Gupta PC, Thamarangsi T, Agarwal N, Parascandola M, et al. Global burden of all-cause and cause-specific mortality due to smokeless tobacco use: systematic review and meta-analysis. Tob Control. 2018;27:35–42.PubMed Sinha DN, Suliankatchi RA, Gupta PC, Thamarangsi T, Agarwal N, Parascandola M, et al. Global burden of all-cause and cause-specific mortality due to smokeless tobacco use: systematic review and meta-analysis. Tob Control. 2018;27:35–42.PubMed
10.
Zurück zum Zitat Zhou J, Michaud DS, Langevin SM, McClean MD, Eliot M, Kelsey KT. Smokeless tobacco and risk of head and neck cancer: evidence from a case-control study in New England. Int J Cancer. 2013;132:1911–7.PubMed Zhou J, Michaud DS, Langevin SM, McClean MD, Eliot M, Kelsey KT. Smokeless tobacco and risk of head and neck cancer: evidence from a case-control study in New England. Int J Cancer. 2013;132:1911–7.PubMed
11.
Zurück zum Zitat Vidyasagaran AL, Siddiqi K, Kanaan M. Use of smokeless tobacco and risk of cardiovascular disease: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Eur J Prev Cardiol. 2016;23:1970–81.PubMed Vidyasagaran AL, Siddiqi K, Kanaan M. Use of smokeless tobacco and risk of cardiovascular disease: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Eur J Prev Cardiol. 2016;23:1970–81.PubMed
12.
Zurück zum Zitat Inamdar AS, Croucher RE, Chokhandre MK, Mashyakhy MH, Marinho VCC. Maternal smokeless tobacco use in pregnancy and adverse health outcomes in newborns: a systematic review. Nicotine Tob Res. 2015;17:1058–66.PubMed Inamdar AS, Croucher RE, Chokhandre MK, Mashyakhy MH, Marinho VCC. Maternal smokeless tobacco use in pregnancy and adverse health outcomes in newborns: a systematic review. Nicotine Tob Res. 2015;17:1058–66.PubMed
13.
Zurück zum Zitat Gupta PC, Subramoney S. Smokeless tobacco use and risk of stillbirth: a cohort study in Mumbai. India Epidemiology. 2006;17:47–51.PubMed Gupta PC, Subramoney S. Smokeless tobacco use and risk of stillbirth: a cohort study in Mumbai. India Epidemiology. 2006;17:47–51.PubMed
14.
Zurück zum Zitat Ezzati M, Lopez AD, Rodgers A, Vander Hoorn S, Murray CJL, Comparative Risk Assessment Collaborating Group. Selected major risk factors and global and regional burden of disease. Lancet. 2002;360:1347–60.PubMed Ezzati M, Lopez AD, Rodgers A, Vander Hoorn S, Murray CJL, Comparative Risk Assessment Collaborating Group. Selected major risk factors and global and regional burden of disease. Lancet. 2002;360:1347–60.PubMed
15.
Zurück zum Zitat Lim SS, Vos T, Flaxman AD, Danaei G, Shibuya K, Adair-Rohani H, et al. A comparative risk assessment of burden of disease and injury attributable to 67 risk factors and risk factor clusters in 21 regions, 1990-2010: a systematic analysis for the Global Burden of Disease Study 2010. Lancet. 2012;380:2224–60.PubMedPubMedCentral Lim SS, Vos T, Flaxman AD, Danaei G, Shibuya K, Adair-Rohani H, et al. A comparative risk assessment of burden of disease and injury attributable to 67 risk factors and risk factor clusters in 21 regions, 1990-2010: a systematic analysis for the Global Burden of Disease Study 2010. Lancet. 2012;380:2224–60.PubMedPubMedCentral
16.
Zurück zum Zitat Siddiqi K, Shah S, Abbas SM, Vidyasagaran A, Jawad M, Dogar O, et al. Global burden of disease due to smokeless tobacco consumption in adults: analysis of data from 113 countries. BMC Med. 2015;13:194.PubMedPubMedCentral Siddiqi K, Shah S, Abbas SM, Vidyasagaran A, Jawad M, Dogar O, et al. Global burden of disease due to smokeless tobacco consumption in adults: analysis of data from 113 countries. BMC Med. 2015;13:194.PubMedPubMedCentral
18.
Zurück zum Zitat Hearn BA, Renner CC, Ding YS, Vaughan-Watson C, Stanfill SB, Zhang L, et al. Chemical analysis of Alaskan Iq’mik smokeless tobacco. Nicotine Tob Res. 2013;15:1283–8.PubMed Hearn BA, Renner CC, Ding YS, Vaughan-Watson C, Stanfill SB, Zhang L, et al. Chemical analysis of Alaskan Iq’mik smokeless tobacco. Nicotine Tob Res. 2013;15:1283–8.PubMed
19.
Zurück zum Zitat Lawler TS, Stanfill SB, Zhang L, Ashley DL, Watson CH. Chemical characterization of domestic oral tobacco products: total nicotine, pH, unprotonated nicotine and tobacco-specific N-nitrosamines. Food Chem Toxicol. 2013;57:380–6.PubMedPubMedCentral Lawler TS, Stanfill SB, Zhang L, Ashley DL, Watson CH. Chemical characterization of domestic oral tobacco products: total nicotine, pH, unprotonated nicotine and tobacco-specific N-nitrosamines. Food Chem Toxicol. 2013;57:380–6.PubMedPubMedCentral
20.
Zurück zum Zitat Stanfill SB, Oliveira da Silva AL, Lisko JG, Lawler TS, Kuklenyik P, Tyx RE, et al. Comprehensive chemical characterization of Rapé tobacco products: nicotine, un-ionized nicotine, tobacco-specific N’-nitrosamines, polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons, and flavor constituents. Food Chem Toxicol. 2015;82:50–8. Stanfill SB, Oliveira da Silva AL, Lisko JG, Lawler TS, Kuklenyik P, Tyx RE, et al. Comprehensive chemical characterization of Rapé tobacco products: nicotine, un-ionized nicotine, tobacco-specific N’-nitrosamines, polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons, and flavor constituents. Food Chem Toxicol. 2015;82:50–8.
21.
Zurück zum Zitat Al-Mukhaini NM, Ba-Omar TA, Eltayeb EA, Al-Shehi AH. Characterisation of nicotine and cancer-enhancing anions in the common smokeless tobacco Afzal in Oman. Sultan Qaboos Univ Med J. 2015;15:e469–76.PubMedPubMedCentral Al-Mukhaini NM, Ba-Omar TA, Eltayeb EA, Al-Shehi AH. Characterisation of nicotine and cancer-enhancing anions in the common smokeless tobacco Afzal in Oman. Sultan Qaboos Univ Med J. 2015;15:e469–76.PubMedPubMedCentral
22.
Zurück zum Zitat Al-Mukhaini N, Ba-Omar T, Eltayeb EA, Al-Shehi AA. Analysis of tobacco-specific nitrosamines in the common smokeless tobacco Afzal in Oman. Sultan Qaboos Univ Med J. 2016;16:e20–6.PubMedPubMedCentral Al-Mukhaini N, Ba-Omar T, Eltayeb EA, Al-Shehi AA. Analysis of tobacco-specific nitrosamines in the common smokeless tobacco Afzal in Oman. Sultan Qaboos Univ Med J. 2016;16:e20–6.PubMedPubMedCentral
23.
Zurück zum Zitat Ratsch AM, Mason A, Rive L, Bogossian FE, Steadman KJ. The Pituri Learning Circle: central Australian Aboriginal women’s knowledge and practices around the use of Nicotiana spp. as a chewing tobacco. Rural Remote Health. 2017;17:4044.PubMed Ratsch AM, Mason A, Rive L, Bogossian FE, Steadman KJ. The Pituri Learning Circle: central Australian Aboriginal women’s knowledge and practices around the use of Nicotiana spp. as a chewing tobacco. Rural Remote Health. 2017;17:4044.PubMed
25.
Zurück zum Zitat World Health Organization WHO report on the global tobacco epidemic, 2017: Monitoring tobacco use and prevention policies. World Health Organization; 2017. World Health Organization WHO report on the global tobacco epidemic, 2017: Monitoring tobacco use and prevention policies. World Health Organization; 2017.
28.
Zurück zum Zitat Sreeramareddy CT, Pradhan PM, Sin S. Prevalence, distribution, and social determinants of tobacco use in 30 sub-Saharan African countries. BMC Med. 2014;12:243.PubMedPubMedCentral Sreeramareddy CT, Pradhan PM, Sin S. Prevalence, distribution, and social determinants of tobacco use in 30 sub-Saharan African countries. BMC Med. 2014;12:243.PubMedPubMedCentral
29.
Zurück zum Zitat Ansara DL, Arnold F, Kishor S, Hsia J, Kaufmann R. Tobacco use by men and women in 49 countries with demographic and health surveys. ICF International; 2013. Ansara DL, Arnold F, Kishor S, Hsia J, Kaufmann R. Tobacco use by men and women in 49 countries with demographic and health surveys. ICF International; 2013.
30.
Zurück zum Zitat World Health Organization. WHO Report on the Global Tobacco Epidemic, 2013: Enforcing bans on tobacco advertising, promotion and sponsorship. World Health Organization; 2013. World Health Organization. WHO Report on the Global Tobacco Epidemic, 2013: Enforcing bans on tobacco advertising, promotion and sponsorship. World Health Organization; 2013.
31.
Zurück zum Zitat Health Canada. Canadian tobacco, alcohol and drugs survey (CTADS): summary of results for 2015. 2016. Health Canada. Canadian tobacco, alcohol and drugs survey (CTADS): summary of results for 2015. 2016.
33.
Zurück zum Zitat Agaku IT, Filippidis FT, Vardavas CI, Odukoya OO, Awopegba AJ, Ayo-Yusuf OA, et al. Poly-tobacco use among adults in 44 countries during 2008-2012: evidence for an integrative and comprehensive approach in tobacco control. Drug Alcohol Depend. 2014;139:60–70.PubMed Agaku IT, Filippidis FT, Vardavas CI, Odukoya OO, Awopegba AJ, Ayo-Yusuf OA, et al. Poly-tobacco use among adults in 44 countries during 2008-2012: evidence for an integrative and comprehensive approach in tobacco control. Drug Alcohol Depend. 2014;139:60–70.PubMed
35.
Zurück zum Zitat Teo KK, Ounpuu S, Hawken S, Pandey MR, Valentin V, Hunt D, et al. Tobacco use and risk of myocardial infarction in 52 countries in the INTERHEART study: a case-control study. Lancet. 2006;368:1474–547X (Electronic):647–58. Teo KK, Ounpuu S, Hawken S, Pandey MR, Valentin V, Hunt D, et al. Tobacco use and risk of myocardial infarction in 52 countries in the INTERHEART study: a case-control study. Lancet. 2006;368:1474–547X (Electronic):647–58.
36.
Zurück zum Zitat Anantharaman D, Chaubal PM, Kannan S, Bhisey RA, Mahimkar MB. Susceptibility to oral cancer by genetic polymorphisms at CYP1A1, GSTM1 and GSTT1 loci among Indians: tobacco exposure as a risk modulator. Carcinogenesis. 2007;28:1455–62.PubMed Anantharaman D, Chaubal PM, Kannan S, Bhisey RA, Mahimkar MB. Susceptibility to oral cancer by genetic polymorphisms at CYP1A1, GSTM1 and GSTT1 loci among Indians: tobacco exposure as a risk modulator. Carcinogenesis. 2007;28:1455–62.PubMed
37.
Zurück zum Zitat Balaram P, Sridhar H, Rajkumar T, Vaccarella S, Herrero R, Nandakumar A, et al. Oral cancer in southern India: the influence of smoking, drinking, paan-chewing and oral hygiene. Int J Cancer. 2002;98:440–5.PubMed Balaram P, Sridhar H, Rajkumar T, Vaccarella S, Herrero R, Nandakumar A, et al. Oral cancer in southern India: the influence of smoking, drinking, paan-chewing and oral hygiene. Int J Cancer. 2002;98:440–5.PubMed
38.
Zurück zum Zitat Dikshit RP, Kanhere S. Tobacco habits and risk of lung, oropharyngeal and oral cavity cancer: a population-based case-control study in Bhopal, India. Int J Epidemiol. 2000;29:609–14.PubMed Dikshit RP, Kanhere S. Tobacco habits and risk of lung, oropharyngeal and oral cavity cancer: a population-based case-control study in Bhopal, India. Int J Epidemiol. 2000;29:609–14.PubMed
39.
Zurück zum Zitat Goud ML, Mohapatra SC, Mohapatra P, Gaur SD, Pant GC, Knanna MN. Epidemiological correlates between consumption of Indian chewing tobacco and oral cancer. Eur J Epidemiol. 1990;6:219–22.PubMed Goud ML, Mohapatra SC, Mohapatra P, Gaur SD, Pant GC, Knanna MN. Epidemiological correlates between consumption of Indian chewing tobacco and oral cancer. Eur J Epidemiol. 1990;6:219–22.PubMed
40.
Zurück zum Zitat Jayalekshmi PA, Gangadharan P, Akiba S, Nair RRK, Tsuji M, Rajan B. Tobacco chewing and female oral cavity cancer risk in Karunagappally cohort, India. Br J Cancer. 2009;100:848–52.PubMedPubMedCentral Jayalekshmi PA, Gangadharan P, Akiba S, Nair RRK, Tsuji M, Rajan B. Tobacco chewing and female oral cavity cancer risk in Karunagappally cohort, India. Br J Cancer. 2009;100:848–52.PubMedPubMedCentral
41.
Zurück zum Zitat Jayalekshmi PA, Gangadharan P, Akiba S, Koriyama C, Nair RRK. Oral cavity cancer risk in relation to tobacco chewing and bidi smoking among men in Karunagappally, Kerala, India: Karunagappally cohort study. Cancer Sci. 2011;102:460–7.PubMed Jayalekshmi PA, Gangadharan P, Akiba S, Koriyama C, Nair RRK. Oral cavity cancer risk in relation to tobacco chewing and bidi smoking among men in Karunagappally, Kerala, India: Karunagappally cohort study. Cancer Sci. 2011;102:460–7.PubMed
42.
Zurück zum Zitat Jayant K, Balakrishnan V, Sanghvi LD, Jussawalla DJ. Quantification of the role of smoking and chewing tobacco in oral, pharyngeal, and oesophageal cancers. Br J Cancer. 1977;35:232–5.PubMedPubMedCentral Jayant K, Balakrishnan V, Sanghvi LD, Jussawalla DJ. Quantification of the role of smoking and chewing tobacco in oral, pharyngeal, and oesophageal cancers. Br J Cancer. 1977;35:232–5.PubMedPubMedCentral
43.
Zurück zum Zitat Jussawalla DJ, Deshpande VA. Evaluation of cancer risk in tobacco chewers and smokers: an epidemiologic assessment. Cancer. 1971;28:244–52.PubMed Jussawalla DJ, Deshpande VA. Evaluation of cancer risk in tobacco chewers and smokers: an epidemiologic assessment. Cancer. 1971;28:244–52.PubMed
44.
Zurück zum Zitat Madani AH, Jahromi AS, Madhurima D, Debanshu B, et al. Risk assessment of tobacco types and oral cancer. Am J Pharmacol Toxicol. 2010;5:9–13. Madani AH, Jahromi AS, Madhurima D, Debanshu B, et al. Risk assessment of tobacco types and oral cancer. Am J Pharmacol Toxicol. 2010;5:9–13.
45.
Zurück zum Zitat Muwonge R, Ramadas K, Sankila R, Thara S, Thomas G, Vinoda J, et al. Role of tobacco smoking, chewing and alcohol drinking in the risk of oral cancer in Trivandrum, India: a nested case-control design using incident cancer cases. Oral Oncol. 2008;44:446–54.PubMed Muwonge R, Ramadas K, Sankila R, Thara S, Thomas G, Vinoda J, et al. Role of tobacco smoking, chewing and alcohol drinking in the risk of oral cancer in Trivandrum, India: a nested case-control design using incident cancer cases. Oral Oncol. 2008;44:446–54.PubMed
46.
Zurück zum Zitat Nandakumar A, Thimmasetty KT, Sreeramareddy NM, Venugopal TC, Rajanna, Vinutha AT, et al. A population-based case-control investigation on cancers of the oral cavity in Bangalore, India. Br J Cancer. 1990;62:847–51.PubMedPubMedCentral Nandakumar A, Thimmasetty KT, Sreeramareddy NM, Venugopal TC, Rajanna, Vinutha AT, et al. A population-based case-control investigation on cancers of the oral cavity in Bangalore, India. Br J Cancer. 1990;62:847–51.PubMedPubMedCentral
47.
Zurück zum Zitat Rao DN, Ganesh B, Rao RS, Desai PB. Risk assessment of tobacco, alcohol and diet in oral cancer—a case-control study. Int J Cancer. 1994;58:469–73.PubMed Rao DN, Ganesh B, Rao RS, Desai PB. Risk assessment of tobacco, alcohol and diet in oral cancer—a case-control study. Int J Cancer. 1994;58:469–73.PubMed
48.
Zurück zum Zitat Sanghvi LD, Rao KC, Khanolkar VR. Smoking and chewing of tobacco in relation to cancer of the upper alimentary tract. Br Med J. 1955;1:1111–4.PubMedPubMedCentral Sanghvi LD, Rao KC, Khanolkar VR. Smoking and chewing of tobacco in relation to cancer of the upper alimentary tract. Br Med J. 1955;1:1111–4.PubMedPubMedCentral
49.
Zurück zum Zitat Sankaranarayanan R, Duffy SW, Padmakumary G, Day NE, Krishan NM. Risk factors for cancer of the buccal and labial mucosa in Kerala, southern India. J Epidemiol Community Health. 1990;44:286–92.PubMedPubMedCentral Sankaranarayanan R, Duffy SW, Padmakumary G, Day NE, Krishan NM. Risk factors for cancer of the buccal and labial mucosa in Kerala, southern India. J Epidemiol Community Health. 1990;44:286–92.PubMedPubMedCentral
50.
Zurück zum Zitat Wasnik KS, Ughade SN, Zodpey SP, Ingole DL. Tobacco consumption practices and risk of oro-pharyngeal cancer: a case-control study in Central India. Southeast Asian J Trop Med Public Health. 1998;29:827–34.PubMed Wasnik KS, Ughade SN, Zodpey SP, Ingole DL. Tobacco consumption practices and risk of oro-pharyngeal cancer: a case-control study in Central India. Southeast Asian J Trop Med Public Health. 1998;29:827–34.PubMed
51.
Zurück zum Zitat Subapriya R, Thangavelu A, Mathavan B, Ramachandran CR, Nagini S. Assessment of risk factors for oral squamous cell carcinoma in Chidambaram, Southern India: a case–control study. Eur J Cancer Prev. 2007;16:251.PubMed Subapriya R, Thangavelu A, Mathavan B, Ramachandran CR, Nagini S. Assessment of risk factors for oral squamous cell carcinoma in Chidambaram, Southern India: a case–control study. Eur J Cancer Prev. 2007;16:251.PubMed
52.
Zurück zum Zitat Wahi PN, Kehar U, Lahiri B. Factors influencing oral and oropharyngeal cancers in India. Br J Cancer. 1965;19:642–60.PubMedPubMedCentral Wahi PN, Kehar U, Lahiri B. Factors influencing oral and oropharyngeal cancers in India. Br J Cancer. 1965;19:642–60.PubMedPubMedCentral
53.
Zurück zum Zitat Merchant A, Husain SS, Hosain M, Fikree FF, Pitiphat W, Siddiqui AR, et al. Paan without tobacco: an independent risk factor for oral cancer. Int J Cancer. 2000;86:128–31.PubMed Merchant A, Husain SS, Hosain M, Fikree FF, Pitiphat W, Siddiqui AR, et al. Paan without tobacco: an independent risk factor for oral cancer. Int J Cancer. 2000;86:128–31.PubMed
54.
Zurück zum Zitat Roosaar A, Johansson ALV, Sandborgh-Englund G, Axéll T, Nyrén O. Cancer and mortality among users and nonusers of snus. Int J Cancer. 2008;123:168–73.PubMed Roosaar A, Johansson ALV, Sandborgh-Englund G, Axéll T, Nyrén O. Cancer and mortality among users and nonusers of snus. Int J Cancer. 2008;123:168–73.PubMed
55.
Zurück zum Zitat Znaor A, Brennan P, Gajalakshmi V, Mathew A, Shanta V, Varghese C, et al. Independent and combined effects of tobacco smoking, chewing and alcohol drinking on the risk of oral, pharyngeal and esophageal cancers in Indian men. Int J Cancer. 2003;105:681–6.PubMed Znaor A, Brennan P, Gajalakshmi V, Mathew A, Shanta V, Varghese C, et al. Independent and combined effects of tobacco smoking, chewing and alcohol drinking on the risk of oral, pharyngeal and esophageal cancers in Indian men. Int J Cancer. 2003;105:681–6.PubMed
56.
Zurück zum Zitat Boffetta P, Aagnes B, Weiderpass E, Andersen A. Smokeless tobacco use and risk of cancer of the pancreas and other organs. Int J Cancer. 2005;114:992–5.PubMed Boffetta P, Aagnes B, Weiderpass E, Andersen A. Smokeless tobacco use and risk of cancer of the pancreas and other organs. Int J Cancer. 2005;114:992–5.PubMed
57.
Zurück zum Zitat Lewin F, Norell SE, Johansson H, Gustavsson P, Wennerberg J, Biörklund A, et al. Smoking tobacco, oral snuff, and alcohol in the etiology of squamous cell carcinoma of the head and neck: a population-based case-referent study in Sweden. Cancer. 1998;82:1367–75.PubMed Lewin F, Norell SE, Johansson H, Gustavsson P, Wennerberg J, Biörklund A, et al. Smoking tobacco, oral snuff, and alcohol in the etiology of squamous cell carcinoma of the head and neck: a population-based case-referent study in Sweden. Cancer. 1998;82:1367–75.PubMed
58.
Zurück zum Zitat Luo J, Ye W, Zendehdel K, Adami J, Adami H-O, Boffetta P, et al. Oral use of Swedish moist snuff (snus) and risk for cancer of the mouth, lung, and pancreas in male construction workers: a retrospective cohort study. Lancet. 2007;369:2015–20.PubMed Luo J, Ye W, Zendehdel K, Adami J, Adami H-O, Boffetta P, et al. Oral use of Swedish moist snuff (snus) and risk for cancer of the mouth, lung, and pancreas in male construction workers: a retrospective cohort study. Lancet. 2007;369:2015–20.PubMed
59.
Zurück zum Zitat Rosenquist K, Wennerberg J, Schildt E-B, Bladström A, Hansson BG, Andersson G. Use of Swedish moist snuff, smoking and alcohol consumption in the aetiology of oral and oropharyngeal squamous cell carcinoma. A population-based case-control study in southern Sweden. Acta Otolaryngol. 2005;125:991–8.PubMed Rosenquist K, Wennerberg J, Schildt E-B, Bladström A, Hansson BG, Andersson G. Use of Swedish moist snuff, smoking and alcohol consumption in the aetiology of oral and oropharyngeal squamous cell carcinoma. A population-based case-control study in southern Sweden. Acta Otolaryngol. 2005;125:991–8.PubMed
60.
Zurück zum Zitat Schildt E-B, Eriksson M, Hardell L, Magnuson A. Oral snuff, smoking habits and alcohol consumption in relation to oral cancer in a Swedish case-control study. Int J Cancer. 1998;77:341–6.PubMed Schildt E-B, Eriksson M, Hardell L, Magnuson A. Oral snuff, smoking habits and alcohol consumption in relation to oral cancer in a Swedish case-control study. Int J Cancer. 1998;77:341–6.PubMed
61.
Zurück zum Zitat Mashberg A, Boffetta P, Winkelman R, Garfinkel L. Tobacco smoking, alcohol drinking, and cancer of the oral cavity and oropharynx among U.S. veterans. Cancer. 1993;72:1369–75.PubMed Mashberg A, Boffetta P, Winkelman R, Garfinkel L. Tobacco smoking, alcohol drinking, and cancer of the oral cavity and oropharynx among U.S. veterans. Cancer. 1993;72:1369–75.PubMed
62.
Zurück zum Zitat Sapkota A, Gajalakshmi V, Jetly DH, Roychowdhury S, Dikshit RP, Brennan P, et al. Smokeless tobacco and increased risk of hypopharyngeal and laryngeal cancers: a multicentric case–control study from India. Int J Cancer. 2007;121:1793–8.PubMed Sapkota A, Gajalakshmi V, Jetly DH, Roychowdhury S, Dikshit RP, Brennan P, et al. Smokeless tobacco and increased risk of hypopharyngeal and laryngeal cancers: a multicentric case–control study from India. Int J Cancer. 2007;121:1793–8.PubMed
63.
Zurück zum Zitat Akhtar S, Sheikh AA, Qureshi HU. Chewing areca nut, betel quid, oral snuff, cigarette smoking and the risk of oesophageal squamous-cell carcinoma in South Asians: a multicentre case–control study. Eur J Cancer. 2012;48:655–61.PubMed Akhtar S, Sheikh AA, Qureshi HU. Chewing areca nut, betel quid, oral snuff, cigarette smoking and the risk of oesophageal squamous-cell carcinoma in South Asians: a multicentre case–control study. Eur J Cancer. 2012;48:655–61.PubMed
64.
Zurück zum Zitat Dar NA, Bhat GA, Shah IA, Iqbal B, Makhdoomi MA, Nisar I, et al. Hookah smoking, nass chewing, and oesophageal squamous cell carcinoma in Kashmir, India. Br J Cancer. 2012;107:1618–23.PubMedPubMedCentral Dar NA, Bhat GA, Shah IA, Iqbal B, Makhdoomi MA, Nisar I, et al. Hookah smoking, nass chewing, and oesophageal squamous cell carcinoma in Kashmir, India. Br J Cancer. 2012;107:1618–23.PubMedPubMedCentral
65.
Zurück zum Zitat Sehgal S, Kaul S, Gupta BB, Dhar MK. Risk factors and survival analysis of the esophageal cancer in the population of Jammu, India. Indian J Cancer. 2012;49:245–50.PubMed Sehgal S, Kaul S, Gupta BB, Dhar MK. Risk factors and survival analysis of the esophageal cancer in the population of Jammu, India. Indian J Cancer. 2012;49:245–50.PubMed
66.
Zurück zum Zitat Talukdar FR, Ghosh SK, Laskar RS, Mondal R. Epigenetic, genetic and environmental interactions in esophageal squamous cell carcinoma from northeast India. PLoS One. 2013;8:e60996.PubMedPubMedCentral Talukdar FR, Ghosh SK, Laskar RS, Mondal R. Epigenetic, genetic and environmental interactions in esophageal squamous cell carcinoma from northeast India. PLoS One. 2013;8:e60996.PubMedPubMedCentral
67.
Zurück zum Zitat Lagergren J, Bergström R, Lindgren A, Nyrén O. The role of tobacco, snuff and alcohol use in the aetiology of cancer of the oesophagus and gastric cardia. Int J Cancer. 2000;85:340–6.PubMed Lagergren J, Bergström R, Lindgren A, Nyrén O. The role of tobacco, snuff and alcohol use in the aetiology of cancer of the oesophagus and gastric cardia. Int J Cancer. 2000;85:340–6.PubMed
68.
Zurück zum Zitat Zendehdel K, Nyrén O, Luo J, Dickman PW, Boffetta P, Englund A, et al. Risk of gastroesophageal cancer among smokers and users of Scandinavian moist snuff. Int J Cancer. 2008;122:1095–9.PubMed Zendehdel K, Nyrén O, Luo J, Dickman PW, Boffetta P, Englund A, et al. Risk of gastroesophageal cancer among smokers and users of Scandinavian moist snuff. Int J Cancer. 2008;122:1095–9.PubMed
69.
Zurück zum Zitat Bolinder G, Alfredsson L, Englund A, de Faire U. Smokeless tobacco use and increased cardiovascular mortality among Swedish construction workers. Am J Public Health. 1994;84:399–404.PubMedPubMedCentral Bolinder G, Alfredsson L, Englund A, de Faire U. Smokeless tobacco use and increased cardiovascular mortality among Swedish construction workers. Am J Public Health. 1994;84:399–404.PubMedPubMedCentral
70.
Zurück zum Zitat Sasco AJ, Merrill RM, Dari I, Benhaïm-Luzon V, Carriot F, Cann CI, et al. A case--control study of lung cancer in Casablanca, Morocco. Cancer Causes Control. 2002;13:609–16.PubMed Sasco AJ, Merrill RM, Dari I, Benhaïm-Luzon V, Carriot F, Cann CI, et al. A case--control study of lung cancer in Casablanca, Morocco. Cancer Causes Control. 2002;13:609–16.PubMed
71.
Zurück zum Zitat Brown LM, Blot WJ, Schuman SH, Smith VM, Ershow AG, Marks RD, et al. Environmental factors and high risk of esophageal cancer among men in coastal South Carolina. J Natl Cancer Inst. 1988;80:1620–5.PubMed Brown LM, Blot WJ, Schuman SH, Smith VM, Ershow AG, Marks RD, et al. Environmental factors and high risk of esophageal cancer among men in coastal South Carolina. J Natl Cancer Inst. 1988;80:1620–5.PubMed
72.
Zurück zum Zitat Alguacil J, Silverman DT. Smokeless and other noncigarette tobacco use and pancreatic cancer: a case-control study based on direct interviews. Cancer Epidemiol Biomark Prev. 2004;13:55–8. Alguacil J, Silverman DT. Smokeless and other noncigarette tobacco use and pancreatic cancer: a case-control study based on direct interviews. Cancer Epidemiol Biomark Prev. 2004;13:55–8.
73.
Zurück zum Zitat Hassan MM, Abbruzzese JL, Bondy ML, Wolff RA, Vauthey J-N, Pisters PW, et al. Passive smoking and the use of noncigarette tobacco products in association with risk for pancreatic cancer: a case-control study. Cancer. 2007;109:2547–56.PubMedPubMedCentral Hassan MM, Abbruzzese JL, Bondy ML, Wolff RA, Vauthey J-N, Pisters PW, et al. Passive smoking and the use of noncigarette tobacco products in association with risk for pancreatic cancer: a case-control study. Cancer. 2007;109:2547–56.PubMedPubMedCentral
74.
Zurück zum Zitat Khan Z, Dreger S, Shah SMH, Pohlabeln H, Khan S, Ullah Z, et al. Oral cancer via the bargain bin: the risk of oral cancer associated with a smokeless tobacco product (Naswar). PLoS One. 2017;12:e0180445.PubMedPubMedCentral Khan Z, Dreger S, Shah SMH, Pohlabeln H, Khan S, Ullah Z, et al. Oral cancer via the bargain bin: the risk of oral cancer associated with a smokeless tobacco product (Naswar). PLoS One. 2017;12:e0180445.PubMedPubMedCentral
75.
Zurück zum Zitat Mahapatra S, Kamath R, Shetty BK, Binu VS. Risk of oral cancer associated with gutka and other tobacco products: a hospital-based case-control study. J Cancer Res Ther. 2015;11:199–203.PubMed Mahapatra S, Kamath R, Shetty BK, Binu VS. Risk of oral cancer associated with gutka and other tobacco products: a hospital-based case-control study. J Cancer Res Ther. 2015;11:199–203.PubMed
76.
Zurück zum Zitat Merchant AT, Pitiphat W. Total, direct, and indirect effects of paan on oral cancer. Cancer Causes Control. 2015;26:487–91.PubMed Merchant AT, Pitiphat W. Total, direct, and indirect effects of paan on oral cancer. Cancer Causes Control. 2015;26:487–91.PubMed
78.
Zurück zum Zitat Rahman MA, Zaman MM. Smoking and smokeless tobacco consumption: possible risk factors for coronary heart disease among young patients attending a tertiary care cardiac hospital in Bangladesh. Public Health. 2008;122:1331–8.PubMed Rahman MA, Zaman MM. Smoking and smokeless tobacco consumption: possible risk factors for coronary heart disease among young patients attending a tertiary care cardiac hospital in Bangladesh. Public Health. 2008;122:1331–8.PubMed
79.
Zurück zum Zitat Rahman MA, Spurrier N, Mahmood MA, Rahman M, Choudhury SR, Leeder S. Is there any association between use of smokeless tobacco products and coronary heart disease in Bangladesh? PLoS One. 2012;7:e30584.PubMedPubMedCentral Rahman MA, Spurrier N, Mahmood MA, Rahman M, Choudhury SR, Leeder S. Is there any association between use of smokeless tobacco products and coronary heart disease in Bangladesh? PLoS One. 2012;7:e30584.PubMedPubMedCentral
80.
Zurück zum Zitat Agashe A, Gawde N. Stroke and the use of smokeless tobacco--a case-control study. Healthline. 2013;4:13–8. Agashe A, Gawde N. Stroke and the use of smokeless tobacco--a case-control study. Healthline. 2013;4:13–8.
81.
Zurück zum Zitat Huhtasaari F, Asplund K, Lundberg V, Stegmayr B, Wester PO. Tobacco and myocardial infarction: is snuff less dangerous than cigarettes? BMJ. 1992;305:1252–6.PubMedPubMedCentral Huhtasaari F, Asplund K, Lundberg V, Stegmayr B, Wester PO. Tobacco and myocardial infarction: is snuff less dangerous than cigarettes? BMJ. 1992;305:1252–6.PubMedPubMedCentral
82.
Zurück zum Zitat Huhtasaari F, Lundberg V, Eliasson M, Janlert U, Asplund K. Smokeless tobacco as a possible risk factor for myocardial infarction: a population-based study in middle-aged men. J Am Coll Cardiol. 1999;34:1784–90.PubMed Huhtasaari F, Lundberg V, Eliasson M, Janlert U, Asplund K. Smokeless tobacco as a possible risk factor for myocardial infarction: a population-based study in middle-aged men. J Am Coll Cardiol. 1999;34:1784–90.PubMed
83.
Zurück zum Zitat Asplund K, Nasic S, Janlert U, Stegmayr B. Smokeless tobacco as a possible risk factor for stroke in men: a nested case-control study. Stroke. 2003;34:1754–9.PubMed Asplund K, Nasic S, Janlert U, Stegmayr B. Smokeless tobacco as a possible risk factor for stroke in men: a nested case-control study. Stroke. 2003;34:1754–9.PubMed
84.
Zurück zum Zitat Hergens M-P, Ahlbom A, Andersson T, Pershagen G. Swedish moist snuff and myocardial infarction among men. Epidemiology. 2005;16:12–6.PubMed Hergens M-P, Ahlbom A, Andersson T, Pershagen G. Swedish moist snuff and myocardial infarction among men. Epidemiology. 2005;16:12–6.PubMed
85.
Zurück zum Zitat Haglund B, Eliasson M, Stenbeck M, Rosén M. Is moist snuff use associated with excess risk of IHD or stroke? A longitudinal follow-up of snuff users in Sweden. Scand J Public Health. 2007;35:618–22.PubMed Haglund B, Eliasson M, Stenbeck M, Rosén M. Is moist snuff use associated with excess risk of IHD or stroke? A longitudinal follow-up of snuff users in Sweden. Scand J Public Health. 2007;35:618–22.PubMed
86.
Zurück zum Zitat Hergens M-P, Alfredsson L, Bolinder G, Lambe M, Pershagen G, Ye W. Long-term use of Swedish moist snuff and the risk of myocardial infarction amongst men. J Intern Med. 2007;262:351–9.PubMed Hergens M-P, Alfredsson L, Bolinder G, Lambe M, Pershagen G, Ye W. Long-term use of Swedish moist snuff and the risk of myocardial infarction amongst men. J Intern Med. 2007;262:351–9.PubMed
87.
Zurück zum Zitat Wennberg P, Eliasson M, Hallmans G, Johansson L, Boman K, Jansson J-H. The risk of myocardial infarction and sudden cardiac death amongst snuff users with or without a previous history of smoking. J Intern Med. 2007;262:360–7.PubMed Wennberg P, Eliasson M, Hallmans G, Johansson L, Boman K, Jansson J-H. The risk of myocardial infarction and sudden cardiac death amongst snuff users with or without a previous history of smoking. J Intern Med. 2007;262:360–7.PubMed
88.
Zurück zum Zitat Hergens M-P, Lambe M, Pershagen G, Terent A, Ye W. Smokeless tobacco and the risk of stroke. Epidemiology. 2008;19:794–9.PubMed Hergens M-P, Lambe M, Pershagen G, Terent A, Ye W. Smokeless tobacco and the risk of stroke. Epidemiology. 2008;19:794–9.PubMed
89.
Zurück zum Zitat Hansson J, Pedersen NL, Galanti MR, Andersson T, Ahlbom A, Hallqvist J, et al. Use of snus and risk for cardiovascular disease: results from the Swedish Twin Registry. J Intern Med. 2009;265:717–24.PubMed Hansson J, Pedersen NL, Galanti MR, Andersson T, Ahlbom A, Hallqvist J, et al. Use of snus and risk for cardiovascular disease: results from the Swedish Twin Registry. J Intern Med. 2009;265:717–24.PubMed
90.
Zurück zum Zitat Janzon E, Hedblad B. Swedish snuff and incidence of cardiovascular disease. A population-based cohort study BMC Cardiovasc Disord. 2009;9:21.PubMed Janzon E, Hedblad B. Swedish snuff and incidence of cardiovascular disease. A population-based cohort study BMC Cardiovasc Disord. 2009;9:21.PubMed
92.
Zurück zum Zitat Singh PK, Yadav A, Lal P, Sinha DN, Gupta PC, Swasticharan L, et al. Dual burden of smoked and smokeless tobacco use in India, 2009–2017: a repeated cross-sectional analysis based on global adult tobacco survey. Nicotine Tobacco Research. 2020. https://doi.org/10.1093/ntr/ntaa033. Singh PK, Yadav A, Lal P, Sinha DN, Gupta PC, Swasticharan L, et al. Dual burden of smoked and smokeless tobacco use in India, 2009–2017: a repeated cross-sectional analysis based on global adult tobacco survey. Nicotine Tobacco Research. 2020. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1093/​ntr/​ntaa033.
93.
Zurück zum Zitat Mehrotra R, Yadav A, Sinha DN, Parascandola M, John RM, Ayo-Yusuf O, et al. Smokeless tobacco control in 180 countries across the globe: call to action for full implementation of WHO FCTC measures. Lancet Oncol. 2019;20:e208–17.PubMed Mehrotra R, Yadav A, Sinha DN, Parascandola M, John RM, Ayo-Yusuf O, et al. Smokeless tobacco control in 180 countries across the globe: call to action for full implementation of WHO FCTC measures. Lancet Oncol. 2019;20:e208–17.PubMed
94.
95.
Zurück zum Zitat Mehrotra R, Kaushik N, Kaushik R. Why smokeless tobacco control needs to be strengthened? Cancer Control. 2020;27:1073274820914659.PubMedPubMedCentral Mehrotra R, Kaushik N, Kaushik R. Why smokeless tobacco control needs to be strengthened? Cancer Control. 2020;27:1073274820914659.PubMedPubMedCentral
Metadaten
Titel
Global burden of disease due to smokeless tobacco consumption in adults: an updated analysis of data from 127 countries
verfasst von
Kamran Siddiqi
Scheherazade Husain
Aishwarya Vidyasagaran
Anne Readshaw
Masuma Pervin Mishu
Aziz Sheikh
Publikationsdatum
01.12.2020
Verlag
BioMed Central
Erschienen in
BMC Medicine / Ausgabe 1/2020
Elektronische ISSN: 1741-7015
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1186/s12916-020-01677-9

Weitere Artikel der Ausgabe 1/2020

BMC Medicine 1/2020 Zur Ausgabe

Leitlinien kompakt für die Allgemeinmedizin

Mit medbee Pocketcards sicher entscheiden.

Seit 2022 gehört die medbee GmbH zum Springer Medizin Verlag

Facharzt-Training Allgemeinmedizin

Die ideale Vorbereitung zur anstehenden Prüfung mit den ersten 49 von 100 klinischen Fallbeispielen verschiedener Themenfelder

Mehr erfahren

Diplom, Diplom an der Wand: Wie man in der Telemedizin seriös wirkt

04.06.2024 Telemedizin Nachrichten

Seit den Zeiten der Coronapandemie sind telemedizinische Arztkonsultationen zur Normalität geworden. Wie Frau oder Herr Doktor dabei im günstigsten Licht erscheinen, hat eine Patientenbefragung eruiert.

Typ-2-Diabetes: Ernährungsunsicherheit vervierfacht Risiko für schwere Hypoglykämien

04.06.2024 Typ-2-Diabetes Nachrichten

Wenn ältere Menschen mit Typ-2-Diabetes Schwierigkeiten beim Beschaffen und Zubereiten von Mahlzeiten haben, geht dies mit einem deutlich gesteigerten Risiko für schwere Hypoglykämien einher.

Nach Herzinfarkt mit Typ-1-Diabetes schlechtere Karten als mit Typ 2?

29.05.2024 Herzinfarkt Nachrichten

Bei Menschen mit Typ-2-Diabetes sind die Chancen, einen Myokardinfarkt zu überleben, in den letzten 15 Jahren deutlich gestiegen – nicht jedoch bei Betroffenen mit Typ 1.

Wie der Klimawandel gefährliche Pilzinfektionen begünstigt

24.05.2024 Candida-Mykosen Nachrichten

Dass sich invasive Pilzinfektionen in letzter Zeit weltweit häufen, liegt wahrscheinlich auch am Klimawandel. Ausbrüche mit dem Hefepilz Candida auris stellen eine zunehmende Gefahr für Immungeschwächte dar – auch in Deutschland.

Update Allgemeinmedizin

Bestellen Sie unseren Fach-Newsletter und bleiben Sie gut informiert.