COM 0314.069 1996-1998 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

--97 TL1E db •I P. 05 a ishkln, Simmons, Sheriil, rt al.; M. and Mnwl CMnge In FEVr US q a.op 8 a.op I I 1 a.ao r a.sO j s.w ~ ~ s.w ; i 7.00 ~ 0.00 jL I zw w sa 10 a6 w S6 w Y~s0 0a a6 t0 eS w sa e0 AOE tpq AO! MO 4•A4WNa 1{lgNTal0aY aJM4rAeAr ~ NO TOaA0C0 to CIOIOAV a7 CIOIOAv Amwl eemn. Annue a¦eaw y, nay ~ ~„e aid era/ Y /!V, ~ tea apt M.a ilgure t. Declines in FEVI (in liters) with age (in yen) by intensity of smoking marijuana (A) Or tobacco (a), estlmated from random-effeRs model in men. Stops coeffidents ror annual decline in FEW (In milEliters) for smokers of n, 1.5, 3.0 joints/d U) or 0, [t3, and 27 tobacco cigatetus/d (b) are shown at ttw lwrtom of the figure. ) 1 the similarity of the annual rate of decline in FEV, in the Com- yr) of Tucson, Arizona (19). The latter sample, which included btned smokers of marijuana and tobacco and In the oonsmok- lee then l00self-reported smokero of nontobaao (marijuana) ing eontroi subjects, in control to the accelerated rare of decline either alone or with tobacco at study entry, had lung function t ~ found among the tobaKo-only smokers (Figure IA). Although measured in 2 to a surveys conduced every 2 yrover a maximum the dynamics of recruiting the different smoking groups were span of 8 yr. In the latter study, the estimated annual decline similar, we cannot exclude the pouibflity that the results In the in FEV, attributed to marijuana Brooking ttporled a[ least der- dual smoken of marijuana and tobacco trrlght have been in- ing the initial survey was 102 mi/yr, which was equ[valeot to ap- / flueand by an inadvertent sampling bias. Nonetheless, tmrall, proximately S4'a of the predicted FEV„ in contrast loan expetted I the findings in the presort study d0 not support pn association rate of decline of apptosimately 14e of predicte0 FEVI iA non- betwecn even heavy, regular marijuana smoking and the Bevel- smokers. In the same study, moreover, the annual decrcmrnt in ; opnsent oP chronic obstructive pulmonary dixase (COPD). FEV, anion;the muijuana smokers was twice as large as the i Yhne(fndinjsareatvariancewl[htheresuluofaprcvious estimated annualdeclineduetocurrcattobactodgarettesmok- Iongltudinals[udyln whichdatswereanalyzedfromastratifitd ing(6gmq,andtneeffectsofsmokingbothtypWOfsubstancn random sample (n ~ BSti) o/young adult residents (age a 40 were additive (19). t i NEVER TOBACCO 3MOKERB CONTINUING TOSJICCO tiMOKERS q a.w ~ ~ e.os I ..w 4• e.w I- e.ool # e.oo!- ~ t G E I ~ s.w i a.w= ~ f s.w j s.oo'- _ , I i 2.60 a0 a1 a0 to w N eo 0•w ~ >o a6 a0 to w sa w AOl (rrq AOE (yn) 4 eAnnL41N M¦Vl¦ MiUY,TT[NT GeNTNylp aII~W NMa INT[a4OtFMT GONTINU41e ~ AnwY d¦dn¦ AnnIW OfaNl M MI 1, silk Ma aLa aU rl FlM, pilot iPa 4¦ Ys ' Ngure 3. DadlnH in FEVI (in lion) wiN age (in yNrs) by condnurty of marijwna smoking (never, intermitunt, and continung), estimated ~ from leaser random-eflecu model among mete never toWao smokers (A) ¦nd eonetnuing tots¦cco smoken (B). Stops coetfidents for annual decline irl FIYI (in milliliters) in never, inermittent, and continuing marijuana smokers ark shown at bottom of each panel. .I