Releases Saturday 3 May 2003
No 7396 Volume 326

Please remember to credit the BMJ as source when publicising an
article and to tell your readers that they can read its full text on the
journal's web site (http://bmj.com).

If your story is posted on a website please include a link back to
the source BMJ article (URL's are given under titles).


(1) ADDING FATTY ACIDS TO FORMULA MILK
MAY CUT HEART DISEASE IN LATER LIFE

(2) CONCERN OVER DEATHS AFTER OPIATE
DETOXIFICATION

(3) CULTURALLY SENSITIVE SMOKING
CESSATION PROGRAMMES NEEDED

(4) SHOULD ALL HOSPITALS BE SMOKE FREE?

(5) CLEAR PUBLIC HEALTH MESSAGE ON
CANNABIS NEEDED



(1) ADDING FATTY ACIDS TO FORMULA MILK
MAY CUT HEART DISEASE IN LATER LIFE

(Long chain polyunsaturated fatty acid supplementation
in infant formula and blood pressure in later childhood:
follow up of a randomised controlled trial)
http://bmj.com/cgi/content/full/326/7396/953

Adding long chain polyunsaturated fatty acids to infant
formula milk is associated with lower blood pressure
later in childhood, and may cut the risk of heart disease
in adult life, finds a study in this week's BMJ.

In a 1992 trial, 111 newborn infants were fed with a
formula containing long chain polyunsaturated fatty acids
(LCPUFAs) and 126 were given a formula without
LCPUFAs but otherwise nutritionally similar. A
reference group of breastfed children also took part in
the study.

Six years later, the children's blood pressure was
measured in a follow up study.

Mean blood pressure was significantly lower in the
LCPUFA group than in the non-LCPUFA group. The
diastolic pressure of the breastfed children was
significantly lower than the non-LCPUFA group but did
not differ from the LCPUFA formula group.

As blood pressure tends to track from childhood into
adult life, early exposure to dietary LCPUFAs,
preferably in breast milk, may reduce cardiovascular risk
in adulthood, say the authors. These findings are
therefore relevant to public health strategies aimed at
improving long term health of the population, they
conclude.

Contact:

Stewart Forsyth, Consultant Paediatrician, Tayside
Institute of Child Health, University of Dundee, Scotland
Email: j.stewart.forsyth@tuht.scot.nhs.uk

(2) CONCERN OVER DEATHS AFTER OPIATE
DETOXIFICATION

(Loss of tolerance and overdose mortality after inpatient
opiate detoxification: follow up study)
http://bmj.com/cgi/content/full/326/7396/959

Opiate addicts who have successfully completed
detoxification treatment in hospital are more likely than
other addicts to die within a year, reveals a study in this
week's BMJ.

Researchers at the National Addiction Centre in London
identified 137 opiate addicts who were receiving
detoxification as part of a 28-day inpatient treatment
programme. Five patients died within 12 months after
their discharge from the unit, three from a drug overdose
within the first four months after discharge, and two
unrelated to overdose.

To test whether loss of tolerance increased the risk of
overdose, the team grouped the patients into three
categories according to their opiate tolerance at the point
of leaving treatment. Forty-three "still tolerant" patients
who failed to complete detoxification; 57 "reduced
tolerance" patients who prematurely left the treatment
programme; and 37 "lost tolerance" patients who
completed the treatment programme.

The three overdose deaths that occurred within four
months after treatment were all from the "lost tolerance"
group. The two deaths unrelated to overdose were one
"lost tolerance" patient and one "reduced tolerance"
patient. No deaths occurred in the "still tolerant" group.
The five patients who died were all men and had
generally stayed longer in the inpatient unit.

The clustering of the deaths from overdose in the patients
who had successfully completed treatment is
counterintuitive and illogical ? unless it relates to loss of
tolerance and consequent unpredictability of resumed
heroin use, say the authors.

If these results are confirmed by further studies, they will
need to be urgently addressed within existing inpatient,
residential, and custodial and associated aftercare
programmes, they conclude.

Contact:

Professor John Strang, Director, National Addiction
Centre, Institute of Psychiatry and the Maudsley
Hospital, London, UK
Email: j.strang@iop.kcl.ac.uk

(3) CULTURALLY SENSITIVE SMOKING
CESSATION PROGRAMMES NEEDED

(Understanding influences on smoking in Bangladeshi
and Pakistani adults: community based, qualitative study)
http://bmj.com/cgi/content/full/326/7396/962

Culturally sensitive smoking cessation programmes for
South Asian people are needed, say researchers in this
week's BMJ.

Recent surveys have shown that smoking is particularly
common in Bangladeshi men, yet influences on smoking
behaviour in South Asians in Britain are poorly
understood.

In-depth interviews were conducted with 87 men and 54
women from Bangladeshi and Pakistani communities in
Newcastle upon Tyne to understand their attitudes and
behaviour in relation to smoking.

Four highly inter-related themes were found to influence
views on smoking: gender, age, religion, and tradition.

Smoking among Bangladeshi and Pakistani men was
strongly seen as socially acceptable and a "normal" part
of being a man. However, among women, smoking was
associated with stigma and shame.

Peer pressure was an important influence on smoking
behaviour in younger people, and opinions differed on
how acceptable smoking was within the Muslim religion.

Although these results show some similarities with studies
of smoking behaviour in white people, they also highlight
important differences, particularly the influence of gender
and religion, say the authors.

Substantial effort and investment is needed in culturally
sensitive smoking cessation interventions for South Asian
people, involving the government and national and local
health agencies, they conclude.

Contact:

Martin White, Senior Lecturer in Public Health, School
of Population and Health Sciences, University of
Newcastle, Newcastle upon Tyne, UK
Email: martin.white@ncl.ac.uk

(4) SHOULD ALL HOSPITALS BE SMOKE FREE?

(Editorial: smoke free hospitals)
http://bmj.com/cgi/content/full/326/7396/941

The recent decision by the Royal Victoria Hospital in
Belfast to build seven smoking rooms for patients and
staff at a cost of £500,000 provoked condemnation
from many sources. In this week's BMJ researchers
argue that these resources might have been better used
to implement a smoking ban and expand smoking
cessation activities.

The value of hospitals making a clear statement on public
smoking can be seen from a recent study showing that
total workplace bans would have an effect equivalent to
an almost doubling of the price of cigarettes in the United
Kingdom. Other considerations include protection of
other patients and staff from exposure to second hand
smoke, and a reduction in the risk of fires and in cleaning
costs.

Some will argue that bans on smoking in hospitals will
not work because of opposition by staff or patients, yet
studies confirm that smoking bans can work in NHS
hospitals if designed and implemented appropriately.

But should hospitals go further and actively help patients
to quit smoking either before coming into hospital or
during and after their stay?

The potential benefits are considerable, say the authors.
One trial found that 90% of patients who received
counselling and nicotine replacement six to eight weeks
before surgery either ceased or reduced smoking, were
less likely to experience postoperative complications,
and to need secondary surgery.

Another review found that behavioural interventions with
patients admitted to hospital were associated with higher
quit rates for at least a month afterwards.

Given this evidence, it is arguable that resources
expended on smoking rooms might be better used to
fund a concerted effort to implement a smoking ban and
to expand smoking cessation activities, say the authors.
Hopefully other hospitals facing a similar situation will act
differently in the future.

Contacts:

Martin McKee, London School of Hygiene and Tropical
Medicine, London, UK Mobile: +44 (0)7973 832 576
Email: martin.mckee@lshtm.ac.uk

Anna Gilmore, London School of Hygiene and Tropical
Medicine, London, UK
Email: anna.gilmore@lshtm.ac.uk

(5) CLEAR PUBLIC HEALTH MESSAGE ON
CANNABIS NEEDED

(Editorial: Comparing cannabis with tobacco)
http://bmj.com/cgi/content/full/326/7396/942

Smoking cannabis, like smoking tobacco, can be a
major public health hazard but, at present, there is no
clear public health message about cannabis, argue
researchers in this week's BMJ.

The number of cannabis smokers is increasing. Between
1999 and 2001, the number of 14-15 year olds who had
tried cannabis rose from 19% to 29% in boys and 18%
to 25% in girls. A Home Office document estimates that
3.2 million people in Britain smoke cannabis.

Regular use of cannabis is associated with an increased
risk of mental illnesses, such as schizophrenia and
depression. Smoking cannabis also causes chronic
bronchitis, emphysema, and other lung disorders, often in
young people. There are also reports of lung, tongue,
and other cancers in cannabis smokers.

Despite these alarming facts, there is no evidence at
present on whether smoking cannabis contributes to the
progression of coronary artery disease, as smoking
cigarettes does. More studies of the effects of cannabis
are essential, say the authors.

One could calculate that if cigarettes cause an annual
excess of 120,000 deaths among 13 million smokers,
deaths among 3.2 million cannabis smokers would be
30,000, assuming equity of effect, they write. Even if the
number of deaths attributable to cannabis turned out to
be a fraction of that figure, smoking cannabis would still
be a major public health hazard.

When the likely mental health burden is added, these
signals cannot be ignored, they conclude.

Contact:

Professor John Henry, Imperial College School of
Medicine, St Mary's Hospital, London, UK
Email: j.a.henry@ic.ac.uk


FOR ACCREDITED JOURNALISTS

Embargoed press releases and articles are available from:

Public Affairs Division
BMA House
Tavistock Square
London WC1H 9JR
(contact: pressoffice@bma.org.uk)

and from:

the EurekAlert website, run by the American Association for the
Advancement of Science
(http://www.eurekalert.org)