Categories
HEALTH NATURAL-BEAUTY SPORTS

Is snuff really safer than smoking?

An open tin of dark brown smokeless tobacco known as snuff on right; fingers of a hand cupping pouches of snuff on left

Snuff is a smokeless tobacco similar to chewing tobacco. It rarely makes headlines. But it certainly did when the FDA authorized a brand of snuff to market its products as having a major health advantage over cigarettes. Could this be true? Is it safe to use snuff?

What did the FDA authorize as a health claim?

Here’s the approved language for Copenhagen Classic Snuff:

If you smoke, consider this: switching completely to this product from cigarettes reduces risk of lung cancer.

While the statement is true, this FDA action — and the marketing that’s likely to follow — might suggest snuff is a safe product. It’s not. Let’s talk about the rest of the story.

What is snuff, anyway?

Snuff is a form of tobacco that’s finely ground. There are two types:

  • Moist snuff. Users place a pinch or a pouch of tobacco behind their upper or lower lips or between their cheek and gum. They must repeatedly spit out or swallow the tobacco juice that accumulates. After a few minutes, they remove or spit out the tobacco as well. This recent FDA action applies to a brand of moist snuff.
  • Dry snuff. This type is snorted (inhaled through the nose) and is less common in the US.

Both types are available in an array of scents and flavors. Users absorb nicotine and other chemicals into the bloodstream through the lining of the mouth. Blood levels of nicotine are similar between smokers and snuff users. But nicotine stays in the blood for a longer time with snuff users.

Why is snuff popular?

According to CDC statistics, 5.7 million adults in the US regularly use smokeless tobacco products — that’s about 2% of the adult population. A similar percentage (1.6%) of high school students use it as well. That’s despite restrictions on youth marketing and sales.

What accounts for its popularity?

  • Snuff may be allowed in places that prohibit smoking.
  • It tends to cost less than cigarettes: $300 to $1,000 a year versus several thousand dollars a year paid by some smokers.
  • It doesn’t require inhaling smoke into the lungs, or exposing others to secondhand smoke.
  • Snuff is safer than cigarettes in at least one way — it is less likely to cause lung cancer.
  • It may help some cigarette smokers quit.

The serious health risks of snuff

While the risk of lung cancer is lower compared with cigarettes, snuff has plenty of other health risks, including

  • higher risk of cancers of the mouth (such as the tongue, gums, and cheek), esophagus, and pancreas
  • higher risk of heart disease and stroke
  • harm to the developing teenage brain
  • dental problems, such as discoloration of teeth, gum disease, tooth damage, bone loss around the teeth, tooth loosening or loss
  • higher risk of premature birth and stillbirth among pregnant users.

And because nicotine is addictive, using any tobacco product can quickly become a habit that’s hard to break.

There are also the “ick” factors: bad breath and having to repeatedly spit out tobacco juice.

Could this new marketing message about snuff save lives?

Perhaps, if many smokers switch to snuff and give up smoking. That could reduce the number of people who develop smoking-related lung cancer. It might even reduce harms related to secondhand smoke.

But it’s also possible the new marketing message will attract nonsmokers, including teens, who weren’t previously using snuff. A bigger market for snuff products might boost health risks for many people, rather than lowering them.

The new FDA action is approved for a five-year period, and the company must monitor its impact. Is snuff an effective way to help smokers quit? Is a lower rate of lung cancer canceled out by a rise in other health risks? We don’t know yet. If the new evidence shows more overall health risks than benefits for snuff users compared with smokers, this new marketing authorization may be reversed.

The bottom line

If you smoke, concerns you have about lung cancer or other smoking-related health problems are justified. But snuff should not be the first choice to help break the smoking habit. Commit to quit using safer options that don’t involve tobacco, such as nicotine gum or patches, counseling, and medications.

While the FDA’s decision generated news headlines that framed snuff as safer than smoking, it’s important to note that the FDA did not endorse the use of snuff — or even suggest that snuff is a safe product. Whether smoked or smokeless, tobacco creates enormous health burdens and suffering. Clearly, it’s best not to use any tobacco product.

Until we have a better understanding of its impact, I think any new marketing of this sort should also make clear that using snuff comes with other important health risks — even if lung cancer isn’t the biggest one.

Follow me on Twitter @RobShmerling

About the Author

photo of Robert H. Shmerling, MD

Robert H. Shmerling, MD, Senior Faculty Editor, Harvard Health Publishing; Editorial Advisory Board Member, Harvard Health Publishing

Dr. Robert H. Shmerling is the former clinical chief of the division of rheumatology at Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center (BIDMC), and is a current member of the corresponding faculty in medicine at Harvard Medical School. … See Full Bio View all posts by Robert H. Shmerling, MD

Categories
HEALTH NATURAL-BEAUTY SPORTS

Prostate cancer in transgender women

close-up photo of a vial of blood marked PSA test alongside a pen; both are resting on a document showing the PSA test results

The transgender population is steadily increasing. Last year, investigators reported that 1.3% of people between the ages of 18 and 24 in the United States identify as transgender, compared to 0.55% of the country’s older adults. This trend has implications for public health, and one issue in particular concerns the risk of prostate cancer in transgender women.

Because removing the prostate can lead to urinary incontinence and other complications, doctors leave the gland in place when initiating hormonal treatments to induce female sex characteristics in transitioning people. This process, which is called feminizing or gender-affirming hormonal therapy (GAHT), relies on medications and surgery to block testosterone, a male sex hormone. Prostate cancer is fueled by testosterone, and therefore GAHT lowers overall risks for the disease. But transgender women can still develop prostate cancer in ways that remain poorly understood, according to the authors of a new paper.

“More individuals are openly identifying as transgender, particularly as advances are made in reducing the discrimination and marginalization that this group has faced,” says Dr. Farnoosh Nik-Ahd, a urologist at the University of California, San Francisco, and the paper’s first author. “Thus, it’s important to understand their health outcomes and how best to care for this population.”

Dr. Nik-Ahd and her colleagues wanted better insights into prostate cancer incidence and screening rates among transgender women, so they performed a comprehensive review of the literature that generated some notable findings. One is that that the prevalence of GAHT in the transgender population is still unknown. Some studies put the figure at roughly one in every 12,000 to 13,000 people who identify as transgender. But this is likely an underestimate, the authors claim, and it’s not broken out by sex.

Questions over GAHT

Similarly, little is known about the impact of GAHT on the likelihood of developing prostate cancer, the team reported. Prostate cancer rates do appear to be lower among transgender women than they are among cisgender men (men whose gender identify matches their sex at birth). For instance, one study found just a single case of prostate cancer among 2,306 transgender women receiving routine health care at a clinic in Amsterdam, Holland, between 1975 and 2006. Another study, also from Holland, detected six cases of prostate cancer among 2,281 transgender women over 17 years, which again is less than the comparable rate among cisgender men.

But the interpretation of these rates is limited by the fact that transgender women often experience barriers to care. Nearly a third of them live in poverty, and many avoid the health system for fear of mistreatment. Some scientists suspect that estrogen given during GAHT may somehow contribute to prostate cancer development when given over long durations. However, more confirmatory evidence is needed. Worryingly, one study found that survival among transgender women with prostate cancer is worse than it is in cisgender men with the disease, yet that research lacked data on GAHT use.

Interpreting PSA values for specific populations

Dr. Nik-Ahd’s team was especially concerned about the lack of guideline recommendations for prostate-specific antigen (PSA) screening in the transgender population. None of the available guidelines worldwide mention transgender women, and the PSA cutoff of 4 nanograms per milliliter (ng/mL) of blood — which raises suspicions for prostate cancer — is specific to cisgender men. PSA levels ordinarily plummet in people taking GAHT, so the limit for what’s considered normal in transgender women should be capped at 1.0 ng/mL, the researchers propose. In the absence of more specific guidance, they also recommend that people meeting age criteria for PSA screening get tested before starting on GAHT, in order to obtain a baseline value.

Many doctors are already familiar with other common drugs that alter PSA values — in this case with screening implications for cisgender men, points out Dr. Heidi Rayala, a urologist affiliated with Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center in Boston, and a member of the Harvard Medical School Annual Report on Prostate Diseases editorial board. For instance, PSA values drop by half in men taking finasteride or dutasteride for hair loss (or to shrink an enlarged prostate). “Doctors take extra care when interpreting PSA in cisgender men who take these drugs,” she says. “The same care needs to be taken in interpreting PSA values in transgender women. And there needs to be broader education on this topic for both primary care doctors as well as the transgender community.

Dr. Nik-Ahd agrees. “Future research should aim to understand baseline PSA values for those on gender-affirming hormones, and to understand how to navigate some of the psychosocial barriers around PSA screening so as to not stigmatize transgender patients,” she says.

About the Author

photo of Charlie Schmidt

Charlie Schmidt, Editor, Harvard Medical School Annual Report on Prostate Diseases

Charlie Schmidt is an award-winning freelance science writer based in Portland, Maine. In addition to writing for Harvard Health Publishing, Charlie has written for Science magazine, the Journal of the National Cancer Institute, Environmental Health Perspectives, … See Full Bio View all posts by Charlie Schmidt

About the Reviewer

photo of Marc B. Garnick, MD

Marc B. Garnick, MD, Editor in Chief, Harvard Medical School Annual Report on Prostate Diseases; Editorial Advisory Board Member, Harvard Health Publishing

Dr. Marc B. Garnick is an internationally renowned expert in medical oncology and urologic cancer. A clinical professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School, he also maintains an active clinical practice at Beth Israel Deaconess Medical … See Full Bio View all posts by Marc B. Garnick, MD