PT  - JOURNAL ARTICLE
AU  - Matthew Fell
AU  - Craig Russell
AU  - Jibby Medina
AU  - Toby Gillgrass
AU  - Shaheel Chummun
AU  - Alistair R.M. Cobb
AU  - Jonathan Sandy
AU  - Yvonne Wren
AU  - Andrew Wills
AU  - Sarah J. Lewis
TI  - The impact of changing smoking habits and smoke-free legislation on orofacial cleft incidence in the United Kingdom: evidence from two time-series studies
AID  - 10.1101/2021.06.25.21259517
DP  - 2021 Jan 01
TA  - medRxiv
PG  - 2021.06.25.21259517
4099  - http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2021/06/27/2021.06.25.21259517.short
4100  - http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2021/06/27/2021.06.25.21259517.full
AB  - Objectives To analyse the association between active and passive cigarette smoking and the incidence of children born with a cleft lip and/or palate within the United Kingdom.Design First, a longitudinal time-series study was conducted with routinely collected smoking prevalence data for females over 16 years of age. Second, an interrupted time-series design was used as a natural experiment to assess the impact of smoke-free legislation using segmented Poisson regression.Setting United Kingdom.Population All children born between 2000 and 2018 and their mothers.Main outcome measures Orofacial cleft incidence, reported annually for England, Wales and Northern Ireland and separately for Scotland.Results Over the study period, the annual incidence of orofacial cleft per 10,000 live births ranged from 14.2-16.2 in England, Wales and Northern Ireland and 13.4-18.8 in Scotland. The proportion of active smokers amongst females in the United Kingdom declined by 37% during the study period. Adjusted regression analysis did not show a correlation between the proportion of active smokers and orofacial cleft incidence in either dataset, although we were unable to exclude a modest effect of the magnitude seen in individual-level observational studies. The data in England, Wales and Northern Ireland suggested an 8% reduction in orofacial cleft incidence (95%CI 1% to 14%; P=0.026) following the implementation of smoke-free legislation. In Scotland, there was weak evidence for an increase in orofacial cleft incidence following smoke-free legislation.Conclusion These two ecological studies offer a novel insight into the influence of smoking in orofacial cleft aetiology, adding to the evidence base from individual-level studies. Our results suggest that smoke-free legislation may have reduced orofacial cleft incidence in England, Wales and Northern Ireland.Section 1: What is already known on this topicAn association between maternal active and passive smoking and orofacial cleft has been previously reported in conventional individual-level observational studiesEcological and natural experiment time-series designs have been successfully used to demonstrate the association between population-level exposures and other non-cleft health outcomesSection 2: What this study addsEcological studies within a single country with complete cleft registration data are unlikely to be sufficiently powered to detect a relationship between time-series population level trends in active smoking and the number of children born with orofacial cleft each year.In England, Wales and Northern Ireland our natural experiment study showed a reduction in the proportion of children born with an orofacial cleft following the implementation of smoke-free legislation, but this was not replicated in Scotland.This study exploits the systematic collection of population data in the UK and adds to our understanding of the role of smoking in orofacial clefting as well as demonstrating the impact of public health interventions.Competing Interest StatementThe authors have declared no competing interest.Funding StatementAll authors have completed the ICMJE uniform disclosure form at www.icmje.org/coi_disclosure.pdf and declare: no support from any organisation for the submitted work; MF is supported by the VTCT Foundation for a research fellowship with the Cleft Collective at the University of Bristol; SL is supported by a project grant from the Medical Research Council (MR/T002093/1); no financial relationships with any organisations that might have an interest in the submitted work in the previous three years; no other relationships or activities that could appear to have influenced the work. Funders had no role in the study design; in the collection, analysis and interpretation of data; in the writing of the report; and in the decision to submit the article for publication. The authors can confirm their independence from funders and that all authors had full access to all of the data (including statistical reports and tables) in the study and can take responsibility for the integrity of the data and accuracy of the data analysis.Author DeclarationsI confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.YesThe details of the IRB/oversight body that provided approval or exemption for the research described are given below:No IRB approval required for this publicly available population level dataAll necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived.YesI understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as ClinicalTrials.gov. I confirm that any such study reported in the manuscript has been registered and the trial registration ID is provided (note: if posting a prospective study registered retrospectively, please provide a statement in the trial ID field explaining why the study was not registered in advance).YesI have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines and uploaded the relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material as supplementary files, if applicable.YesLinks to all publicly available data is referenced