These studies suggest unfavorable effects of maternal smoking during pregnancy on the child's long-term growth, intellectual development, and behavioral characteristics. Although these changes are difficult to study because of the vast complexity of possible antecedent and confounding variables, high priority should be given to obtaining conclusive answers about the role of fetal exposure to maternal smoking in these conditions. The fact that the direction of observed differences in a variety of different studies is the same adds to the urgency of this question. Role of Maternal Weight Gain In the search for mechanisms through which maternal smoking reduces birth weight, the question has been asked whether it might be an indirect result of reduced appetite, less intake of food, and lower maternal weight gain. Several early studies reported no differences between smoking and nonsmoking women in intake of food or in weight gain and concluded that the effect of maternal smoking on birth weight was not mediated in this way (8, 54, 76, 101, 141, 212). Recently the question has been raised again by Rush in a study of births to 166 women of whom 41 smoked throughout pregnancy. His evidence showed that the mean weekly weight gain was reflected in the infant's weight at birth (162). In a subsequent study, Davies, et al. examined the interrelationships of cigarette smoking in pregnancy, maternal weight gain, and fetal growth. By analysis of covariance of 480 mother-infant pairs from the total of 1,159 included in the study, these authors stated: "Correction of birth weights within smoking groups to a common mean maternal weight gain appears to remove most of the differences between infants of nonsmokers and heavy smokers, although technically these corrected means are still statisti- cally heterogeneous." That is, the effect of smoking on birth weight was still observed although diminished by these procedures. From this the authors concluded that "a large part of the effect of maternal smoking is mediated through maternal weight gain with only a very small additional direct effect on the fetus. This suggests that increasing weight gain in smoking mothers might prevent some of the harmful effects of smoking on fetal growth." However, the alternative explanation that lower maternal weight gain and fetal growth retardation are both independently related to cigarette smoking in pregnancy is also mentioned (34). Other studies have not corroborated these findings. Mau reports results of the German prospective study in which 6,260 pregnant women were examined every month from the first trimester to delivery and the children followed for up to three years. Smoking was classified as none, 1 to 5,6 to 10, or more than 10 cigarettes per day. No significant association was found between smoking habit and weight gain. On the other hand, there was a close correlation between the g--24 number of small-fordates babies and the smoking habit in a subgroup of women with normal weight gain (10 to 15 kg). The proportions of babies below the tenth percentile were 7.7 percent for nonsmokers, 8.4 percent at 1 to 5 cigarettes, 12.5 percent at 6 to 10, and 17.6 percent at over 10 cigarettes per day. These babies had a general retardation of weight, length, and head circumference rather than appearing malnourished (IO?`). These findings are in agreement with the studies of Miller and Hassanein, who found that the effects of smoking on fetal growth did not appear to be related to poor maternal nutrition. Mean weight gains during the last two trimesters of pregnancy were not significantly different in smoking and nonsmoking mothers and were above the mean weight gains recommended by the National Research Council (118). Meyer investigated the relationship of maternal smoking to maternal weight gain and to birth weight, using data from the 31,733 births b English-speaking Canadian-born women included in the Ontario Perinatal Mortality Study (113, 14.2, 1.43). As expected, birth weight distributions shifted downward as maternal smoking level increased. Maternal weight-gain distributions, on the other hand, were the same for smokers and nonsmokers. Furthermore, the proportion of infants weighing less than 2,500 grams increased with each level of smoking (none, less than a pack, and more than 1 pack per day) within each maternal weight-gain group from less than 5 pounds to more than 40 pounds. This evidence supports a direct effect of maternal smoking on birth weight rather than one mediated through eating. Evaluation of Rush's study (162) is difficult because of small numbers and because of population-selection factors that led to large differences between smokers and nonsmokers in age, parity, marital status, and education. The study population of Davies, et al. (34) is more homogeneous and contains 450 smokers, but both studies share a common problem in interpretation. Meyer points out that an inevitable correlation exists between maternal weight gain and birth weight insofar as both increase with gestational age, necessitating careful control of this factor. Furthermore, the fact that fetal weight is an increasingly important component of maternal weight gain towards term (51 percent between 30 and 40 weeks) and accounts for a larger proportion of a low-weight gain than of a high-weight gain ensures a considerable degree of correlation between the two values. The same baby is weighed twice, once while growing in. utero and contributing to maternal weight gain, and again at birth. In this way the mother gains weight because the baby is growing, and not vice versa. Meyer concludes that efforts to prevent or reduce smoking during pregnancy should have greater benefits for mother and child than would efforts to increase food intake among women who smoke (113). 8-25 Evidence for Indirect Associations Between Smoking and Birth Weight Yerushalmy has suggested that smoking is an index to a particular type of reproductive outcome and does not play a causal role in the production of small-for-dates infants (206-208). The line of reasoning and evidence presented by Yerushalmy and the responses to it are discussed in detail in the 1973 report on The Health Consequences of Smoking (192). The problems inherent in Yerushalmy's study, in which he found a higher percentage of low birth weights among 210 nonsmokers who later became smokers than among nonsmokers who did not take it up, have been described. The most serious of these problems is the bias introduced by the study design resulting in significantly younger ages for the "future smoker" group (mean age 19.70 20.15) than for his nonsmokers (22.102 0.04); the doubly retro- spective nature of the information gathered (women being asked about smoking habits at the time of previous pregnancies); and lack of control for other important factors influencing birth weight, such as primiparity and sex of child. Silverman addressed the question of whether the smoker rather than the smoking was responsible for increased frequency of low birth weight by comparing pairs of births to the same woman, using data from the 1963 private census of the population of Washington County, Maryland (28). In this census all members of the household were listed with birth dates, and all members were asked whether and how much they smoked and when they had started. Using these data, Silverman constructed a population of pairs of births that occurred during the 17- year period prior to the census date of July 15,1963. Assuming that the mothers did not stop smoking during pregnancy and that the age of starting was accurately reported, she was able to compare birth weights in first and second births of 143 women who smoked during the second pregnancy, but not during the first, with corresponding birth weights from 382 women who smoked during neither pregnancy and 491 women who smoked during both pregnancies. The many problems inherent in this study were faced, and adjustments were made insofar as possible. For example, as in Yerushalmy's study, significantly more of the future smokers (44.8 percent) were under 20 years of age at the time of the first study birth, compared with 24.5 percent of the continuing nonsmokers. Young, primiparous mothers are known to have lighter babies than older mothers with higher parity. When weights were compared specific for maternal age and sex of child, the mean birth weight for the first member of the birth pair was lower in four out of six comparisons and higher in two. With simultaneous adjustment for the effects of infant sex, maternal age, and birth order, there were no significant differences in mean birth weight difference among pairs in which the mother smoked during both pregnancies and pairs in which the mother smoked during the 8-26 second pregnancy of the pair, but not the first. Comparison of the mean birth weights for the first infants in each pair showed that future smokers had babies who weighed less than those of women who did not take up smoking and more than those of women who were already smokers and continued to smoke. Silverman concluded: "These findings neither confirm nor deny the hypothesis that the smoker rather than the smoking per se causes a reduction in birthweight" (171). Evidence for a direct effect of maternal smoking on fetal growth as presented in this chapter is extremely strong. Furthermore, the biological effects of carbon monoxide, nicotine, and other known components of cigarette smoke are compatible with the findings from epidemiologic studies. Therefore, there seems little value in arguing that this direct effect does not exist. On the other hand, smokers are to some extent self-selected, and comparisons of "smokers" and "non- smokers" in a population reveal differences between them. These may be related to calendar time trends, peer group influence, cultural and ethnic background, social class, or personality type. Because the relationship between maternal smoking and birth weight is so strong, these differences do not obscure it. More problems arise from lack of adjustment for differences between smokers and nonsmokers in the distribution of such factors as age, parity, socioeconomic status, and race when the relationship of maternal smoking to perinatal mortality is under study; these issues are discussed in detail in another section of this chapter. In addition, attention should be paid to the possibility that psychological makeup and strength of addiction to cigarette smoking may have an independent influence on some of the outcomes being studied. Future studies should not only adjust for independent factors that influence whether or not a woman becomes a smoker and smokes during pregnancy but should also distinguish between the effects of a personality type that adopts smoking and the physical effects of the smoke on mother, placenta, and fetus. 1. Babies born to women who smoke during pr&nancy are on the average 200 grams lighter than babies born to comparable women who do not smoke. The whole distribution of birth weights of smokers' babies is shifted downward, and twice as many of these babies weigh less than ~,.XIO grams compared with babies of nonsmokers. There is abundant evidence that maternal smoking is a direct cause of the reduction in birth weight. 2. Birth weight is affected by maternal smoking independently and to a uniform extent, regardless of other determinants of birth weight. The more the mother smokes, the greater the reduction in birth weight of the baby. 8-27 3. The ratio of placenta weight to birth weight increases with increasing levels of maternal smoking., This increase may signify a response to reduced oxygen availability due to carbon monoxide and may have some survival value for the fetus. 4. There is no overall reduction in the duration of gestation with maternal smoking, indicating that the lower birth weight of smoke& infants is due to retardation of fetal growth. 5. The pattern of fetal growth retardation that occurs with maternal smoking is a decrease in all dimensions: body length, chest circumfer- ence, and head circumference are smaller if the mother smokes. Smokers' babies are short for dates as well as light and do not exhibit reduction in ponderal index. 6. Studies of long-term growth and development give evidence that smoking during pregnancy may affect physical growth, mental development, and behavioral characteristics of children at least up to the age of 11. 7. Overwhelming evidence indicates that maternal smoking during pregnancy affects fetal growth rate directly, that fetal growth rate is not due to characteristics of the smoker rather than to the smoking nor mediated by reduced maternal appetite, eating, and weight gain. Cigarette Smoking and Fetal and Infant Mortality Overview In contrast with the strong, consistent relationship of maternal smoking to reduced birth weight, the relationship of maternal smoking to perinatal mortality has been marked by variation in the level of increased risk for women who smoke. This has led to controversy as to whether there truly are lethal effects for the fetus or neonate caused by maternal smoking. Earlier epidemiological studies of the association between maternal cigarette smoking and perinatal mortality (fetal deaths, neonatal deaths, or perinatal deaths) were reviewed in the 1971,1972, and 1973 reports on The Health Consequences of Smoking (190-192). The 1971 report gave details of 12 studies of maternal smoking and the incidence of spontaneous abortion, stillbirth, and neonatal death (20, 41, 54, 87, 101, 141,151,164, 166,188, 206, 212). The increased risk of loss among smokers varied from study to study. Inconsistencies between studies were described, and it was noted that both smoking habits and perinatal loss were influenced by such factors as social class, maternal age, and parity. Rush and Kass reviewed the English language literature in 1972 and found reports of 12,333 perinatal deaths and abortions with a mean excess perinatal loss for smokers of 34.4 percent. Where reported, excess loss was higher among the poor and among blacks. Their study of black and white women in Boston showed excess 8-B mortality risks of 36 percent for black smokers and 11 percent for white smokers (166). The 1973 report (192) summarized studies that were published up to that date and contained a critical analysis of known reasons for variability in the strength of the association between maternal smoking and increased perinatal loss. Much of the controversy about whether maternal smoking did or did not cause fetal or neonatal loss centered around the basically irrelevant issues of whether studies were "prospective" or "retrospective" (usually referring to the time at which smoking information was obtained rather than to whether the study was based on a cohort of births or on a set of cases and controls), and on whether or not the differences were "statistically significant." Classification of the studies reviewed in the 19'73 report according to statistical significance revealed that studies in which the higher rates of mortality for the infants of smokers compared with nonsmokers reached a significant level (usually p48 hours Rupture of membranes only at admission 23.3 28.0 33.4 27.8t 16.1 20.6 28.9 47.q 6.4 8.2 13.1 =`Jt 116.5 141.6 189.1 mw 15.8 23.3 36.8 109.9t 30.3 39.3 45.0 45.7t `Cachmn's chi squaw for trends. tp