• <tr id="yyy80"></tr>
  • <sup id="yyy80"></sup>
  • <tfoot id="yyy80"><noscript id="yyy80"></noscript></tfoot>
  • 99热精品在线国产_美女午夜性视频免费_国产精品国产高清国产av_av欧美777_自拍偷自拍亚洲精品老妇_亚洲熟女精品中文字幕_www日本黄色视频网_国产精品野战在线观看 ?

    Exclusive cigar smoking in the United States and smoking-related diseases: A systematic review

    2020-12-16 09:00:46PeterLeeJanetteHamlingAlisonThornton
    World Journal of Meta-Analysis 2020年3期

    Peter N Lee,Janette S Hamling, Alison J Thornton

    Peter N Lee, Department of Statistics, P.N.Lee Statistics and Computing Ltd., Sutton, Surrey SM2 5DA, United Kingdom

    Janette S Hamling, Department of Statistics, RoeLee Statistics Ltd., Sutton SM2 5DA, United Kingdom

    Alison J Thornton, Independent Consultant, Okehampton, Devon EX20 1SG, United Kingdom

    Abstract

    Key words: Tobacco products; Cigar smoking; Lung neoplasms; Pulmonary disease; Chronic obstructive; Heart diseases; Stroke; Circulatory disease; Systematic review; Metaanalysis

    INTRODUCTION

    There is extensive evidence on the relationship of cigarette smoking to health endpoints but far less evidence relating to cigar smoking.While some studies have reported results relating to dual use of cigars and pipes[1-4]or to cigar smoking in those who may also smoke other tobacco products[5], the health effects of exclusive cigar smoking have been less often reported.Comparing disease risk in cigar smokers who have never smoked other tobacco products with that in never smokers of any tobacco product avoids the problems of residual confounding by other smoking habits and of possible differences in cigar smoking habits (such as depth of inhalation[6]) in those who have ever smoked other tobacco products.

    Exclusive cigar smoking is much less common than cigarette smoking so the population studied must be large enough to include enough exclusive cigar smokers for a useful risk assessment to be made.For this reason we have restricted attention to studies in the United States, a country not only with a large population, but one where cigar smoking is relatively common compared with other countries[7,8].We also restrict attention to the major smoking-related diseases.

    MATERIALS AND METHODS

    Study inclusion criteria

    Published studies were included if they were carried out in the United States and reported the risk of lung cancer or chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) or heart disease, stroke and/or overall circulatory disease, comparing exclusive cigar smokers (current, former or ever cigar smokers who never smoked other tobacco products) with never smokers of any tobacco (or a closely-related comparison group).The results considered were for overall lung cancer rather than lung cancer subtypes, and related to overall risk measures rather than dose response indices, although dose response results by amount smoked were also identified.

    Literature searches

    Searching for results on cigar smoking was complicated by the MEDLINE search term “cigar smoking” being available only from the start of 2018.Before then the only search term to include cigar smoking was “tobacco products”.

    For lung cancer, the first step was to examine publications from a previous review relating lung cancer to various indices of smoking based on studies published during the 1900s[9].Subsequently three different MEDLINE searches were conducted using terms such as (“cigar” or “cigars”), “United States” and “l(fā)ung neoplasms”.This was followed by a fourth search that attempted to retrieve relevant papers that had not yet been indexed with MeSH terms on MEDLINE, this search not being lung cancer specific.A fifth search used wholly non-MeSH search terms, with the final stage being to look for relevant results in papers identified as relevant in the searches for COPD and for heart disease, stroke and circulatory diseases.

    For COPD, the process started with three different MEDLINE searches using the terms “COPD” or “pulmonary disease, chronic obstructive” to identify the disease.The fourth search used the term “Smoking” rather than “Cigar”, while the fifth search used the MeSH terms “Smoking/mortality” or “Smoking/adverse effects”.The next step was to review the results from the fourth lung cancer search, while the final step was to look at papers identified as relevant in the searches for lung cancer and for heart disease, stroke and circulatory diseases.

    For heart disease, stroke and circulatory diseases, the process started with four different MEDLINE searches using the disease terms “Heart disease”, “Stroke” or “Heart”.The next step was again to review the results from the fourth lung cancer search, while the final step was to look at relevant papers from the lung cancer and COPD searches.

    Searching ended when no new data was found and all the papers referenced by reviews had been examined.Full details of the searches are given in Supplementary material.

    Sorting publications into studies and avoidance of overlap

    The papers identified in the searches were reviewed for the studies they reported, and multiple publications reporting the same study were identified.

    The source papers identified as providing relevant estimates were then considered for overlap of reporting.Where more than one of the source papers reported on the same study, the results may have been reported in different ways or for different lengths of follow-up, or have combined results from multiple studies.

    Data recorded

    For each paper identified as providing relevant results details were entered onto a study database and a linked relative risk (RR) database for the relevant disease.

    The study database contained a record for each study describing the following aspects: A study name based on the published study name or on the name of the first author of the paper; study title; study design; sexes considered; age range and other details of the population studied; timing and length of follow-up; details of overlaps or links with other studies; number of cases; number of controls or subjects at risk; types of controls and matching factors used in case-control studies; and confounding variables considered.

    The RR database holds the detailed results, typically containing multiple records for each study.Each record is linked to the relevant study via the study name, and holds details of a specific risk estimate.It records the type of estimate, its value and confidence interval, its source and other details such as the age range included in the estimate if this is different from the overall study age range.Some estimates were taken directly from the source paper.Others were derived using the details provided in the paper.

    Where no RR estimate was given or a RR estimate was given without a confidence interval, information on the sample size and the number of deaths was used to estimate these.Estimates for separate independent subsets of the population such as age groups were combined using simple meta-analysis.Non-independent RRs using a common comparison group (e.g., never smokers) were combined using the Hamling method[10].This method was used to combine RRs by number of cigars smoked per day and to combine RRs for former and current smokers to give an estimate for ever smokers.It was also used to estimate risk for overall circulatory disease when the study provided separate estimates for cerebrovascular disease and a broad definition of coronary heart disease, and to estimate overall stroke from separate risk estimates for ischaemic and haemorrhagic stroke.The International Classification of Disease codes used to define IHD, stroke and circulatory disease can be found at https://coder.aapc.com/icd-10-codes-range/110.

    Each extract was carried out by one of the authors, the entered data and any additional calculations then being reported and checked by another of the authors, with problems discussed and amendments made until both agreed that the data entered were a true representation of the study data.

    Dose-response data on risk by number of cigars smoked per day were also identified and are discussed below.

    Statistical analysis

    For each disease considered, fixed-effect and random-effects meta-analyses were conducted using the Fleiss and Gross method[11], with heterogeneity quantified by H, the ratio of the heterogeneity to its degrees of freedom, which is directly related to theI2statistic[12]by the formulaI2= 100 (H-1)/H.

    Whenever more than one paper provided equivalent results for a study, only one result was included in a meta-analysis.The selection of the result was based on four criteria: Prospective follow-up was given preference over cross-sectional analysis at baseline; the longest follow-up reported (for prospective studies); the widest age range reported; and finally the RR adjusted for the most confounding factors.

    Some papers provided results for comparisons that did not exactly match our selection criteria.Where any were relevant to a meta-analysis, the analysis was performed excluding those results, and then including them in a sensitivity analysis.

    The KAISER study[13]used a questionnaire that asked about the participant’s history of cigarette smoking and their current pipe and cigar smoking.Ever cigarette smokers were excluded from their analyses.It was, therefore, possible to identify participants who had never smoked cigarettes and who did not, at baseline, smoke cigars or a pipe.This is not completely equivalent to our requirement for the comparison group to be never smokers of any tobacco product.Also, the participants categorised as current cigar smokers may have included former pipe smokers.However, the study was large (1546 current cigar smokers and 16228 never cigarette smokers) and had a long followup (25-26 years) so justified inclusion in sensitivity analyses.

    For the MALHOT study a pooled analysis of data from five large prospective studies was reported[14].Of these studies, two (the Netherlands Cohort Study and the Melbourne Collaborative Cohort Study) were conducted outside the United States, while the other three (the VITamins And Lifestyle study, the NIH-AARP Diet and Health study and the Prostate, Lung, Colorectal and Ovarian Cancer Screening Trial) were conducted in the United States.However, the studies in the United States were larger and formed 85.7% of the total population reported, and the largest of the studies (NIH-AARP) followed up participants for a median of 15.5 years.The size of this pooled analysis, the large proportion of participants from the United States, the long follow-up in the largest study, and the lack of study-specific reports relating to cigar smoking for the studies pooled justified including the combined results in sensitivity analysis.

    For the NHIS study, a cross-sectional analysis of baseline data[15]reports results for a definition of “Heart conditions” including angina, coronary heart disease, heart attack and other heart disease which is too broad for the results to be included in our main analysis of ischaemic heart disease (IHD).However, as the report considers data from four years’ surveys of this large, repeated, nationally representative study, and as no other source was found that reported IHD for this study, it was decided to include its results in sensitivity analysis.

    Also for the NHIS study, an analysis of prospective findings from six years’ survey data with follow up for at least five years, the source publication[16]reports results for a broad definition of coronary heart disease which includes rheumatic fever, some hypertensive heart disease, IHD and some other heart disease.Though this definition is too broad to be included in our analyses of IHD, the paper also reports results for cerebrovascular disease (stroke), and taken together, the definitions of coronary heart disease and cerebrovascular disease were very close to our ideal definition of circulatory disease.We therefore combined the results for coronary heart disease and for cerebrovascular disease, and included the resulting estimates in the sensitivity analyses for overall circulatory disease.

    The NLMS study[17]reported too broad a definition of cardiovascular disease, an ideal definition of stroke and a definition of circulatory disease that included all the relevant disease categories except diseases of the veins and other diseases of the circulatory system.The reported results for stroke were included in the main metaanalyses and the results for circulatory disease were included in sensitivity analysis only.

    RESULTS

    Literature search

    For lung cancer, 17 publications were identified that were relevant to the metaanalyses (including the sensitivity analyses), 13 from the previous review[9], three from additional searches, and one from reviews identified in the searches, as shown in Figure 1.Two of these[18,19]are by the same authors reporting the same study, the first giving overall study information and the second giving results by disease, so only the latter is cited in the analysis results.For COPD, four publications were identified (Figure 2), while for heart disease, stroke and circulatory disease 12 were found (Figure 3).

    Studies

    Table 1[13,14,17-31](lung cancer), Table 2[13,17,23,27](COPD), and Table 3[13,15-17,19,21,23,26-28,32,33](heart disease, stroke and circulatory disease) present details on each study, including its name, the source publications, the study type, the years of follow-up, the study size, and the sexes and age groups considered.Results used in sensitivity analyses only are marked with an asterisk.Table 3 also includes details of the definition of heart disease, stroke and circulatory diseases.

    For lung cancer, the 17 publications relate to 11 studies, though two (KAISER, MALHOT) are only used in sensitivity analyses.Eight of the studies are of prospective design and three case-controls.Except for NLMS, which considers both sexes, all provide results only for males.The studies vary widely in size, with three involving over 400000 people, and four less than 10000.

    For COPD, the four publications concern separate studies, though again KAISER is only used in sensitivity analyses.All the studies are prospective, with all except NLMS considering only males.All four of these studies also provide results for lung cancer.The study size in KAISER is much lower than in the other three studies.

    For heart disease, stroke and circulatory disease, the 12 publications concern eight studies: Six prospective, one case-control and one reported both as a cross-sectional analysis of baseline data and using prospective follow-up.KAISER (all results), NHIS (prospective results for circulatory disease and cross-sectional results for ischaemic heart disease) and NMLS (results for circulatory disease) were only used in the sensitivity analyses.Most results were for men only, the exceptions being those from NHIS and NLMS that were for the sexes combined.As for lung cancer, the studies varied widely in size.

    Overall, as many studies provided data for more than one disease, there were 13 studies, of which two only provided results for the sensitivity analyses and two others had some results restricted to sensitivity analyses.

    Meta-analyses

    The individual study RR estimates used are given in Table 4[13-17,19,20,22,23,25,27-33], with the results of the meta-analyses conducted summarised in Table 5.Unless otherwise stated references to combined estimates are to random-effects estimates, with 95%CI given in parentheses.

    Lung cancer

    For current smokers there was highly significant heterogeneity (P< 0.001) between the five estimates, which ranged from 1.66 (1.18 to 2.34) for DORN to 5.10 (4.00 to 6.60) for CPS II.The overall estimate was 3.12 (2.11 to 4.62).Including the result from study KAISER little affected the combined estimate, which became 2.98 (2.08 to 4.26).

    Table 1 Studies in meta-analysis of lung cancer and exclusive cigar smoking1

    The four results for former smokers showed no significant heterogeneity (atP< 0.1), and gave a somewhat lower estimate of 1.61 (1.23 to 2.09).

    The nine results for ever smokers showed significant (P< 0.05) heterogeneity due to the high estimate from BOUCOT of 8.81.The rest of the estimates ranged from 1.02 to 3.01.The overall estimate was 2.11 (1.64 to 2.72).When the result from MALHOT was included, this became 2.22 (1.79 to 2.74).

    COPD

    None of the analyses showed significant heterogeneity, and there was very limited evidence of an association.Results were available from only four studies and for only two of these were results available for each of the exposures current, former and ever smokers (Table 4).This resulted in all the combined estimates being based on between two and four results.For current smokers the overall estimate was slightly raised at 1.42 (0.89 to 2.26) excluding KAISER and 1.44 (1.16 to 1.77) including KAISER, but no increase was seen for ever smokers 0.86 (0.48 to 1.54).For former smokers, the overall estimate of 0.47 had an extremely wide CI of 0.02 to 9.88, based on individual estimates of 0.05 (0.00 to 3.19) and 1.38 (0.42 to 4.51).

    IHD, stroke and circulatory disease

    As is evident from Table 5, overall estimates generally only slightly exceeded 1.00, though some of those for IHD and circulatory disease, but not stroke, were significantly raised (atP< 0.05).There was also evidence of heterogeneity in some of the meta-analyses presented.Generally, the results from the sensitivity analyses were similar to those from the main analyses, so only the former set of results, which involve more studies, are considered below.

    Table 2 Studies in meta-analysis of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease and exclusive cigar smoking1

    For ischaemic heart disease, the estimates were somewhat higher for former than current smokers, being 1.11 (1.04 to 1.19) for current smokers, 1.26 (1.03 to 1.53) for former smokers, and 1.15 (1.08 to 1.23) for ever smokers.

    For stroke, the estimates were all closer to 1.00, but again somewhat higher for former than current smokers, being 1.02 (0.92 to 1.13) for current smokers, 1.08 (0.85 to 1.38) for former smokers, and 1.11 (0.95 to 1.31) for ever smokers.

    For overall circulatory disease, the three estimates were quite similar, being 1.10 (1.05 to 1.16) for current smokers, 1.11 (0.84 to 1.46) for former smokers and 1.15 (1.06 to 1.26) for ever smokers.

    Dose-response data

    Many studies did not provide data on risk by number of cigars smoked per day.Table 6[13,17,23,27,30,32,33]summarizes the limited data available from six studies, five of which provided data for ischaemic heart disease, four for lung cancer, and two for COPD.With the possible exception of the result for the SADOWS study, the data for lung cancer seemed consistent with an increasing risk with increasing amount smoked.The data for COPD and for ischaemic heart disease, however, did not consistently show any clear increase in risk with amount smoked.

    DISCUSSION

    The meta-analysis results show some increase in risk among exclusive cigar smokers for each disease studied, except for stroke where all the risk estimates were close to 1.For current smoking the overall estimates in the sensitivity analyses were 2.98 for lung cancer, 1.44 for COPD and 1.11 for ischaemic heart disease.These are much lower than those associated with cigarette smoking: For the United States, estimates for current cigarette smokers[34]are 11.68 for lung cancer and 4.56 for COPD; for ischaemic heart disease[34]the current cigarette smoker estimate for age 65 to 74 is 1.70, with estimates for younger ages being higher.Even for heavy cigar smokers, the RRs shown in Table 6 are still generally lower than the estimates for overall cigarette smoking.For former smoking the estimates of 1.61 for lung cancer, 0.47 for COPD (though based on only two widely differing estimates) and 1.26 for ischaemic heart disease are again much lower than those for cigarette smoking.Similar results were observed for ever smoking.

    There are some limitations with the data available for our analyses.Several of the studies were conducted some time ago.The numbers of exclusive cigar smokers participating in the studies were often quite low.Very few studies have reported results for exclusive cigar smokers.For many of these studies, cigar smoking is not the primary focus of the study.This suggests that there may be reporting bias, in that other studies may have had relevant data but did not report a non-significant finding for the study’s small number of cigar smokers.

    Table 3 Studies on ischaemic heart disease, stroke and circulatory disease and exclusive cigar smoking1

    There was a limited amount of dose-response data, and a lack of data on how risk varied by type of cigar smoked.No meta-analyses could be carried out by subgroups such as race and age and gender, as there was insufficient data.No study reported results for sex separately, so no analysis by sex could be done.

    Nevertheless, the data provide fairly clear evidence that exclusive cigar smoking is associated with an increased risk of lung cancer, though less markedly than is the case for exclusive cigarette smoking.For COPD and ischaemic heart disease, the association is weaker, and is also less than that for cigarette smoking.

    How do these results compare with previous estimates? It should be noted that no other review has provided meta-analysis estimates for exclusive cigar smokers in the United States, and that many of the previous reviews considered below were conducted many years ago.

    The review of smoking and lung cancer[9]referred to under literature searches provided random effects meta-analysis estimates for lung cancer in current, former and ever exclusive cigar smokers of 4.67 (n = 15), 2.85 (n = 5) and 2.95 (n = 15) respectively, but these analyses were not restricted to studies in the United States.The risk estimates included in those analyses showed significant heterogeneity.A review by Wynder et al[35]considering the risk of lung cancer in pipe and cigar smokers noted that, in prospective studies in North America the mortality ratios were in the range 2 to 6.For retrospective studies, mostly conducted in Germany and Switzerland, “it appears that the risk of lung cancer is higher than that for such smokers in the United States”.This review suggested that these differences stemmed from different patterns of inhalation in the two regions.A similar review by Higgins et al[31], also considering pipe and cigar smokers, again suggested that risk estimates from prospective studies in North America are lower than those from case control studies in Europe.Smoking and Tobacco Control Monograph No.9[23], reviewing data from CPS-I, stated that “Lung cancer mortality ratios increase with increasing number of cigars smoked per day and with increasing depth of inhalation.When depth of inhalation and number of cigars per day are examined together, depth of inhalation is more powerful in predicting lung cancer risk than number of cigars smoked per day.” The 1979 report by the Surgeon General[36]summarised the available evidence as “Several prospective epidemiological studies have demonstrated higher lung cancer mortality ratios for pipe and cigar smokers than for nonsmokers, but the risk of developing lung cancer for pipe and cigar smokers is less than for cigarette smokers”.

    Smoking and Tobacco Control Monograph No.9[23]also reported estimates for COPD risk.It concluded that “The data taken as a whole support the conclusion that cigar smoking can cause COPD in smokers who inhale deeply”.

    Table 4 Individual estimates used in the meta-analyses1

    1Compared with never smoking any tobacco product.2Study name is an identifier assigned by the authors based on the published study name or the name of the first author of the source paper.This identifier is used in the meta-analysis output.3These results were only included in the sensitivity analyses.COPD: Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease; IHD: Ischaemic heart disease.

    The same Monograph reviews coronary heart disease risk, concluding that “The studies of cigar smoking and coronary events present a pattern of slightly elevated rates among cigar smokers who smoke heavily or inhale deeply”.The Surgeon General’s 1983 report[37]states that “In general, the risk for coronary heart disease mortality of smoking pipes and cigars is substantially lower than the risk of smoking cigarettes.This is generally felt to be due to the tendency of pipe and cigar smokers not to inhale smoke into the lung”.

    For risk of stroke, the Surgeon General’s 1983 report[37]cited results from the United States Veterans study[28](which are included in this review), stating that “Mortality ratios for stroke were near unity for smokers of only cigars or pipes – l.07 and 0.99, respectively.” As noted for lung cancer, there may be differences in stroke risk estimates between studies in the United States and in Europe.Smoking and Tobacco Control Monograph No.9[23]states “It is difficult to reconcile the results from the European studies and the CPS-I results.The CPS-I primary cigar data are primarily individuals who report that they do not inhale (78 percent), while inhalation information is not provided by the other studies.If inhalation rates are much higher in the European studies, this could explain some of the differences found in the RR of stroke between the two groups of studies.”

    Generally, these results reach conclusions quite similar to ours, and suggest that the conclusions we have drawn from our review of the evidence from the United States may not necessarily apply to cigar smoking in Europe.

    In conclusion, we find that exclusive cigar smoking is associated with a moderate increase in risk of lung cancer, and a smaller increased risk of COPD and IHD, and that these increases in risk are less than for cigarette smoking.

    Table 5 Meta-analysis results for lung cancer, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, ischaemic heart disease, stroke and circulatory disease for cigar smoking1

    Table 6 Relative risks and 95%CIs by current amount smoked1

    Figure 1 Lung cancer searches.COPD: Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease.

    Figure 2 Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease searches.

    Figure 3 Heart disease, stroke and circulatory disease searches.COPD: Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease.

    ARTICLE HIGHLIGHTS

    Research background

    Many reviews have studied the relationship of smoking to lung cancer, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), heart disease and stroke, but the effects on these diseases of cigar smoking, particularly exclusive cigar smoking, have rarely been considered.

    Research motivation

    As the United States is a country with a large population and a relatively high percentage of cigar smokers, we felt that insight into the effects of exclusive cigar smoking could usefully be gained from studies conducted there.

    Research objectives

    To carry out a systematic review of the relationship of exclusive cigar smoking to the four main smoking-related diseases in studies conducted in the United States.

    Research methods

    Literature searches were conducted to identify studies in the United States that reported risk of lung cancer, COPD, heart-disease, stroke and/or overall circulatory disease comparing cigar smokers who had never smoked other tobacco products with those who had never smoked any tobacco.For each study identified as providing relevant results, data were recorded on study characteristics and on the appropriate relative risks (RRs) and 95%CIs relating to overall current, former and ever exclusive cigar use, and, for current smokers, by daily cigar consumption.RRs for a given smoking group and disease were combined using fixed-effect and random-effects meta-analyses.

    Research results

    Data were available on lung cancer from 11 studies, on COPD from four studies and on heart disease, stroke and circulatory disease from 10 studies.As RRs tended to be heterogeneous, random-effects estimates are given below.For current smoking overall RR estimates were 2.98 (95%CI: 2.08 to 4.26, based onn= 6 estimates) for lung cancer, 1.44 (1.16 to 1.77,n= 4) for COPD, 1.11 (1.04 to 1.19,n= 6) for ischaemic heart disease, 1.02 (0.92 to 1.13,n= 5) for stroke and 1.10 (1.05 to 1.16,n= 3) for overall circulatory disease.These RRs are much lower than those reported for the United States for exclusive cigarette smokers; 11.68 for lung cancer, 4.56 for COPD and at least 1.70, depending on age, for ischaemic heart disease.Even for heavy cigar smoking, RRs are generally lower than for overall cigarette smoking.RRs for former and for ever smoking were also much lower than for cigarette smoking.

    Research conclusions

    Although our analyses were based on relatively few studies, some conducted some time ago, the results clearly show that exclusive cigar smoking is associated with an increased risk of lung cancer, though much less than is the case for exclusive cigarette smoking.For COPD and ischaemic heart disease the association is weaker, and also less than for cigarette smoking.No previous study has clarified the effects of exclusive cigarette smoking so clearly.Future research could extend results on exclusive cigar smoking to countries other than the United States, and compare risks of cigar smoking with those of using other nicotine products.

    Research perspectives

    While our results show that exclusive cigar smoking is associated with risks of smoking-related diseases that are much lower than those associated with cigarettes smoking, little of the evidence comes from studies conducted in this millenium.Further large prospective studies are needed to collect more up-to-date results, and to clarify how risk varies by type of cigar smoked.

    ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

    We thank Barbara Forey for assistance with the literature searching and study selection, and comments on drafts of the paper, and also John Fry and John Hamling for assistance with conduct of the meta-analyses.We also thank Yvonne Cooper and Diana Morris for typing the various drafts of the paper.

    日韩精品中文字幕看吧| 淫妇啪啪啪对白视频| 日本撒尿小便嘘嘘汇集6| 精品久久久久久久末码| 午夜福利在线观看吧| 国产亚洲av嫩草精品影院| 女人十人毛片免费观看3o分钟| 六月丁香七月| 美女xxoo啪啪120秒动态图| 久久精品综合一区二区三区| 香蕉av资源在线| 婷婷六月久久综合丁香| 精品国产三级普通话版| 草草在线视频免费看| av在线观看视频网站免费| 亚洲欧美成人综合另类久久久 | 国内精品宾馆在线| 91久久精品国产一区二区三区| 久久欧美精品欧美久久欧美| 嫩草影视91久久| 一区二区三区高清视频在线| 午夜福利高清视频| 男女啪啪激烈高潮av片| 男人舔奶头视频| 在线观看av片永久免费下载| 99视频精品全部免费 在线| 老熟妇乱子伦视频在线观看| 黄色配什么色好看| 婷婷精品国产亚洲av| 91在线观看av| 久久精品国产亚洲av天美| 最近2019中文字幕mv第一页| 国产麻豆成人av免费视频| 美女cb高潮喷水在线观看| 中国美女看黄片| 亚洲性夜色夜夜综合| 国产精品日韩av在线免费观看| 97超视频在线观看视频| 婷婷六月久久综合丁香| 在线观看一区二区三区| 村上凉子中文字幕在线| 在线天堂最新版资源| 全区人妻精品视频| 久久鲁丝午夜福利片| 亚洲性久久影院| 久久久欧美国产精品| 成人精品一区二区免费| 国产av麻豆久久久久久久| 99热精品在线国产| 精品一区二区三区av网在线观看| 乱码一卡2卡4卡精品| 亚洲美女搞黄在线观看 | 日本免费一区二区三区高清不卡| 国产极品精品免费视频能看的| 欧美区成人在线视频| .国产精品久久| 日韩,欧美,国产一区二区三区 | 男女边吃奶边做爰视频| 久久中文看片网| 色吧在线观看| 一级a爱片免费观看的视频| 亚洲av中文av极速乱| 日本-黄色视频高清免费观看| 国语自产精品视频在线第100页| av在线亚洲专区| 国产伦精品一区二区三区四那| 青春草视频在线免费观看| 人妻久久中文字幕网| 51国产日韩欧美| 久久九九热精品免费| av卡一久久| 日本免费a在线| 色哟哟·www| 看非洲黑人一级黄片| 国产av在哪里看| 18禁黄网站禁片免费观看直播| 欧美日韩精品成人综合77777| 成人三级黄色视频| 人人妻,人人澡人人爽秒播| 老熟妇仑乱视频hdxx| 夜夜看夜夜爽夜夜摸| 日本成人三级电影网站| 成人高潮视频无遮挡免费网站| 精品久久久久久久人妻蜜臀av| 国产色婷婷99| 久久人妻av系列| av黄色大香蕉| 久久精品国产亚洲av天美| 精品午夜福利视频在线观看一区| 午夜爱爱视频在线播放| 国产成人影院久久av| 国模一区二区三区四区视频| 俺也久久电影网| 亚洲欧美清纯卡通| 老司机影院成人| 亚洲精品国产av成人精品 | 日韩,欧美,国产一区二区三区 | 亚洲精品在线观看二区| 国产精品1区2区在线观看.| 婷婷亚洲欧美| 亚洲经典国产精华液单| 欧美人与善性xxx| 久久久久国产网址| 亚洲最大成人中文| 黄色一级大片看看| 在线播放无遮挡| 国产伦一二天堂av在线观看| 国产伦一二天堂av在线观看| 尾随美女入室| 国产亚洲精品综合一区在线观看| 精品国内亚洲2022精品成人| 亚洲人成网站高清观看| 亚洲在线观看片| 国产av麻豆久久久久久久| 国产探花在线观看一区二区| 久久久精品大字幕| 欧美一级a爱片免费观看看| 黄色欧美视频在线观看| 黄色欧美视频在线观看| 少妇的逼水好多| 精品久久久久久久人妻蜜臀av| 看片在线看免费视频| 日韩一区二区视频免费看| 精品一区二区三区av网在线观看| 成人美女网站在线观看视频| 亚洲在线自拍视频| 99精品在免费线老司机午夜| 可以在线观看毛片的网站| 一级毛片aaaaaa免费看小| 亚洲三级黄色毛片| 免费观看精品视频网站| 可以在线观看毛片的网站| 国产精品电影一区二区三区| 99热精品在线国产| a级一级毛片免费在线观看| 少妇的逼水好多| 国产亚洲精品综合一区在线观看| 亚洲欧美成人精品一区二区| 内射极品少妇av片p| 色5月婷婷丁香| 久久久久免费精品人妻一区二区| 日韩欧美在线乱码| 色5月婷婷丁香| av在线亚洲专区| 亚洲欧美日韩东京热| 成年版毛片免费区| 国产高清不卡午夜福利| 亚洲中文字幕日韩| 精品一区二区三区视频在线观看免费| 国产亚洲精品久久久久久毛片| 久久精品91蜜桃| 国产一级毛片七仙女欲春2| 两个人的视频大全免费| 亚洲激情五月婷婷啪啪| 午夜a级毛片| 国产私拍福利视频在线观看| 变态另类丝袜制服| 亚洲熟妇熟女久久| 校园人妻丝袜中文字幕| 性插视频无遮挡在线免费观看| 国产亚洲精品久久久com| 亚洲欧美日韩高清专用| 一进一出抽搐动态| 久久99热6这里只有精品| 国产av一区在线观看免费| 午夜久久久久精精品| 久久久精品大字幕| 久久久欧美国产精品| 一个人看视频在线观看www免费| 三级男女做爰猛烈吃奶摸视频| 国产熟女欧美一区二区| 人妻夜夜爽99麻豆av| 亚洲真实伦在线观看| 日韩精品有码人妻一区| 国产成人福利小说| 天美传媒精品一区二区| 春色校园在线视频观看| 亚洲人与动物交配视频| 久久精品国产亚洲av天美| 国产伦精品一区二区三区四那| 不卡视频在线观看欧美| 成人毛片a级毛片在线播放| 男女下面进入的视频免费午夜| 国产精品日韩av在线免费观看| 欧美zozozo另类| 干丝袜人妻中文字幕| 欧美人与善性xxx| 国内少妇人妻偷人精品xxx网站| 国产精品日韩av在线免费观看| 国产亚洲欧美98| 日日摸夜夜添夜夜添av毛片| 99国产极品粉嫩在线观看| 一级毛片电影观看 | 午夜精品一区二区三区免费看| 欧美最新免费一区二区三区| 亚洲精品日韩av片在线观看| 国产精品女同一区二区软件| 国产精品美女特级片免费视频播放器| 色尼玛亚洲综合影院| 国产亚洲精品av在线| 日韩精品青青久久久久久| 国产一区二区激情短视频| 不卡视频在线观看欧美| 91久久精品电影网| 日韩制服骚丝袜av| 久久6这里有精品| 啦啦啦啦在线视频资源| 小蜜桃在线观看免费完整版高清| 我的老师免费观看完整版| 免费电影在线观看免费观看| 亚洲精品影视一区二区三区av| 人妻久久中文字幕网| 中文资源天堂在线| 22中文网久久字幕| 黑人高潮一二区| 嫩草影院入口| 一级av片app| 美女被艹到高潮喷水动态| 亚洲专区国产一区二区| 国产午夜精品久久久久久一区二区三区 | 看片在线看免费视频| 99国产极品粉嫩在线观看| 亚洲内射少妇av| 午夜精品在线福利| 国产精品永久免费网站| 国产探花极品一区二区| 亚洲中文字幕一区二区三区有码在线看| 欧美bdsm另类| 亚洲最大成人av| 好男人在线观看高清免费视频| 级片在线观看| 国产精品国产高清国产av| 97碰自拍视频| 亚洲av美国av| 亚洲五月天丁香| 韩国av在线不卡| 国产精品不卡视频一区二区| 国产爱豆传媒在线观看| av免费在线看不卡| 少妇猛男粗大的猛烈进出视频 | 一进一出好大好爽视频| 免费看美女性在线毛片视频| 亚洲国产精品成人久久小说 | 亚洲美女搞黄在线观看 | 99九九线精品视频在线观看视频| 最近在线观看免费完整版| 一卡2卡三卡四卡精品乱码亚洲| 中国美白少妇内射xxxbb| 日韩一本色道免费dvd| 十八禁网站免费在线| 国模一区二区三区四区视频| 特大巨黑吊av在线直播| a级一级毛片免费在线观看| 在线观看66精品国产| 自拍偷自拍亚洲精品老妇| 日韩三级伦理在线观看| 一本久久中文字幕| 晚上一个人看的免费电影| 大又大粗又爽又黄少妇毛片口| h日本视频在线播放| 午夜福利在线在线| 亚洲熟妇中文字幕五十中出| 免费人成视频x8x8入口观看| 国产中年淑女户外野战色| 亚洲在线自拍视频| 在线观看66精品国产| www日本黄色视频网| 日韩强制内射视频| 日本欧美国产在线视频| 内地一区二区视频在线| 国产午夜精品论理片| 日韩人妻高清精品专区| 国产精品国产三级国产av玫瑰| 在线观看美女被高潮喷水网站| 午夜激情欧美在线| 午夜视频国产福利| 国产成人精品久久久久久| 91麻豆精品激情在线观看国产| 99riav亚洲国产免费| 亚洲不卡免费看| 不卡视频在线观看欧美| 国产精品无大码| 中国国产av一级| 久久99热6这里只有精品| 国产亚洲精品综合一区在线观看| 久久久久久九九精品二区国产| 免费不卡的大黄色大毛片视频在线观看 | 久久久久久九九精品二区国产| 亚洲美女视频黄频| 中国国产av一级| 在线免费十八禁| 欧美最黄视频在线播放免费| 精品熟女少妇av免费看| 国产伦精品一区二区三区视频9| 一区二区三区四区激情视频 | 午夜爱爱视频在线播放| 丝袜喷水一区| 女同久久另类99精品国产91| 久久精品久久久久久噜噜老黄 | 网址你懂的国产日韩在线| 国产午夜精品久久久久久一区二区三区 | 99久久精品热视频| av卡一久久| 免费看日本二区| 免费看光身美女| 久久人人精品亚洲av| 天美传媒精品一区二区| 99热全是精品| 亚洲人成网站在线观看播放| 亚洲一区二区三区色噜噜| 黑人高潮一二区| 久久国内精品自在自线图片| 亚洲丝袜综合中文字幕| 两个人的视频大全免费| 麻豆国产97在线/欧美| 亚洲成人久久爱视频| 国产伦精品一区二区三区四那| 亚洲精品一区av在线观看| 99国产精品一区二区蜜桃av| 又爽又黄a免费视频| 身体一侧抽搐| or卡值多少钱| 老司机福利观看| 亚洲成人av在线免费| 天堂动漫精品| 久久精品夜色国产| 国产探花极品一区二区| 婷婷六月久久综合丁香| 亚洲av免费高清在线观看| 99精品在免费线老司机午夜| 男人舔奶头视频| 天美传媒精品一区二区| 亚洲精品乱码久久久v下载方式| 九九在线视频观看精品| 天堂动漫精品| 51国产日韩欧美| 亚洲精华国产精华液的使用体验 | 22中文网久久字幕| 在线观看美女被高潮喷水网站| 99热这里只有精品一区| 波野结衣二区三区在线| 亚洲精品色激情综合| 久久人人爽人人片av| 欧美+日韩+精品| avwww免费| 久久国内精品自在自线图片| 看片在线看免费视频| 人人妻人人澡欧美一区二区| 亚洲高清免费不卡视频| 男女那种视频在线观看| 日韩一本色道免费dvd| 成人漫画全彩无遮挡| 人妻久久中文字幕网| 全区人妻精品视频| 精品久久国产蜜桃| 麻豆乱淫一区二区| 人妻制服诱惑在线中文字幕| 九九久久精品国产亚洲av麻豆| 岛国在线免费视频观看| 亚洲av不卡在线观看| h日本视频在线播放| 日韩三级伦理在线观看| 乱系列少妇在线播放| 久久亚洲国产成人精品v| 国产午夜精品久久久久久一区二区三区 | 亚洲国产欧洲综合997久久,| 国产精品一区www在线观看| 国产精品野战在线观看| 亚洲精品在线观看二区| 午夜亚洲福利在线播放| 国产精品久久电影中文字幕| 国产视频一区二区在线看| 亚洲自偷自拍三级| 国产精品一区www在线观看| 亚洲欧美成人精品一区二区| 久久国产乱子免费精品| 毛片一级片免费看久久久久| 久久人妻av系列| 看非洲黑人一级黄片| 韩国av在线不卡| 三级国产精品欧美在线观看| 一边摸一边抽搐一进一小说| 久久精品国产亚洲av涩爱 | 99热网站在线观看| 最近手机中文字幕大全| 中文字幕久久专区| 国产高清激情床上av| 99久久精品国产国产毛片| 久久久久久久久中文| 色综合亚洲欧美另类图片| 国产精品美女特级片免费视频播放器| 亚洲成av人片在线播放无| 午夜a级毛片| 国产淫片久久久久久久久| 日韩成人伦理影院| 久久亚洲精品不卡| 亚洲av免费高清在线观看| 搡老熟女国产l中国老女人| 精品久久久久久久久亚洲| 久久久久九九精品影院| 精品国内亚洲2022精品成人| 日韩欧美 国产精品| 欧美性感艳星| 亚洲精品乱码久久久v下载方式| 亚洲欧美精品自产自拍| 我要看日韩黄色一级片| 亚洲av不卡在线观看| 女同久久另类99精品国产91| 久久人人爽人人爽人人片va| 欧美xxxx性猛交bbbb| 日韩,欧美,国产一区二区三区 | 成年av动漫网址| 日本黄色视频三级网站网址| 中文字幕熟女人妻在线| 亚洲在线自拍视频| 精华霜和精华液先用哪个| 欧美xxxx性猛交bbbb| 插逼视频在线观看| 国产精品一及| 亚洲一区高清亚洲精品| 国产精品亚洲一级av第二区| 日韩av在线大香蕉| 亚洲国产日韩欧美精品在线观看| 久久精品国产清高在天天线| 热99re8久久精品国产| 在线观看免费视频日本深夜| 乱人视频在线观看| 丝袜喷水一区| 国产一区二区在线观看日韩| 国产欧美日韩一区二区精品| 一级黄色大片毛片| 岛国在线免费视频观看| 成人一区二区视频在线观看| eeuss影院久久| 国产精品美女特级片免费视频播放器| 两性午夜刺激爽爽歪歪视频在线观看| 国产精品,欧美在线| 美女 人体艺术 gogo| av福利片在线观看| 最近中文字幕高清免费大全6| 日韩大尺度精品在线看网址| 一区福利在线观看| 99热全是精品| 亚洲一区二区三区色噜噜| 亚洲av熟女| 在线国产一区二区在线| 丰满人妻一区二区三区视频av| 在线观看一区二区三区| 成人特级av手机在线观看| 成人亚洲精品av一区二区| 中文字幕av成人在线电影| 99riav亚洲国产免费| 大香蕉久久网| а√天堂www在线а√下载| 小蜜桃在线观看免费完整版高清| 免费av毛片视频| 美女高潮的动态| 熟女电影av网| 亚洲性夜色夜夜综合| 亚洲av成人精品一区久久| 深夜a级毛片| 亚洲欧美清纯卡通| 在线播放无遮挡| 日韩欧美一区二区三区在线观看| 日本撒尿小便嘘嘘汇集6| 国产高清不卡午夜福利| 国产精品精品国产色婷婷| 日韩欧美国产在线观看| 欧美又色又爽又黄视频| 久久久久国内视频| 国产伦在线观看视频一区| 日韩三级伦理在线观看| 欧美中文日本在线观看视频| 永久网站在线| 成人午夜高清在线视频| av专区在线播放| 男女下面进入的视频免费午夜| 精品人妻熟女av久视频| 国产精品亚洲一级av第二区| 99九九线精品视频在线观看视频| 国产综合懂色| www日本黄色视频网| 三级毛片av免费| 你懂的网址亚洲精品在线观看 | 直男gayav资源| 人人妻,人人澡人人爽秒播| 插阴视频在线观看视频| 久久久久久久久久成人| 天堂√8在线中文| 国产久久久一区二区三区| 日日啪夜夜撸| 国产精华一区二区三区| 亚洲欧美日韩东京热| 色哟哟·www| 亚洲图色成人| 国产不卡一卡二| 国产精品美女特级片免费视频播放器| 变态另类成人亚洲欧美熟女| 美女xxoo啪啪120秒动态图| 国内精品久久久久精免费| 亚洲欧美成人综合另类久久久 | 久久精品人妻少妇| 国产成人影院久久av| 一个人看视频在线观看www免费| 国产一区二区在线av高清观看| 午夜久久久久精精品| 美女大奶头视频| 在线免费观看不下载黄p国产| 身体一侧抽搐| 久久午夜福利片| 欧美+日韩+精品| a级毛片免费高清观看在线播放| 又黄又爽又刺激的免费视频.| 男人舔女人下体高潮全视频| 久久精品国产亚洲网站| 国产精品一区二区性色av| 国产精品久久视频播放| 熟妇人妻久久中文字幕3abv| 成年女人永久免费观看视频| 十八禁国产超污无遮挡网站| 亚洲欧美成人综合另类久久久 | 亚洲精品亚洲一区二区| 精品欧美国产一区二区三| 国产白丝娇喘喷水9色精品| 舔av片在线| 国产精品野战在线观看| 五月玫瑰六月丁香| 午夜久久久久精精品| 一区福利在线观看| 女人被狂操c到高潮| 亚洲av中文av极速乱| 国内精品宾馆在线| 亚洲最大成人中文| 中国国产av一级| 一级毛片aaaaaa免费看小| 亚洲精品一区av在线观看| 免费人成视频x8x8入口观看| 国产成人一区二区在线| 久久亚洲精品不卡| 国产片特级美女逼逼视频| 国产亚洲精品久久久久久毛片| 99久久无色码亚洲精品果冻| 伦精品一区二区三区| 亚洲最大成人av| 免费一级毛片在线播放高清视频| 美女黄网站色视频| 欧美国产日韩亚洲一区| 少妇被粗大猛烈的视频| 性欧美人与动物交配| av中文乱码字幕在线| 狂野欧美白嫩少妇大欣赏| 悠悠久久av| 日本欧美国产在线视频| 精品不卡国产一区二区三区| 六月丁香七月| 伦理电影大哥的女人| 日本a在线网址| 熟妇人妻久久中文字幕3abv| 亚洲性夜色夜夜综合| 少妇的逼水好多| 成年女人永久免费观看视频| 亚洲三级黄色毛片| 亚洲熟妇中文字幕五十中出| 又黄又爽又刺激的免费视频.| 国产精品一区二区三区四区久久| 欧美一级a爱片免费观看看| 99久久中文字幕三级久久日本| 老司机福利观看| 亚洲成人中文字幕在线播放| 久久久国产成人精品二区| 日本与韩国留学比较| 99热这里只有是精品在线观看| 精品人妻视频免费看| 女人被狂操c到高潮| 精品人妻视频免费看| 成人鲁丝片一二三区免费| 午夜福利18| 最新在线观看一区二区三区| av在线观看视频网站免费| aaaaa片日本免费| 午夜福利在线在线| 在线看三级毛片| 免费看a级黄色片| 在线看三级毛片| 欧美日本亚洲视频在线播放| 在线看三级毛片| 午夜影院日韩av| 国产精品伦人一区二区| 深夜a级毛片| 亚洲欧美精品综合久久99| 3wmmmm亚洲av在线观看| 成熟少妇高潮喷水视频| 精华霜和精华液先用哪个| 一卡2卡三卡四卡精品乱码亚洲| 3wmmmm亚洲av在线观看| 成年av动漫网址| 色综合亚洲欧美另类图片| 国产aⅴ精品一区二区三区波| 国产精品免费一区二区三区在线| 国产色爽女视频免费观看| 亚洲自偷自拍三级| 成人一区二区视频在线观看| 成年女人永久免费观看视频| 午夜免费男女啪啪视频观看 | 亚洲在线自拍视频| 长腿黑丝高跟| 看片在线看免费视频| 综合色av麻豆| 国产伦一二天堂av在线观看| 亚洲七黄色美女视频| 看黄色毛片网站| 超碰av人人做人人爽久久| 少妇熟女aⅴ在线视频| 少妇熟女aⅴ在线视频| 99riav亚洲国产免费|