RESUMO
Each year, tobacco use causes approximately 7 million deaths worldwide, including approximately 6 million among tobacco users and an estimated 890,000 among nonsmokers exposed to secondhand smoke (1). Tobacco use is a leading preventable cause of disease globally and has been determined to cause adverse health outcomes such as coronary heart disease, stroke, and multiple types of cancer, including lung cancer (2-4). Approximately 80% of the world's 1.1 billion tobacco smokers reside in low- and middle-income countries (4). Some persons do not fully understand the health risks associated with tobacco smoking (5-9), and studies have indicated that increasing knowledge about the adverse health effects of smoking can contribute to decreases in smoking, increases in cessation attempts, and increases in successful cessation (3,7,10). CDC analyzed 2008-2016 Global Adult Tobacco Survey (GATS) data from 28 countries to assess tobacco smoking prevalence, quit attempts, and knowledge about tobacco smoking risks among persons aged ≥15 years. Across countries, the median prevalence of tobacco smoking was 22.5%, and a median of 42.5% of tobacco smokers had made a quit attempt in the preceding 12 months. The median prevalences of knowing that tobacco smoking causes stroke, heart attack, and lung cancer were 73.6%, 83.6%, and 95.2%, respectively. Implementation of proven tobacco control interventions, including strategies that increase knowledge about the health risks posed by tobacco use, might help to reduce tobacco use and tobacco-related disease, including heart disease, stroke, and lung cancer (3-5).
Assuntos
Saúde Global/estatística & dados numéricos , Conhecimentos, Atitudes e Prática em Saúde , Abandono do Hábito de Fumar/estatística & dados numéricos , Fumar/epidemiologia , Fumar/psicologia , Adulto , Inquéritos Epidemiológicos , Humanos , Prevalência , RiscoAssuntos
Asma/epidemiologia , Neoplasias Pulmonares/epidemiologia , Doença Pulmonar Obstrutiva Crônica/epidemiologia , Fumar Tabaco/epidemiologia , Tabagismo/epidemiologia , Tuberculose/epidemiologia , Vaping/epidemiologia , Asma/complicações , Asma/mortalidade , Asma/prevenção & controle , Pesquisa Biomédica/tendências , Sistemas Eletrônicos de Liberação de Nicotina/estatística & dados numéricos , Humanos , Pulmão/patologia , Neoplasias Pulmonares/complicações , Neoplasias Pulmonares/mortalidade , Neoplasias Pulmonares/prevenção & controle , Prevalência , Doença Pulmonar Obstrutiva Crônica/complicações , Doença Pulmonar Obstrutiva Crônica/mortalidade , Doença Pulmonar Obstrutiva Crônica/prevenção & controle , Análise de Sobrevida , Produtos do Tabaco/estatística & dados numéricos , Produtos do Tabaco/toxicidade , Poluição por Fumaça de Tabaco/prevenção & controle , Poluição por Fumaça de Tabaco/estatística & dados numéricos , Fumar Tabaco/mortalidade , Fumar Tabaco/prevenção & controle , Tabagismo/complicações , Tabagismo/mortalidade , Tuberculose/complicações , Tuberculose/mortalidade , Tuberculose/prevenção & controle , Vaping/mortalidade , Vaping/prevenção & controle , Organização Mundial da SaúdeRESUMO
The association between current smoking and coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) progression remains uncertain. We aim to provide up-to-date evidence of the role of cigarette smoking in COVID-19 hospitalisation, severity and mortality. On 23 February 2022 we conducted an umbrella review and a traditional systematic review via PubMed/Medline and Web of Science. We used random-effects meta-analyses to derive pooled odds ratios of COVID-19 outcomes for smokers in cohorts of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 infected individuals or COVID-19 patients. We followed the Meta-analysis of Observational Studies in Epidemiology reporting guidelines. PROSPERO: CRD42020207003. 320 publications were included. The pooled odds ratio for current versus never or nonsmokers was 1.08 (95% CI 0.98-1.19; 37 studies) for hospitalisation, 1.34 (95% CI 1.22-1.48; 124 studies) for severity and 1.32 (95% CI 1.20-1.45; 119 studies) for mortality. Estimates for former versus never-smokers were 1.16 (95% CI 1.03-1.31; 22 studies), 1.41 (95% CI: 1.25-1.59; 44 studies) and 1.46 (95% CI 1.31-1.62; 44 studies), respectively. Estimates for ever- versus never-smokers were 1.16 (95% CI 1.05-1.27; 33 studies), 1.44 (95% CI 1.31-1.58; 110 studies) and 1.39 (95% CI 1.29-1.50; 109 studies), respectively. We found a 30-50% excess risk of COVID-19 progression for current and former smokers compared with never-smokers. Preventing serious COVID-19 outcomes, including death, seems the newest compelling argument against smoking.
Assuntos
COVID-19 , Humanos , Fatores de Risco , SARS-CoV-2 , Razão de Chances , Fumar/efeitos adversos , Fumar/epidemiologiaRESUMO
BACKGROUND: This systematic review described the association between electronic nicotine delivery systems and electronic non-nicotine delivery systems (ENDS/ENNDS) use among non-smoking children and adolescents aged <20 years with subsequent tobacco use. METHODS: We searched five electronic databases and the grey literature up to end of September 2020. Prospective longitudinal studies that described the association between ENDS/ENNDS use, and subsequent tobacco use in those aged < 20 years who were non-smokers at baseline were included. The Joanna Briggs Institute Critical Appraisal Checklist was used to assess risk of bias. Data were extracted by two reviewers and pooled using a random-effects meta-analysis. We generated unadjusted and adjusted risk ratios (ARRs) describing associations between ENDS/ENNDS and tobacco use. FINDINGS: A total of 36 publications met the eligibility criteria, of which 25 were included in the systematic review (23 in the meta-analysis) after exclusion of overlapping studies. Sixteen studies had high to moderate risk of bias. Ever users of ENDS/ENNDS had over three times the risk of ever cigarette use (ARR 3·01 (95% CI: 2·37, 3·82; p<0·001, I2: 82·3%), and current cigarette use had over two times the risk (ARR 2·56 (95% CI: 1·61, 4·07; p<0·001, I2: 77·3%) at follow up. Among current ENDS/ENNDS users, there was a significant association with ever (ARR 2·63 (95% CI: 1·94, 3·57; p<0·001, I2: 21·2%)), but not current cigarette use (ARR 1·88 (95% CI: 0·34, 10·30; p = 0·47, I2: 0%)) at follow up. For other tobacco use, ARR ranged between 1·55 (95% CI 1·07, 2·23) and 8·32 (95% CI: 1·20, 57·04) for waterpipe and pipes, respectively. Additionally, two studies examined the use of ENNDS (non-nicotine devices) and found a pooled adjusted RR of 2·56 (95% CI: 0·47, 13·94, p = 0.035). CONCLUSION: There is an urgent need for policies that regulate the availability, accessibility, and marketing of ENDS/ENNDS to children and adolescents. Governments should also consider adopting policies to prevent ENDS/ENNDS uptake and use in children and adolescents, up to and including a ban for this group.
Assuntos
Cognição/fisiologia , Sistemas Eletrônicos de Liberação de Nicotina , Uso de Tabaco/tendências , Adolescente , Humanos , Estudos Prospectivos , Produtos do Tabaco , Uso de Tabaco/psicologia , Adulto JovemRESUMO
BACKGROUND: There are concerns that the use of electronic nicotine delivery systems (ENDS) and electronic non-nicotine delivery systems (ENNDS) in children and adolescents could potentially be harmful to health. Understanding the extent of use of these devices is crucial to informing public health policy. We aimed to synthesise the prevalence of ENDS or ENNDS use in children and adolescents younger than 20 years. METHODS: In this systematic review and meta-analysis, we undertook an electronic search in five databases (MEDLINE, Web of Science, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature, Embase, and Wiley Cochrane Library) from Jan 1, 2016, to Aug 31, 2020, and a grey literature search. Included studies reported on the prevalence of ENDS or ENNDS use in nationally representative samples in populations younger than 20 years and collected data between the years 2016 and 2020. Studies were excluded if they were done in those aged 20 years or older, used data from specialist panels that did not apply appropriate weighting, or did not use methods that ensured recruitment of a nationally representative sample. We included the most recent data for each country. We combined multiple national estimates for a country if they were done in the same year. We undertook risk of bias assessment for all surveys included in the review using the Joanna Briggs Institute Critical Appraisal Checklist (by two reviewers in the author list). A random effects meta-analysis was used to pool overall prevalence estimates for ever, current, occasional, and daily use. This study was prospectively registered with PROSPERO, CRD42020199485. FINDINGS: The most recent prevalence data from 26 national surveys representing 69 countries and territories, with a median sample size of 3925 (IQR 1=2266, IQR 3=10 593) children and adolescents was included. In children and adolescents aged between 8 years and younger than 20 years, the pooled prevalence for ever (defined as any lifetime use) ENDS or ENNDS use was 17·2% (95% CI 15-20, I2=99·9%), whereas for current use (defined as use in past 30 days) the pooled prevalence estimate was 7·8% (6-9, I2=99·8%). The pooled estimate for occasional use was 0·8% (0·5-1·2, I2=99·4%) for daily use and 7·5% (6·1-9·1, I2=99·4%) for occasional use. Prevalence of ENDS or ENNDS use was highest in high-income geographical regions. In terms of study quality, all surveys scored had a low risk of bias for the sampling frame used, due to the nationally representative nature of the studies. The most poorly conducted methodological feature of the included studies was subjects and setting described in detail. Few surveys reported on the use of flavours or types of ENDS or ENNDS. INTERPRETATION: There is significant variability in the prevalence of ENDS and ENNDS use in children and adolescents globally by country income status. These findings are possibly due to differences in regulatory context, market availability, and differences in surveillance systems. FUNDING: World Health Organization and the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation.
Assuntos
Sistemas Eletrônicos de Liberação de Nicotina/estatística & dados numéricos , Adolescente , Criança , Humanos , PrevalênciaRESUMO
BACKGROUND: Tobacco use contributes significantly to the diseases burden in India. Very few tobacco users spontaneously quit. Therefore, beginning 2002, a network of 19 tobacco cessation clinics (TCCs) was set up over a period of time to study the feasibility of establishing tobacco cessation services. METHODS: Review of the process and operational aspects of setting up TCCs was carried out by evaluation of the records of TCCs in India. Baseline and follow-up information was recorded on a pre-designed form. RESULTS: During a five-year period, 34 741 subjects attended the TCCs. Baseline information was recorded in 23 320 cases. The clients were predominantly (92.5%) above 20 years, married (74.1%) and males (92.2%). All of them received simple tips for quitting tobacco; 68.9% received behavioural counselling for relapse prevention and 31% were prescribed adjunct medication. At six-week follow-up, 3255 (14%) of the tobacco users had quit and 5187 (22%) had reduced tobacco use by more than 50%. Data for three, three-monthly follow-ups was available for 12 813 patients. In this group, 26% had either quit or significantly reduced tobacco use at first follow-up (three-months), 21% at the second (six-months) and 18% at the third follow-up (nine-months) had done so. CONCLUSIONS: It is feasible to set up effective tobacco cessation clinics in developing countries. Integration of these services into the health care delivery system still remains a challenge.
RESUMO
BACKGROUND: Air nicotine monitoring is an established method of measuring exposure to second hand smoke (SHS). Not much research has been done in India to measure air nicotine for the purpose of studying exposure to SHS. It is a risk factor and many diseases are known to occur among non smokers if they are exposed to second hand smoke. OBJECTIVE: To conduct monitoring of air nicotine for second hand smoke exposure in public places across major cities in India. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A cross sectional survey was conducted across four cities across the country, using passive air monitoring. The buildings included hospitals, secondary schools, Governmental offices, bars and restaurants. The buildings were selected through convenience sampling method keeping in view specific sentinel locations of interest. RESULT: The presence of air nicotine was recorded in most of the buildings under the study, which included government buildings, hospitals, schools, restaurants and entertainment venues (bars) in all four cities under the study. The highest median levels of air nicotine were found in entertainment venues and restaurants in cities. CONCLUSION: The presence of air nicotine in indoor public places indicates weak implementation of existing smoke free law in India. The findings of this study provide a baseline characterization of exposure to SHS in public places in India, which could be used to promote clean indoor air policies and programs and monitor and evaluate the progress and future smoke-free initiatives in India.
RESUMO
BACKGROUND: India made 2 important policy statements regarding tobacco control in the past decade. First, the India Tobacco Control Act (ITCA) was signed into law in 2003 with the goal to reduce tobacco consumption and protect citizens from exposure to secondhand smoke (SHS). Second, in 2005, India ratified the World Health Organization Framework Convention on Tobacco Control (WHO FCTC). During this same period, India conducted the Global Youth Tobacco Survey (GYTS) in 2003 and 2006 in an effort to track tobacco use among adolescents. METHODS: The GYTS is a school-based survey of students aged 13-15 years. Representative national estimates for India in 2003 and 2006 were used in this study. RESULTS: In 2006, 3.8% of students currently smoked cigarettes and 11.9% currently used other tobacco products. These rates were not significantly different than those observed in 2003. Over the same period, exposure to SHS at home and in public places significantly decreased, whereas exposure to pro-tobacco ads on billboards and the ability to purchase cigarettes in a store did not change significantly. CONCLUSIONS: The ITCA and the WHO FCTC have had mixed impacts on the tobacco control effort for adolescents in India. The positive impacts have been the reduction in exposure to SHS, both at home and in public places. The negative impacts are seen with the lack of change in pro-tobacco advertising and ability to purchase cigarettes in stores. The Government of India needs to consider new and stronger provisions of the ITCA and include strong enforcement measures.