Assessment of Duration of Smoking Cessation Prior to Surgical Treatment of Non-small Cell Lung Cancer.

OBJECTIVE: To define the relationship between the duration of smoking cessation and postoperative complications for patients with lung cancer undergoing surgical treatment. BACKGROUND: Smoking increases the risk of postoperative morbidity and mortality in patients with lung cancer undergoing surgical treatment. Although smoking cessation before surgery can mitigate these risks, the ideal duration of preoperative smoking cessation remains unclear. METHODS: Using a uniquely compiled Veterans Health Administration dataset, we performed a retrospective cohort study of patients with clinical stage I non-small cell lung cancer undergoing surgical treatment between 2006 and 2016. We characterized the relationship between duration of preoperative smoking cessation and risk of postoperative complications or mortality within 30-days using multivariable restricted cubic spline functions. RESULTS: The study included a total of 9509 patients, of whom 6168 (64.9%) were smoking at the time of lung cancer diagnosis. Among them, only 662 (10.7%) patients stopped smoking prior to surgery. Longer duration between smoking cessation and surgery was associated with lower odds of major complication or mortality (adjusted odds ratio [aOR] for every additional week, 0.919; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.850-0.993; P = 0.03). Compared to nonsmokers, patients who quit at least 3 weeks before surgery had similar odds of death or major complication (aOR, 1.005; 95% CI, 0.702-1.437; P = 0.98) whereas those who quit within 3 weeks of surgery had significantly higher odds of death or major complication (aOR, 1.698; 95% CI, 1.203-2.396; P = 0.003). CONCLUSION: Smoking cessation at least 3 weeks prior to the surgical treatment of lung cancer is associated with reduced morbidity and mortality. Providers should aggressively encourage smoking cessation in the preoperative period, since it can disproportionately impact outcomes in early-stage lung cancer.

Underutilization of guideline-concordant smoking cessation treatments in surgical patients: Lessons from a learning health system.

While smoking is a well-established risk factor for surgical complications, it is unclear how frequently guideline-concordant tobacco treatments are prescribed to surgical patients. In this cross-sectional study including 164673 unique patients evaluated in outpatient surgery clinics at a single institution in 2020, despite a relatively high smoking prevalence (14.7%), guideline-concordant treatment rates were very low, with only 12.7% of patients receiving pharmacotherapy and 31.7% receiving any treatment. Addressing disparities in smoking cessation treatments are critical given the disproportionate impact of smoking on surgical outcomes.

Assessment of formal tobacco treatment and smoking cessation in dual users of cigarettes and e-cigarettes.

BACKGROUND: The utility of electronic cigarettes ('e-cigarettes') as a smoking cessation adjunct remains unclear. Similarly, it is unclear if formal tobacco treatment (pharmacotherapy and/or behavioural support) augments smoking cessation in individuals who use both cigarettes and e-cigarettes. METHODS: We performed a longitudinal cohort study of adult outpatients evaluated in our tertiary care medical centre (6/2018-6/2020). E-cigarette use, smoking status and formal tobacco treatment (deterrent pharmacotherapy and/or behavioural support) were assessed in 6-month blocks (eg, cohort 1 (C1)=6/2018-12/2018, C2=1/2019-6/2019 and so on) using our electronic health record. We assessed the relationship between e-cigarette use (either with or without formal tobacco treatment) and point prevalence of smoking cessation at 6 and 12 months. RESULTS: 111 823 unique patients were included in the study. The prevalence of dual use of cigarettes and e-cigarettes increased significantly over the study period (C1=0.8%; C2=1.1%; C3=1.8%; C4=2.3%; p<0.001). The prevalence of smoking cessation at 12 months was higher among e-cigarette users (20.8%) compared with non-users (16.8%) (risk difference, 4.0% (95% CI 2.5% to 5.5%); adjusted relative risk (aRR) 1.354, 95% CI 1.252 to 1.464, p<0.0001). Further, among dual users of cigarettes and e-cigarettes, the prevalence of smoking cessation at 12 months was higher among individuals who received tobacco treatment (29.1%) compared with individuals who did not receive tobacco treatment (19.6%) (risk difference, 9.5% (95% CI, 4.6% to 14.4%); aRR 1.238, 95% CI 1.071 to 1.432, p=0.004). INTERPRETATION: These results suggest that dual users of cigarettes and e-cigarettes benefit from formal tobacco treatment. Clinicians should consider offering formal tobacco treatment to such patients, though future trials are needed.

Quantifying rural disparity in healthcare utilization in the United States: Analysis of a large midwestern healthcare system.

PURPOSE: The objective of this study is to identify how predisposing characteristics, enabling factors, and health needs are jointly and individually associated with epidemiological patterns of outpatient healthcare utilization for patients who already interact and engage with a large healthcare system. METHODS: We retrospectively analyzed electronic medical record data from 1,423,166 outpatient clinic visits from 474,674 patients in a large healthcare system from June 2018-March 2019. We evaluated patients who exclusively visited rural clinics versus patients who exclusively visited urban clinics using Chi-square tests and the generalized estimating equation Poisson regression methodology. The outcome was healthcare use defined by the number of outpatient visits to clinics within the healthcare system and independent variables included age, gender, race, ethnicity, smoking status, health status, and rural or urban clinic location. Supplementary analyses were conducted observing healthcare use patterns within rural and urban clinics separately and within primary care and specialty clinics separately. FINDINGS: Patients in rural clinics vs. urban clinics had worse health status [χ2 = 935.1, df = 3, p<0.0001]. Additionally, patients in rural clinics had lower healthcare utilization than patients in urban clinics, adjusting for age, race, ethnicity, gender, smoking, and health status [2.49 vs. 3.18 visits, RR = 0.61, 95%CI = (0.55,0.68), p<0.0001]. Further, patients in rural clinics had lower utilization for both primary care and specialty care visits. CONCLUSIONS: Within the large healthcare system, patients in rural clinics had lower outpatient healthcare utilization compared to their urban counterparts despite having potentially elevated health needs reflected by a higher number of unique health diagnoses documented in their electronic health records after adjusting for multiple factors. This work can inform future studies exploring the roots and ramifications of rural-urban healthcare utilization differences and rural healthcare disparities.

Racial disparities in intensity of smoke exposure and nicotine intake among low-dependence smokers.

BACKGROUND: Compared to white smokers, Black smokers are at disproportionately higher risk for smoking-related disease, despite consuming fewer cigarettes per day (CPD). To examine racial disparities in biobehavioral influences on smoking and disease risk, we analyzed the relationship between self-reported tobacco dependence and intensity of tobacco smoke exposure per cigarette, on the one hand, and intensity of nicotine intake per cigarette, on the other. METHODS: In 270 Black and 516 white smokers, smoke exposure was measured by expired carbon monoxide (CO), and nicotine intake was measured by plasma cotinine (COT) and cotinine+3'-hydroxycotinine ([COT + 3HC]). Using linear regression analyses, we analyzed how the Fagerström Test for Cigarette Dependence (FTCD) predicted intensity of smoke exposure per cigarette (CO/CPD) and intensity of nicotine intake per cigarette (COT/CPD; [COT + 3HC]/CPD), and how race moderated these relations. RESULTS: Overall, Black smokers consumed fewer CPD than white smokers and had higher levels of CO/CPD, COT/CPD, and [COT + 3HC]/CPD. These elevations were most pronounced at lower levels of dependence: amongst Black smokers, FTCD negatively predicted intensity of smoke exposure as measured by CO/CPD (B = -0.12, 95% CI = -0.18, -0.05, p = 0.0003) and intensity of nicotine intake as measured by [COT + 3HC]/CPD (B = -1.31, 95% CI = -2.15, -0.46, p = 0.002). CONCLUSIONS: Low-dependence Black smokers had higher intensities of both smoke exposure and nicotine intake per cigarette compared to similarly dependent white smokers, suggesting that measures of dependence, exposure, and intake underestimate incremental risk of each cigarette to Black smokers.

Low Burden Strategies Are Needed to Reduce Smoking in Rural Healthcare Settings: A Lesson from Cancer Clinics.

Rural populations face significant smoking-related health disparities, such as a higher prevalence of lung cancer and cancer mortality, higher prevalence of smoking, and lower likelihood of receiving cessation treatment than urban counterparts. A significant proportion of health disparities in rural populations could be eliminated with low-barrier, easy-access treatment delivery methods for smoking cessation. In this study, we assessed treatment engagement among patients in rural and urban settings. Then, we examined the effect of an electronic health record-based smoking cessation module on patient receipt of evidence-based cessation care. As part of a quality improvement project, we retrospectively observed 479,798 unique patients accounting for 1,426,089 outpatient clinical encounters from June 2018-March 2019 across 766 clinics in the greater St. Louis, southern Illinois, and mid-Missouri regions. Smoking prevalence was higher in rural versus urban clinics (20.7% vs. 13.9%, 6.7% [6.3, 7.1], odds ratio = 1.6 [1.6, 1.6], p < 0.0001), and yet rural smokers were nearly three times less likely than their urban counterparts to receive any smoking cessation treatment after adjusting for patients clustering within clinics (9.6% vs. 25.8%, -16.2% [-16.9, -15.5], odds ratio = 0.304 [0.28, 0.33], p < 0.0001). Although not yet scaled up in the rural setting, we examined the effects of a low-burden, point-of-care smoking module currently implemented in cancer clinics. After adjusting for patient clustering within clinics, patients were more likely to receive smoking treatment in clinics that implemented the module versus clinics that did not implement the module (31.2% vs. 17.5%, 13.7% [10.8, 16.6], odds ratio = 2.1 [1.8, 2.6], p < 0.0001). The point-of-care treatment approach offers a promising solution for rural settings, both in and outside the context of cancer care.