Identification of Substance-Exposed Newborns and Neonatal Abstinence Syndrome Using ICD-10-CM - 15 Hospitals, Massachusetts, 2017.

Opioid use disorder and neonatal abstinence syndrome (NAS) increased in Massachusetts from 1999 to 2013 (1,2). In response, in 2016, the state passed a law requiring birth hospitals to report the number of newborns who were exposed to controlled substances to the Massachusetts Department of Public Health (MDPH)* by mandating monthly reporting of International Classification of Diseases, Tenth Revision, Clinical Modification (ICD-10-CM) diagnostic codes related to maternal dependence on opioids (F11.20) or benzodiazepines (F13.20) and to newborns affected by maternal use of drugs of addiction (P04.49) or experiencing withdrawal symptoms from maternal drugs of addiction (P96.1) separately.† MDPH uses these same codes for monthly, real-time crude estimates of NAS and uses P96.1 alone for official NAS state reporting.§ MDPH requested CDC's assistance in evaluating the sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV), and negative predictive value (NPV) of either maternal or newborn codes to identify substance-exposed newborns, and of newborn exposure codes (both exposure [P04.49] or withdrawal [P96.1]) and the newborn code for withdrawal alone (P96.1) to identify infants with NAS cases related to three exposure scenarios: 1) opioids, 2) opioids or benzodiazepines, and 3) any controlled substance. Confirmed diagnoses of substance exposure and NAS abstracted from linked clinical records for 1,123 infants born in 2017 and their birth mothers were considered the diagnostic standard and were compared against hospital-reported ICD-10-CM codes. For identifying substance-exposed newborns across the three exposure scenarios, the newborn exposure codes had higher sensitivity (range = 31%-61%) than did maternal drug dependence codes (range = 16%-41%), but both sets of codes had high PPV (≥74%). For identifying NAS, for all exposure scenarios, the sensitivity for either newborn code (P04.49 or P96.1) was ≥92% and the PPV was ≥64%; for P96.1 alone the sensitivity was ≥79% and the PPV was ≥92% for all scenarios. Whereas ICD-10-CM codes are effective for NAS surveillance in Massachusetts, they should be applied cautiously for substance-exposed newborn surveillance. Surveillance for substance-exposed newborns using ICD-10-CM codes might be improved by increasing the use of validated substance-use screening tools and standardized facility protocols and improving communication between patients and maternal health and infant health care providers.

Benefit of biologics initiation in moderate versus severe rheumatoid arthritis: evidence from a United States registry.

Objectives: To compare clinical outcomes and treatment patterns among patients with moderate vs severe RA following biologic DMARD initiation. Methods: Biologics-naive patients with moderate to severe RA [Clinical Disease Activity Index (CDAI) >10] who initiated a biologic DMARD were selected from the Corrona registry (2001-13). CDAI, functional status [modified HAQ (mHAQ)] and patterns of drug use were compared at 1 and 2 years post-initiation between patients with moderate (CDAI >10⩽22) vs severe (CDAI >22) baseline disease activity. Results: A total of 1596 patients (817 severe, 779 moderate) had ⩾1 year of follow-up and 1269 (635 severe, 634 moderate) had ⩾2 years of follow-up. Patients with severe vs moderate baseline disease activity experienced greater improvements in disease activity [mean change in CDAI -18.9 vs -6.0 at year 1; -21.0 vs -7.1 at year 2 ( P < 0.0001)] and physical function [mean change in mHAQ -0.2 vs -0.1 ( P < 0.0001) at year 1; -0.2 vs -0.1 ( P = 0.0013) at year 2]. Greater proportions of patients with moderate vs severe disease activity achieved remission (CDAI ⩽2.8) [22.7 vs 15.8% ( P = 0.0003) at year 1; 25.9 vs 20.9% ( P = 0.0396) at year 2] or low disease activity (CDAI <10) [60.1 vs 41.2% at year 1; 66.7 vs 49.4% at year 2 ( P < 0.0001)]. Most patients remained on the original biologic drug (>70% at year 1; >62% at year 2). Conclusion: With biologic therapy, RA patients with higher baseline disease activity achieved greater improvements in measures of disease activity than those with lower levels of disease, but less often achieved the common targets of remission or low disease activity.

The rheumatoid arthritis treat-to-target trial: a cluster randomized trial within the Corrona rheumatology network.

BACKGROUND: The treat-to-target (T2T) approach to the care of patients with rheumatoid arthritis involves using validated metrics to measure disease activity, frequent follow-up visits for patients with moderate to high disease activity, and escalation of therapy when patients have inadequate therapeutic response as assessed by standard disease activity scores. The study described is a newly launched cluster-randomized behavioral intervention to assess the feasibility and effectiveness of the T2T approach in US rheumatology practices. It is designed to identify patient and provider barriers to implementing T2T management. This initial paper focuses on the novel study design and methods created to provide these insights. METHODS/DESIGN: This trial cluster-randomizes rheumatology practices from the existing Corrona network of private and academic sites rather than patients within sites or individual investigators to provide either T2T or usual care (UC) for qualified patients who meet the 2010 revised American College of Rheumatology criteria for the diagnosis of rheumatoid arthritis and have moderate to high disease activity. Specific medication choices are left to the investigator and patient, rather than being specified in the protocol. Enrollment is expected to be completed by the end of 2013, with 30 practices randomized and enrolling a minimum of 530 patients. During the 12-month follow-up, visits are mandated as frequently as monthly in patients with active disease in the T2T group and every 3 months for the UC group. Safety data are collected at each visit. The coprimary endpoints include a comparison of the proportion of patients achieving low disease activity in the T2T and UC groups and assessment of the feasibility of implementing T2T in rheumatology practices, specifically assessment of the rates of treatment acceleration, frequency of visits, time to next visit conditional on disease activity, and probability of acceleration conditional on disease activity in the 2 groups. DISCUSSION: This cluster-randomized behavioral intervention study will provide valuable insights on the outcomes and feasibility of employing a T2T treatment approach in clinical practice in the United States. TRIAL REGISTRATION: NCT01407419.

Molecular profiling of rheumatoid arthritis patients reveals an association between innate and adaptive cell populations and response to anti-tumor necrosis factor.

BACKGROUND: The goal of this study is to use comprehensive molecular profiling to characterize clinical response to anti-TNF therapy in a real-world setting and identify reproducible markers differentiating good responders and non-responders in rheumatoid arthritis (RA). METHODS: Whole-blood mRNA, plasma proteins, and glycopeptides were measured in two cohorts of biologic-naïve RA patients (n = 40 and n = 36) from the Corrona CERTAIN (Comparative Effectiveness Registry to study Therapies for Arthritis and Inflammatory coNditions) registry at baseline and after 3 months of anti-TNF treatment. Response to treatment was categorized by EULAR criteria. A cell type-specific data analysis was conducted to evaluate the involvement of the most common immune cell sub-populations. Findings concordant between the two cohorts were further assessed for reproducibility using selected NCBI-GEO datasets and clinical laboratory measurements available in the CERTAIN database. RESULTS: A treatment-related signature suggesting a reduction in neutrophils, independent of the status of response, was indicated by a high level of correlation (ρ = 0.62; p < 0.01) between the two cohorts. A baseline, response signature of increased innate cell types in responders compared to increased adaptive cell types in non-responders was identified in both cohorts. This result was further assessed by applying the cell type-specific analysis to five other publicly available RA datasets. Evaluation of the neutrophil-to-lymphocyte ratio at baseline in the remaining patients (n = 1962) from the CERTAIN database confirmed the observation (odds ratio of good/moderate response = 1.20 [95% CI = 1.03-1.41, p = 0.02]). CONCLUSION: Differences in innate/adaptive immune cell type composition at baseline may be a major contributor to response to anti-TNF treatment within the first 3 months of therapy.

One-year risk of serious infection in patients treated with certolizumab pegol as compared with other TNF inhibitors in a real-world setting: data from a national U.S. rheumatoid arthritis registry.

BACKGROUND: Registry studies provide a valuable source of comparative safety data for tumor necrosis factor inhibitors (TNFi) used in rheumatoid arthritis (RA), but they are subject to channeling bias. Comparing safety outcomes without accounting for channeling bias can lead to inaccurate comparisons between TNFi prescribed at different stages of the disease. In the present study, we examined the incidence of serious infection and other adverse events during certolizumab pegol (CZP) use vs other TNFi in a U.S. RA cohort before and after using a methodological approach to minimize channeling bias. METHODS: Patients with RA enrolled in the Corrona registry, aged ≥ 18 years, initiating CZP or other TNFi (etanercept, adalimumab, golimumab, or infliximab) after May 1, 2009 (n = 6215 initiations), were followed for ≤ 12 months. A propensity score (PS) model was used to control for baseline characteristics associated with the probability of receiving CZP vs other TNFi. Incidence rate ratios (IRRs) of serious infectious events (SIEs), malignancies, and cardiovascular events (CVEs) in the CZP group vs other TNFi group were calculated with 95% CIs, before and after PS matching. RESULTS: Patients were more likely to initiate CZP later in the course of therapy than those initiating other TNFi. CZP initiators (n = 975) were older and had longer disease duration, more active disease, and greater disability than other TNFi initiators (n = 5240). After PS matching, there were no clinically important differences between CZP (n = 952) and other TNFi (n = 952). Before PS matching, CZP was associated with a greater incidence of SIEs (IRR 1.53 [95% CI 1.13, 2.05]). The risk of SIEs was not different between groups after PS matching (IRR 1.26 [95% CI 0.84, 1.90]). The 95% CI of the IRRs for malignancies or CVEs included unity, regardless of PS matching, suggesting no difference in risk between CZP and other TNFi. CONCLUSIONS: After using PS matching to minimize channeling bias and compare patients with a similar likelihood of receiving CZP or other TNFi, the 1-year risk of SIEs, malignancies, and CVEs was not distinguishable between the two groups.

Cluster-Randomized Trial of a Behavioral Intervention to Incorporate a Treat-to-Target Approach to Care of US Patients With Rheumatoid Arthritis.

OBJECTIVE: To assess the feasibility and efficacy of implementing a treat-to-target approach versus usual care in a US-based cohort of rheumatoid arthritis patients. METHODS: In this behavioral intervention trial, rheumatology practices were cluster-randomized to provide treat-to-target care or usual care. Eligible patients with moderate/high disease activity (Clinical Disease Activity Index [CDAI] score >10) were followed for 12 months. Both treat-to-target and usual care patients were seen every 3 months. Treat-to-target providers were to have monthly visits with treatment acceleration at a minimum of every 3 months in patients with CDAI score >10; additional visits and treatment acceleration were at the discretion of usual care providers and patients. Coprimary end points were feasibility, assessed by rate of treatment acceleration conditional on CDAI score >10, and achievement of low disease activity (LDA; CDAI score ≤10) by an intent-to-treat analysis. RESULTS: A total of 14 practice sites per study arm were included (246 patients receiving treat-to-target and 286 receiving usual care). The groups had similar baseline demographic and clinical characteristics. Rates of treatment acceleration (treat-to-target 47% versus usual care 50%; odds ratio [OR] 0.92 [95% confidence interval (95% CI) 0.64, 1.34]) and achievement of LDA (treat-to-target 57% versus usual care 55%; OR 1.05 [95% CI 0.60, 1.84]) were similar between groups. Treat-to-target providers reported patient reluctance and medication lag time as common barriers to treatment acceleration. CONCLUSION: This study is the first to examine the feasibility and efficacy of a treat-to-target approach in typical US rheumatology practice. Treat-to-target care was not associated with increased likelihood of treatment acceleration or achievement of LDA, and barriers to treatment acceleration were identified.

Clinical and demographic factors associated with change and maintenance of disease severity in a large registry of patients with rheumatoid arthritis.

BACKGROUND: We examined models to predict disease activity transitions from moderate to low or severe and associated factors in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA). METHODS: Data from RA patients enrolled in the Corrona registry (October 2001 to August 2014) were analyzed. Clinical Disease Activity Index (CDAI) definitions were used for low (≤10), moderate (>10 and ≤22), and severe (>22) disease activity states. A Markov model for repeated measures allowing for covariate dependence was used to model transitions between three (low, moderate, severe) states and estimate population transition probabilities. Mean sojourn times were calculated to compare length of time in particular states. Logistic regression models were used to examine impacts of covariates (time between visits, chronological year, disease duration, age) on disease states. RESULTS: Data from 29,853 patients (251,375 visits) and a sub-cohort of 9812 patients (46,534 visits) with regular visits (every 3-9 months) were analyzed. The probability of moving from moderate to low or severe disease by next visit was 47% and 18%, respectively. Patients stayed in moderate disease for mean 4.25 months (95% confidence interval: 4.18-4.32). Transition probabilities showed 20% of patients with low disease activity moved to moderate or severe disease within 6 months; >35% of patients with moderate disease remained in moderate disease after 6 months. Results were similar for the regular-visit sub-cohort. Significant interactions with prior disease state were seen with chronological year and disease duration. CONCLUSION: A substantial proportion of patients remain in moderate disease, emphasizing the need for treat-to-target strategies for RA patients.

Impact of Treatment With Biologic Agents on the Use of Mechanical Devices Among Rheumatoid Arthritis Patients in a Large US Patient Registry.

OBJECTIVE: To assess trends and predictors of mechanical devices/aids use by rheumatoid arthritis (RA) patients since the introduction of biologic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARDs). METHODS: Sociodemographic characteristics, disease characteristics, and mechanical aid use (assessed using the Health Assessment Questionnaire) were compared among RA patients ages >17 years at diagnosis, enrolled in the Consortium of Rheumatology Researchers of North America (CORRONA) registry during January 2001 to December 2003 and January 2010 to December 2012. Univariate and multivariate logistic regression analyses were used to identify predictors of mechanical aid use among patients in both cohorts. RESULTS: Sociodemographic characteristics were similar between 1,096 patients in the 2001-2003 cohort and 11,140 patients in the 2010-2012 cohort. Disease activity was significantly lower among patients in the 2010-2012 cohort (mean ± SD Clinical Disease Activity Index score 10.1 ± 11.1 versus 17.0 ± 13.8; P < 0.001). A greater proportion of patients in the 2010-2012 cohort received biologic DMARDs (50.7% versus 32.5%; P < 0.001) and fewer were biologic-naive (39.1% versus 61.6%; P < 0.001). Fewer patients in the 2010-2012 cohort used any mechanical devices/aids (31.1% versus 40.8%; P < 0.001). In multivariate analysis, patients in the 2010-2012 cohort and those with a history of biologic agent use were less likely to use devices/aids (odds ratio [OR] 0.77 [95% confidence interval (95% CI) 0.66-0.90] and OR 0.68 [95% CI 0.62-0.75], respectively). Predictors of greater devices/aids usage included older age, female sex, higher disease activity, and less employment. Effect sizes were greatest for disease activity and employment. CONCLUSION: Mechanical devices/aids use among patients with RA was significantly lower during 2010-2012 versus 2001-2003 and among biologic-experienced patients, suggesting reduced disability.

Identifying factors associated with concordance with the American College of Rheumatology rheumatoid arthritis treatment recommendations.

BACKGROUND: Factors associated with care concordant with the American College of Rheumatology (ACR) recommendations for the use of disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARDs) in rheumatoid arthritis (RA) are unknown. METHODS: We identified a national cohort of biologic-naive patients with RA with visits between December 2008 and February 2013. Treatment acceleration (initiation or dose escalation of biologic and nonbiologic DMARDs) in response to moderate to high disease activity (using the Clinical Disease Activity Index) was assessed. The population was divided into two subcohorts: (1) methotrexate (MTX)-only users and (2) multiple nonbiologic DMARD users. In both subcohorts, we compared the characteristics of patients who received care consistent with the ACR recommendations (e.g., prescriptions for treatment acceleration) and their providers with the characteristics of those who did not at the conclusion of one visit and over two visits, using logistic regression and adjusting for clustering of patients by rheumatologist. RESULTS: Our study included 741 MTX monotherapy and 995 multiple nonbiologic DMARD users cared for by 139 providers. Only 36.2 % of MTX monotherapy users and 39.6 % of multiple nonbiologic DMARD users received care consistent with the recommendations after one visit, which increased over two visits to 78.3 % and 76.2 %, respectively (25-30 % achieved low disease activity by the second visit without DMARD acceleration). Increasing time since the ACR publication on RA treatment recommendations was not associated with improved adherence. CONCLUSIONS: Allowing two encounters for treatment acceleration was associated with an increase in care concordant with the recommendations; however, time since publication was not.

Effectiveness of Rituximab for the Treatment of Rheumatoid Arthritis in Patients with Prior Exposure to Anti-TNF: Results from the CORRONA Registry.

OBJECTIVE: To characterize the real-world effectiveness of rituximab (RTX) in patients with rheumatoid arthritis. METHODS: Clinical effectiveness at 12 months was assessed in patients who were prescribed RTX based on the Clinical Disease Activity Index (CDAI). Change in CDAI was calculated (CDAI at 12 mos minus at initiation). Achievement of remission or low disease activity (LDA; CDAI ≤ 10) among those with moderate/high disease activity at the time of RTX initiation was compared based on prior anti-tumor necrosis factor agent (anti-TNF) use (1 vs ≥ 2) using logistic regression models. RESULTS: Patients (n = 265) were followed for 12 months with a mean change in CDAI of -8.1 (95% CI -9.8 - -6.4). Of the 218 patients with moderate/high disease activity at baseline, patients with 1 prior anti-TNF (baseline CDAI 25.0) demonstrated a mean change in CDAI of -10.1 (95% CI -13.2 - -7.0); patients with ≥ 2 prior anti-TNF (baseline CDAI 30.0) demonstrated a mean change of -10.5 (95% CI -12.9 - -8.0). The unadjusted OR for achieving LDA/remission in patients with moderate/high disease activity at baseline exposed to ≥ 2 versus 1 prior anti-TNF was 0.40 (95% CI 0.22-0.73), which was robust to 4 different adjusted models (OR range 0.38-0.44). CONCLUSION: A good clinical response was observed in all patients; however, patients previously treated with 1 anti-TNF, who had lower baseline CDAI and a greater opportunity for clinical improvement compared with patients previously treated with ≥ 2 anti-TNF, were more likely to achieve LDA/remission.

Comparative effectiveness of biologic monotherapy versus combination therapy for patients with psoriatic arthritis: results from the Corrona registry.

OBJECTIVES: To characterise the comparative effectiveness of combination therapy (a tumour necrosis factor inhibitor (TNFi) and a conventional synthetic disease-modifying antirheumatic drug (csDMARD) such as methotrexate) and monotherapy (TNFi only) for psoriatic arthritis (PsA) from a large US registry. METHODS: The analysis included adult patients with PsA who were enrolled in the Corrona database (ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT01402661), had initiated a TNFi, were biologic naïve, and had a follow-up visit ≥90 days after drug initiation. The endpoints of the analysis were TNFi persistence (drug survival) and time to Clinical Disease Activity Index (CDAI) remission. All analyses were performed using propensity scoring, which were estimated using CDAI and patient sex, to control for channelling bias. RESULTS: Of 519 patients meeting the inclusion criteria (318 with combination therapy and 201 with monotherapy), the analysis population was 497 for TNFi persistence and 380 for time to remission. The difference between combination therapy (TNFi+methotrexate, 91% of patients; TNFi+other csDMARD, 9%) and monotherapy was not statistically significant for TNFi persistence (32 and 31 months, p=0.73) and time to remission (21 and 25 months, p=0.56). Predictors of TNFi persistence included Hispanic ethnicity (longer persistence), PsA duration (longer persistence), history of methotrexate use (shorter persistence), body mass index (shorter persistence) and disease activity (shorter persistence). CONCLUSIONS: Patients with PsA from a large US registry experienced similar TNFi persistence on combination therapy and monotherapy. Prospective, randomised clinical trials evaluating the efficacy of combination therapy versus monotherapy would provide much-needed clarity on treatment options for patients with PsA. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT01402661.

Training future pharmacists at a minority educational institution: evaluation of the Rx for change tobacco cessation training program.

OBJECTIVES: To estimate the impact of Rx for Change, an 8-h tobacco cessation training program on pharmacy students' perceived counseling skills, confidence for counseling, and future counseling of patients for tobacco cessation. METHODS: Unlinked, pre- and post-training surveys were administered to 142 pharmacy students enrolled at Texas Southern University, a primarily minority and historically black educational institution. RESULTS: Post-training counseling abilities were significantly improved over pretraining values for each of the five key components of tobacco cessation counseling (Ask, Advise, Assess, Assist, and Arrange), overall counseling abilities, and confidence for counseling (P < 0.001). Racial/ethnic differences in self-reported overall counseling was observed (P = 0.01). Ninety-one percent of participants believed that the training would increase the number of patients whom they counsel for cessation, and 95% believed that it would improve the quality of counseling that they provide. At least 95% of participants believed that the pharmacy profession should be more active in preventing patients from starting smoking and helping patients to stop smoking. CONCLUSIONS: The Rx for Change program had a positive impact on perceived abilities and confidence for providing tobacco cessation counseling to patients. While it is important that all current and future health care providers receive specialized tobacco cessation training, it is particularly important for clinicians of racial/ethnic minority backgrounds, who are more likely to practice in geographic areas with a high density of population subgroups at an elevated risk for tobacco-related mortality. In particular, pharmacists, who are uniquely positioned within the community to provide care to all patients, including the medically underserved, must be equipped with the necessary skills to assist patients with quitting.

A comparison of the malignancy incidence among patients with psoriatic arthritis and patients with rheumatoid arthritis in a large US cohort.

OBJECTIVE: To compare the incidence rates of malignancy among patients with psoriatic arthritis (PsA) and patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) in the Consortium of Rheumatology Researchers of North America (CORRONA) registry. METHODS: We analyzed 2,970 patients with PsA (7,133 patient-years of followup) and 19,260 patients with RA (53,864 patient-years of followup). Using a standardized adjudication process, we identified 40 confirmed malignancies in the patients with PsA and 307 confirmed malignancies in those with RA. Incidence rates were calculated per 100 patient-years. Incidence rate ratios were estimated, with adjustment for age, sex, disease duration, body mass index, disease activity, year of enrollment, and medication use. RESULTS: The overall malignancy incidence per 100 patient-years was similar between patients with PsA and patients with RA (0.56 [95% confidence interval (95% CI) 0.40-0.76] and 0.56 [95% CI 0.50-0.63], respectively). Nonmelanoma skin cancer was the most common type of cancer in the overall cohort, with an incidence rate of 0.21 (95% CI 0.12-0.35) in PsA, and 0.20 (95% CI 0.17-0.24) in RA, with a calculated incidence rate ratio of 1.05 (95% CI 0.61-1.80; P = 0.85). Lymphoma rates were similar in PsA and RA (0.04 [95% CI 0.01-0.12] and 0.04 [95% CI 0.02-0.06], respectively; incidence rate ratio 1.00 [95% CI 0.17-3.11]; P = 0.67). The adjusted incidence rate ratio of malignancy in PsA versus RA was 1.17 (95% CI 0.82-1.69; P = 0.37). CONCLUSION: The incidence rates across malignancy subtypes were similar in the PsA and RA cohorts from a US registry.

Birthplace, years of residence in the United States, and obesity among Mexican-American adults.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the association between birthplace (Mexico or U.S.) and obesity in men and women and to analyze the relationship between duration of U.S. residency and prevalence of obesity in Mexican immigrants. RESEARCH METHODS AND PROCEDURES: We used cross-sectional data from 7503 adults of Mexican descent residing in Harris County, TX, to evaluate the relationships among BMI, birthplace, and years of residency in the U.S., controlling for demographic characteristics, physical activity level, and acculturation level. RESULTS: U.S.-born adults had an increased risk (between 34% and 65%) of obesity compared with their Mexican-born counterparts. After controlling for recognized confounders and risk factors, this association was maintained in the highly acculturated only. Among highly acculturated obese U.S.-born men, 6% of the cases were attributable to the joint effect of birthplace and acculturation; in women, this proportion was 25%. Among Mexican-born women, there was an increasing trend in mean BMI with increasing duration of residency in the U.S.. Compared with immigrants who had lived in the U.S. for <5 years, Mexican-born women who had resided in the U.S. for >or=15 years had an adjusted BMI mean difference of 2.12 kg/m2 (95% confidence interval, 1.53-2.72). DISCUSSION: Mexican-born men and women have a lower risk of obesity than their U.S.-born counterparts, but length of U.S. residency among immigrants, especially in women, is directly associated with risk of obesity. Development of culturally specific interventions to prevent obesity in recent immigrants may have an important public health effect in this population.

Effects of nativity, age at migration, and acculturation on smoking among adult Houston residents of Mexican descent.

OBJECTIVES: We investigated differences in smoking behaviors between US-and Mexican-born ever smokers and examined the influence of US culture on smoking initiation. METHODS: Participants were 5030 adults of Mexican descent enrolled in an ongoing population-based cohort in Houston, Tex. RESULTS: More men than women reported current smoking; rates among US-born women were higher than those among Mexican-born women. Smoking rates among US-born men were higher than earlier published rates among Hispanics and non-Hispanic Whites but similar to rates among African Americans. Current smoking rates among Mexican-born women were lower than published rates for Hispanics, non-Hispanic Whites, and African Americans. Older age, male gender, a higher level of acculturation, more than a high school education, and residing in a census tract with a higher median age predicted history of smoking among US-born participants. Among Mexican-born participants, older age, male gender, a higher level of acculturation, and younger age at migration predicted history of smoking. CONCLUSIONS: Smoking interventions for people of Mexican descent should be tailored according to gender, nativity, and acculturation level and should target all ages, not just young people.