Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
Mostrar: 20 | 50 | 100
Resultados 1 - 20 de 1.371
Filtrar
1.
Syst Rev ; 10(1): 48, 2021 02 03.
Artículo en Inglés | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-33536070

RESUMEN

BACKGROUND: The COVID-19 pandemic is creating severe issues for healthcare and broad social structures, exposing societal vulnerabilities. Among the populations affected by COVID-19 are people engaged in substance use, such as people who smoke; vape (e-cigarette use); use opioids, cannabis, alcohol, or psychoactive prescription drugs; or have a substance use disorder (SUD). Monitoring substance use and SUD during the pandemic is essential, as people who engage in substance use or present with SUD are at greater risk for COVID-19, and the economic and social changes resulting from the pandemic may aggravate SUD. There have been several reviews focused on COVID-19 in relation to substance use and SUD. Reviews generally did not consider on a large range of substance use variants or SUDs. We plan a scoping review that seeks to fill gaps in our current understanding of substance use and SUD, in the COVID-19 era. METHODS: A scoping review focused on substance use and SUD, in relation to COVID-19, will be conducted. We will search (from January 2020 onwards) Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature, Africa-Wide Information, Web of Science Core Collection, Embase, Global Health, WHO Global Literature on Coronavirus Disease Database, WHO Global Index Medicus, PsycINFO, PubMed, Middle Eastern Central Asian Studies, CINAHL Complete, and Sociological Abstracts. Grey literature will be identified using Disaster Lit, Google Scholar, HSRProj, governmental websites, and clinical trials registries (e.g., ClinicalTrial.gov , World Health Organization, International Clinical Trials Registry Platform and International Standard Randomized Con-trolled Trial Number registry). Study selection will conform to Joanna Briggs Institute Reviewers' Manual 2015 Methodology for JBI Scoping Reviews. Only English language, original studies investigating substance use and SUD, in relation to COVID-19 in all populations and settings, will be considered for inclusion. Two reviewers will independently screen all citations, full-text articles, and abstract data. A narrative summary of findings will be conducted. Data analysis will involve quantitative (e.g., frequencies) and qualitative (e.g., content and thematic analysis) methods. DISCUSSION: Original research is urgently needed to mitigate the risks of COVID-19 on substance use and SUD. The planned scoping review will help to address this gap. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION: Open Science Framework (osf/io/tzgm5).


Asunto(s)
/epidemiología , Drogas Ilícitas , Trastornos Relacionados con Opioides , Fumar , Trastornos Relacionados con Sustancias/epidemiología , Humanos , Factores de Riesgo , Vapeo
2.
Subst Use Misuse ; 56(2): 192-204, 2021.
Artículo en Inglés | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-33412950

RESUMEN

Background: Substances that can be vaped include nicotine, marijuana, cocaine, heroin, and a range of synthetic drugs called new psychoactive substances (NPS). Due to the rising popularity of vaping among adolescents, it is crucial to understand the relationships between vaping and illicit drug use. Objectives: This paper examined the prevalence and trends of using vaping devices, marijuana vaping, marijuana products, synthetic cannabinoids and mist contents among youth. Methods: The study utilized 5 sets of public cross-sectional national data from the "Monitoring the Future" surveys during 2014-2018. It employed logistic regression to analyze the data. Results: There was an increase from 10.5% in 2017 to 20.8% in 2018 for the past 30-day use of vaping devices among 12th graders. Furthermore, there was an increase from 21.6% in 2017 to 34.5% in 2018 for the past 12-month use of marijuana via vaping device among 12th-grade marijuana users. Additionally, there were significant associations between vaping device use and marijuana vaping, between vaping device use and marijuana use, between vaping device use and synthetic cannabinoids use, and between marijuana use and synthetic cannabinoids use from 2016 to 2018. Conclusions: Vaping emerged as another major route of marijuana administration among youth. Adolescent marijuana users had higher odds of using synthetic cannabinoids. This finding highlighted the importance of understanding what adolescent substance consumption pattern would be where marijuana was legalized. It also supported the hypothesis that vaping devices use correlates with, or is associated with, marijuana and synthetic cannabinoids use.


Asunto(s)
Cannabinoides/administración & dosificación , Fumar Marihuana/epidemiología , Uso de la Marihuana/epidemiología , Trastornos Relacionados con Sustancias/epidemiología , Vapeo/epidemiología , Administración por Inhalación , Adolescente , Cannabis , Estudios Transversales , Femenino , Humanos , Masculino , Prevalencia , Encuestas y Cuestionarios , Estados Unidos/epidemiología
9.
Addict Behav ; 115: 106783, 2021 04.
Artículo en Inglés | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-33360444

RESUMEN

We examined tobacco use changes in young adult college students in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic, focusing on smoking and vaping. First, we evaluated changes in tobacco use from pre to post campus closure focusing on smoking and electronic nicotine vaping frequency (days) and quantity (cigarettes/cartridges per day). Also, given the potential protective effects of pausing (temporarily or permanently discontinuing) smoking or vaping, we evaluated its predictors. We hypothesized that generalized anxiety and moving home would increase the odds of pausing. We also explored effects of COVID-related news exposure and seeking on tobacco use. We re-contacted young adults two years after they completed a study on alcohol and marijuana co-use. A subset (N = 83; 26.6% of the 312 respondents) were enrolled in college and reported use of cigarettes (n = 35) and/or e-cigarettes (n = 69) in the week prior to their campus closing (PC). Paired sample t-tests compared smoking and vaping frequency and quantity PC to past-week use since closing (SC). Multivariate logistic regression models were fit to examine predictors of pausing. Both smoking and vaping frequency decreased from PC to SC; however, decreased frequency did not correspond to reduced quantity. Twenty-four participants (28.9%) paused past-week use SC. Higher anxiety and moving home (versus living independently) were related to increased odds of pausing, whereas COVID-19 related news exposure and seeking were related to decreased odds of pausing. Characterizing COVID-19 related tobacco use change provides insights into how college students respond to novel health threats and informs potential interventions.


Asunto(s)
/psicología , Fumar Cigarrillos/epidemiología , Fumar Cigarrillos/psicología , Vapeo/epidemiología , Vapeo/psicología , Adulto , Femenino , Humanos , Estudios Longitudinales , Masculino , Pandemias , Estudiantes/psicología , Estudiantes/estadística & datos numéricos , Universidades , Adulto Joven
10.
Am J Public Health ; 111(2): 230-246, 2021 02.
Artículo en Inglés | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-33351653

RESUMEN

Objectives. To determine the association between e-cigarette use and smoking cessation.Methods. We searched PubMed, Web of Science Core Collection, and EMBASE and computed the association of e-cigarette use with quitting cigarettes using random effects meta-analyses.Results. We identified 64 papers (55 observational studies and 9 randomized clinical trials [RCTs]). In observational studies of all adult smokers (odds ratio [OR] = 0.947; 95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.772, 1.160) and smokers motivated to quit smoking (OR = 0.851; 95% CI = 0.684, 1.057), e-cigarette consumer product use was not associated with quitting. Daily e-cigarette use was associated with more quitting (OR = 1.529; 95% CI = 1.158, 2.019) and less-than-daily use was associated with less quitting (OR = 0.514; 95% CI = 0.402, 0.665). The RCTs that compared quitting among smokers who were provided e-cigarettes to smokers with conventional therapy found e-cigarette use was associated with more quitting (relative risk = 1.555; 95% CI = 1.173, 2.061).Conclusions. As consumer products, in observational studies, e-cigarettes were not associated with increased smoking cessation in the adult population. In RCTs, provision of free e-cigarettes as a therapeutic intervention was associated with increased smoking cessation.Public Health Implications. E-cigarettes should not be approved as consumer products but may warrant consideration as a prescription therapy.


Asunto(s)
Fumar Cigarrillos/prevención & control , Cese del Hábito de Fumar/métodos , Vapeo , Adulto , Sistemas Electrónicos de Liberación de Nicotina , Humanos , Estudios Observacionales como Asunto , Sesgo de Publicación , Ensayos Clínicos Controlados Aleatorios como Asunto
13.
Artículo en Inglés | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-33327373

RESUMEN

Depression is a risk factor for nicotine use and withdrawal. Population level epidemiologic studies that include users of either combustible or electronic cigarette (NICUSER) could inform interventions to reduce nicotine dependence in vulnerable populations. The current study examined the relationship between depression diagnosis (DEPDX), NICUSER, and lifetime rates of DSM-V nicotine withdrawal (NW) symptoms in a nationally representative sample of US adults (N = 979), who answered related questions in surveys administered through GfK's KnowledgePanel. Over 42% of the sample reported lifetime ever combustible cigarette use, 15.6% electronic-cigarette use, and 45.9% either (NICUSER). Weighted logistic regression analyses (controlling for age and gender) found that DEPDX was associated with 2.3 times increased odds (ratio (OR); 95% Confidence Interval (CI): 1.5-3.5) of being a NICUSER. Regarding risks of NW symptoms among NICUSER, models that additionally controlled for frequency of nicotine use found that DEPDX was significantly associated with increased odds of concentration problems (OR = 2.4; 95% CI: 1.3-4.5) and depressed mood (OR = 2.2; 95% CI: 1.1-4.1) when quitting or cutting down on nicotine use. Results highlight the consistent comorbidity between depression, nicotine use, and symptomatic nicotine withdrawal in a population-based sample of combustible and electronic cigarette users.


Asunto(s)
Fumar Cigarrillos , Depresión , Nicotina , Síndrome de Abstinencia a Sustancias , Vapeo , Adulto , Fumar Cigarrillos/efectos adversos , Fumar Cigarrillos/epidemiología , Estudios Transversales , Depresión/inducido químicamente , Depresión/epidemiología , Sistemas Electrónicos de Liberación de Nicotina/estadística & datos numéricos , Femenino , Humanos , Masculino , Persona de Mediana Edad , Nicotina/efectos adversos , Síndrome de Abstinencia a Sustancias/epidemiología , Vapeo/efectos adversos
14.
PLoS One ; 15(12): e0243368, 2020.
Artículo en Inglés | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-33320885

RESUMEN

OBJECTIVES: In November 2018, JUUL, Inc. restricted sales of mango, fruit medley, crème brûlée, and cucumber pods to its website. Physical/online sales of tobacco, menthol, and mint pods continued. We examined rates of adolescent JUUL device and flavored pod use before and after restrictions were implemented to examine their potential impact. METHODS: Students from 4 Connecticut high schools completed cross-sectional surveys in 2018 (N = 3170) and 2019 (N = 3074). RESULTS: Compared to 2018, current (past-month) JUUL use decreased in 2019 (30.2-25.6%). Among current JUUL users, restricted flavor use (mango [62.8-36.9%]; cucumber [27.7-11.9%]; fruit [23.5-11.4%]; crème brûlée [12.3-5.0%]) and the total number of flavors used (2.09[SD = 1.71]-1.51[SD = 1.33]) decreased (p-values < .001), while mint pod use increased (62.0-68.6%, p < .01). Tobacco and menthol pod use remained stable. CONCLUSIONS: Following voluntary sales restrictions implemented by JUUL, Inc., restricted flavor use and the total number of flavors used decreased among JUUL users while mint use increased. Results suggest flavor restrictions may impact adolescents' e-cigarette use. While 2020 Food and Drug Administration restrictions on mint pods may further limit youth JUUL use, research is needed to determine where youth acquire restricted flavors and if restrictions prompt increased popularity of unrestricted devices/e-liquids.


Asunto(s)
Comercio , Sistemas Electrónicos de Liberación de Nicotina , Aromatizantes , Instituciones Académicas , Estudiantes , Vapeo , Adolescente , Estudios Transversales , Femenino , Humanos , Masculino
15.
JAMA Netw Open ; 3(12): e2030189, 2020 12 01.
Artículo en Inglés | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-33351085

RESUMEN

Importance: Rates of e-cigarette use (ie, nicotine vaping) and cannabis vaping continue to increase among youth and young adults. However, the association of nicotine and cannabis vaping with independent respiratory health outcomes has not been well studied. Objective: To investigate associations of nicotine and cannabis vaping with bronchitic symptoms, wheeze, and shortness of breath. Design, Setting, and Participants: Cross-sectional survey data on self-reported lifetime, 6-month, and 30-day vaping from 2553 young adults recruited from high schools in Southern California were collected from June 2018 to October 2019. Of these participants, 94% provided data for shortness of breath and wheeze, and 86% provided data for chronic bronchitis. Main Outcomes and Measures: Self-reported nicotine and cannabis vaping were measured on a Likert-type scale using the following responses: (1) never used, (2) lifetime but no past 6-month use, (3) past 6-month use but no use in the past 30 days, (4) use on 1 or 2 of the past 30 days, and (5) use on 3 or more of the past 30 days. Three respiratory health outcomes were assessed separately on the basis of self-reported symptoms: bronchitic symptoms in the previous 12 months (ie, daily cough for 3 months in a row, congestion or phlegm other than with a cold, and/or bronchitis), wheeze in the previous 12 months, and shortness of breath when hurrying on level ground or walking up a slight hill. Results: Of 2553 participants in the analytic sample (mean [SD] age, 19.3 [0.79] years; 1477 [57.9%] female individuals), 1095 of 2553 young adults (42.9%) reported vaping nicotine and 939 of 2553 (38.4%) reported vaping cannabis. Compared with those who never vaped cannabis, individuals who vaped cannabis in their lifetime but not in the past 60 months (204 of 2553 [8.4%]; adjusted odds ratio [aOR], 1.83 [95% CI, 1.08-3.10]), in the past 6 months but not in the last 30 days (490 of 2443 [20.1%]; aOR, 1.58 [95% CI, 1.02-2.46]), 1-2 days in the past 30 days (90 of 2443 [3.7%]; aOR, 2.83 [95% CI, 1.46-5.50]), and 3 or more days in the past 30 days (155 of 2443 [6.3%]; aOR, 2.14 [95% CI, 1.16-3.92]) had significantly higher odds of chronic bronchitic symptoms after adjusting for nicotine vaping, cigarette smoking, cannabis smoking, and sociodemographic characteristics. Cannabis vaping 3 or more times in the last 30 days was also associated with increased odds of wheeze (aOR, 2.27 [95% CI, 1.17-4.37]). Associations of cannabis vaping with shortness of breath and nicotine vaping with any respiratory health outcome were not statistically significant in fully adjusted models. Conclusions and Relevance: Findings of this cross-sectional study suggest that cannabis vaping is associated with increased risk of bronchitic symptoms and wheeze in young adults. Further research is needed to understand the temporality of the association and the mechanisms underlying the difference between nicotine and cannabis vaping in the risk of bronchitic symptoms and wheeze.


Asunto(s)
Disnea/diagnóstico , Fumar Marihuana/epidemiología , Ruidos Respiratorios/diagnóstico , Vapeo/epidemiología , Correlación de Datos , Estudios Transversales , Autoevaluación Diagnóstica , Disnea/etiología , Sistemas Electrónicos de Liberación de Nicotina/estadística & datos numéricos , Femenino , Humanos , Los Angeles/epidemiología , Masculino , Fumar Marihuana/efectos adversos , Ruidos Respiratorios/etiología , Autoinforme , Evaluación de Síntomas/métodos , Evaluación de Síntomas/estadística & datos numéricos , Vapeo/efectos adversos , Adulto Joven
16.
J Investig Med High Impact Case Rep ; 8: 2324709620972243, 2020.
Artículo en Inglés | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-33174465

RESUMEN

Globally, health care providers have been challenged to provide adequate care during the coronavirus disease-2019 (COVID-19) pandemic. Due to the ever changing and rapidly evolving nature of the novel coronavirus, there is increased public anxiety and knowledge gaps that have created major dilemmas in health care delivery. In this environment, there is tremendous pressure on clinicians to diagnose each and every case of COVID-19. This has led to a situation in which clinicians are primed to suspect all respiratory illness is due to COVID-19 infection until proven otherwise. Because of this, providers may misdiagnose patients who have illnesses that are distinct from COVID-19 but present in a similar manner. In the current article, we present the case of e-cigarette- and vaping-associated acute lung injury (EVALI) mimicking pneumonia secondary to the novel coronavirus. It is unknown if vaping puts patients at higher risk of respiratory failure if coinfected with COVID-19. Therefore, exposure history in patients presenting with pneumonia-like syndrome is important. Physicians should be aware of the overlap between these conditions and should pay particular attention during history taking to distinguish EVALI from COVID-19 pneumonia.


Asunto(s)
Infecciones por Coronavirus/diagnóstico , Enfermedades Pulmonares Intersticiales/etiología , Neumonía Viral/diagnóstico , Tomografía Computarizada por Rayos X/métodos , Vapeo/efectos adversos , Adulto , Infecciones por Coronavirus/diagnóstico por imagen , Tos/diagnóstico , Tos/etiología , Diagnóstico Diferencial , Fiebre/diagnóstico , Fiebre/etiología , Hábitos , Humanos , Enfermedades Pulmonares Intersticiales/diagnóstico por imagen , Masculino , Pandemias , Neumonía Viral/diagnóstico por imagen , Radiografía Torácica/métodos , Medición de Riesgo
17.
Praxis (Bern 1994) ; 109(13): 1063-1069, 2020.
Artículo en Alemán | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-33050810

RESUMEN

Vaping-Associated Pulmonary Illness Abstract. Electronic cigarettes are hand-held devices used to vaporize liquids by heating and thus allowing inhalation of aerosols. Recently, cases of patients have been published which presented with a syndrome associated with e-cigarette consumption, also known as vaping. The syndrome designated 'vaping-associated pulmonary illness' (VAPI) features either isolated respiratory, or combined respiratory gastro-intestinal or constitutional symptoms. VAPI can be rapidly progressive and lead to severe respiratory failure requiring intensive care treatment. Despite the as yet very incomplete understanding of the causative agents and pathogenesis we review the current knowledge of the clinical, pathological and radiological aspects in VAPI and summarise the current therapeutic strategies.


Asunto(s)
Sistemas Electrónicos de Liberación de Nicotina , Enfermedades Pulmonares , Vapeo , Humanos , Pulmón , Enfermedades Pulmonares/etiología , Vapeo/efectos adversos
18.
Cochrane Database Syst Rev ; 10: CD010216, 2020 10 14.
Artículo en Inglés | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-33052602

RESUMEN

BACKGROUND: Electronic cigarettes (ECs) are handheld electronic vaping devices which produce an aerosol formed by heating an e-liquid. People who smoke report using ECs to stop or reduce smoking, but some organisations, advocacy groups and policymakers have discouraged this, citing lack of evidence of efficacy and safety. People who smoke, healthcare providers and regulators want to know if ECs can help people quit and if they are safe to use for this purpose. This review is an update of a review first published in 2014. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the effect and safety of using electronic cigarettes (ECs) to help people who smoke achieve long-term smoking abstinence. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Tobacco Addiction Group's Specialized Register, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, Embase, and PsycINFO for relevant records to January 2020, together with reference-checking and contact with study authors. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and randomized cross-over trials in which people who smoke were randomized to an EC or control condition. We also included uncontrolled intervention studies in which all participants received an EC intervention. To be included, studies had to report abstinence from cigarettes at six months or longer and/or data on adverse events (AEs) or other markers of safety at one week or longer. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We followed standard Cochrane methods for screening and data extraction. Our primary outcome measures were abstinence from smoking after at least six months follow-up, AEs, and serious adverse events (SAEs). Secondary outcomes included changes in carbon monoxide, blood pressure, heart rate, blood oxygen saturation, lung function, and levels of known carcinogens/toxicants. We used a fixed-effect Mantel-Haenszel model to calculate the risk ratio (RR) with a 95% confidence interval (CI) for dichotomous outcomes. For continuous outcomes, we calculated mean differences. Where appropriate, we pooled data from these studies in meta-analyses. MAIN RESULTS: We include 50 completed studies, representing 12,430 participants, of which 26 are RCTs. Thirty-five of the 50 included studies are new to this review update. Of the included studies, we rated four (all which contribute to our main comparisons) at low risk of bias overall, 37 at high risk overall (including the 24 non-randomized studies), and the remainder at unclear risk. There was moderate-certainty evidence, limited by imprecision, that quit rates were higher in people randomized to nicotine EC than in those randomized to nicotine replacement therapy (NRT) (risk ratio (RR) 1.69, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.25 to 2.27; I2 = 0%; 3 studies, 1498 participants). In absolute terms, this might translate to an additional four successful quitters per 100 (95% CI 2 to 8). There was low-certainty evidence (limited by very serious imprecision) of no difference in the rate of adverse events (AEs) (RR 0.98, 95% CI 0.80 to 1.19; I2 = 0%; 2 studies, 485 participants). SAEs occurred rarely, with no evidence that their frequency differed between nicotine EC and NRT, but very serious imprecision led to low certainty in this finding (RR 1.37, 95% CI 0.77 to 2.41: I2 = n/a; 2 studies, 727 participants). There was moderate-certainty evidence, again limited by imprecision, that quit rates were higher in people randomized to nicotine EC than to non-nicotine EC (RR 1.71, 95% CI 1.00 to 2.92; I2 = 0%; 3 studies, 802 participants). In absolute terms, this might again lead to an additional four successful quitters per 100 (95% CI 0 to 12). These trials used EC with relatively low nicotine delivery. There was low-certainty evidence, limited by very serious imprecision, that there was no difference in the rate of AEs between these groups (RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.73 to 1.36; I2 = 0%; 2 studies, 346 participants). There was insufficient evidence to determine whether rates of SAEs differed between groups, due to very serious imprecision (RR 0.25, 95% CI 0.03 to 2.19; I2 = n/a; 4 studies, 494 participants). Compared to behavioural support only/no support, quit rates were higher for participants randomized to nicotine EC (RR 2.50, 95% CI 1.24 to 5.04; I2 = 0%; 4 studies, 2312 participants). In absolute terms this represents an increase of six per 100 (95% CI 1 to 14). However, this finding was very low-certainty, due to issues with imprecision and risk of bias. There was no evidence that the rate of SAEs varied, but some evidence that non-serious AEs were more common in people randomized to nicotine EC (AEs: RR 1.17, 95% CI 1.04 to 1.31; I2 = 28%; 3 studies, 516 participants; SAEs: RR 1.33, 95% CI 0.25 to 6.96; I2 = 17%; 5 studies, 842 participants). Data from non-randomized studies were consistent with RCT data. The most commonly reported AEs were throat/mouth irritation, headache, cough, and nausea, which tended to dissipate over time with continued use. Very few studies reported data on other outcomes or comparisons and hence evidence for these is limited, with confidence intervals often encompassing clinically significant harm and benefit. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: There is moderate-certainty evidence that ECs with nicotine increase quit rates compared to ECs without nicotine and compared to NRT. Evidence comparing nicotine EC with usual care/no treatment also suggests benefit, but is less certain. More studies are needed to confirm the degree of effect, particularly when using modern EC products. Confidence intervals were wide for data on AEs, SAEs and other safety markers. Overall incidence of SAEs was low across all study arms. We did not detect any clear evidence of harm from nicotine EC, but longest follow-up was two years and the overall number of studies was small. The main limitation of the evidence base remains imprecision due to the small number of RCTs, often with low event rates. Further RCTs are underway. To ensure the review continues to provide up-to-date information for decision-makers, this review is now a living systematic review. We will run searches monthly from December 2020, with the review updated as relevant new evidence becomes available. Please refer to the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews for the review's current status.


Asunto(s)
Sistemas Electrónicos de Liberación de Nicotina , Nicotina , Agonistas Nicotínicos , Cese del Hábito de Fumar/métodos , Prevención del Hábito de Fumar , Sesgo , Estudios de Cohortes , Humanos , Persona de Mediana Edad , Nicotina/administración & dosificación , Agonistas Nicotínicos/administración & dosificación , Sesgo de Publicación , Ensayos Clínicos Controlados Aleatorios como Asunto , Fumar/epidemiología , Cese del Hábito de Fumar/estadística & datos numéricos , Dispositivos para Dejar de Fumar Tabaco , Vapeo
SELECCIÓN DE REFERENCIAS
DETALLE DE LA BÚSQUEDA