7 research outputs found

    Regulation of Electronic Cigarette Use in Public and Private Areas in 48 Countries Within the WHO European Region: A Survey to In-country Informants

    Get PDF
    Background: The objective of this study is to describe the legislation regulating the use of electronic cigarettes (e-cigarettes) in various places in European countries. Methods: A survey among experts from all countries of the World Health Organization (WHO) European Region was conducted in 2018. We collected and described data on legislation regulating e-cigarette use indoors and outdoors in public and private places, the level of difficulties in adopting the legislation, and the public support and compliance. Factors associated with the legislation adoption were identified with Poisson and linear regression analyses. Results: Out of 48 countries, 58.3% had legislation on e-cigarette use at the national level. Education facilities were the most regulated place (58.3% of countries), while private areas (eg, homes, cars) were the least regulated ones (39.6%). A third of countries regulated e-cigarette use indoors. Difficulty and support in adopting the national legislation and its compliance were all at a moderate level. Countries' smoking prevalence and income levels were linked to legislation adoption. Conclusions: Although most WHO European Region countries had introduced e-cigarette use legislation at the national level, only a few of the legislation protect bystanders in indoor settings

    The role of smoking in COVID-19 progression: a comprehensive meta-analysis

    Get PDF
    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

    Prevalence of electronic nicotine delivery systems and electronic non-nicotine delivery systems in children and adolescents: a systematic review and meta-analysis

    No full text
    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 &amp; Melinda Gates Foundation.</p

    Tar, nicotine and carbon monoxide yield of UK cigarettes and the risk of non-muscle-invasive and muscle-invasive bladder cancer.

    Get PDF
    Cigarette smoking is a major risk factor for bladder cancer (BC); however, the impact of cigarette content remains unclear. This study aims to investigate tar, nicotine and carbon monoxide (TNCO) yields of different filtered cigarettes in relation to BC risk. From the Bladder Cancer Prognosis Programme 575 non-muscle-invasive bladder cancer (NMIBC) cases, 139 muscle-invasive bladder cancer (MIBC) cases and 130 BC-free controls with retrospective data on smoking behaviour and cigarette brand were identified. Independently measured TNCO yields of cigarettes sold in the UK were obtained through the UK Department of Health and merged with the Bladder Cancer Prognosis Programme dataset to estimate the daily intake of TNCO. BC risk increased by TNCO intake category for NMIBC cases (P <0.050 in all multivariate models), but only for the daily intake of tar for MIBC cases (P=0.046) in multivariate models. No difference in risk was observed between smokers of low-tar/low-nicotine and high-tar/high-nicotine cigarettes compared with never smokers, either for NMIBC (P=0.544) or MIBC (P=0.449). High daily intake of TNCO additionally increases the risk of both NMIBC and MIBC compared with low daily intake. However, as there is no difference in BC risk between low-tar/low-nicotine and high-tar/high-nicotine cigarette smokers, it remains unclear whether smoking behaviour or TNCO yield of cigarettes explains this association
    corecore