Managing tobacco use: the neglected cardiovascular disease risk factor.

Cigarette smoking is a major risk factor for cardiovascular disease (CVD) and the leading avoidable cause of death worldwide. Exposure to secondhand smoke (SHS) increases the risk of CVD among non-smokers. Smoking cessation benefits all smokers, regardless of age or amount smoked. The excess risk of CVD is rapidly reversible, and stopping smoking after a myocardial infarction reduces an individual's risk of CVD mortality by 36% over 2 years. Smoking cessation is a key component of primary and secondary CVD prevention strategies, but tobacco use often receives less attention from cardiologists than other risk factors, despite the availability of proven treatments that improve smoking cessation rates. Both psychosocial counselling and pharmacotherapy are effective methods to help smokers quit, but they are most effective when used together. The first-line medications licensed to aid smoking cessation, nicotine replacement therapy, bupropion and varenicline, are effective in and appropriate for patients with CVD. An evidence-based approach for physicians is to routinely ask all patients about smoking status and SHS exposure, advise all smokers to quit and all patients to adopt smoke-free policies for their home and car, and offer all smokers in the office or hospital brief counselling, smoking cessation pharmacotherapy, and referral to local programmes where psychosocial support can be sustained in person or by telephone. Like other chronic diseases, tobacco use requires a long-term management strategy. It deserves to be managed as intensively as other CVD risk factors

The Effect of Cigarette Smoking on Diabetic Peripheral Neuropathy: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

OBJECTIVE: Studies suggest that smoking may be a risk factor for the development of microvascular complications such as diabetic peripheral neuropathy (DPN). The objective of this study was to assess the relationship between smoking and DPN in persons with type 1 or type 2 diabetes. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: A systematic review of the PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane clinical trials databases was conducted for the period from January 1966 to November 2014 for cohort, cross-sectional and case-control studies that assessed the relationship between smoking and DPN. Separate meta-analyses for prospective cohort studies and case-control or cross-sectional studies were performed using random effects models. RESULTS: Thirty-eight studies (10 prospective cohort and 28 cross-sectional) were included. The prospective cohort studies included 5558 participants without DPN at baseline. During follow-up ranging from 2 to 10 years, 1550 cases of DPN occurred. The pooled unadjusted odds ratio (OR) of developing DPN associated with smoking was 1.26 (95% CI 0.86-1.85; I(2) = 74%; evidence grade: low strength). Stratified analyses of the prospective studies revealed that studies of higher quality and with better levels of adjustment and longer follow-up showed a significant positive association between smoking and DPN, with less heterogeneity. The cross-sectional studies included 27,594 participants. The pooled OR of DPN associated with smoking was 1.42 (95% CI 1.21-1.65; I(2) = 65%; evidence grade: low strength). There was no evidence of publication bias. CONCLUSIONS: Smoking may be associated with an increased risk of DPN in persons with diabetes. Further studies are needed to test whether this association is causal and whether smoking cessation reduces the risk of DPN in adults with diabetes

Financial Strain, Quit Attempts, and Smoking Abstinence Among U.S. Adult Smokers

Introduction: Cigarette smoking is substantially more prevalent and rates of smoking cessation are lower in low-SES adults. Financial strain may be one explanation for this. This study assessed the association between financial strain, quit attempts, and successful smoking cessation among adult smokers in the U.S. Methods: Longitudinal data on adult current smokers (aged ≥18 years) from Waves 1 and 2 of the nationally representative Population Assessment of Tobacco and Health Study (2013–2015) were analyzed in 2017. Negative binomial regression and logistic regression models assessed the association between financial strain and (1) quit attempts and (2) cigarette abstinence, adjusting for important confounders. Results: Smokers with financial strain made more quit attempts than smokers without financial strain (adjusted incidence-rate ratio=1.34, 95% CI=1.07, 1.68), but financial strain was not associated with smoking abstinence at follow-up (AOR=0.86, 95% CI=0.70, 1.05). Low income was associated with less smoking abstinence at follow-up (AOR=0.66, 95% CI=0.50, 0.87, for <100% federal poverty level; AOR=0.64, 95% CI=0.48, 0.85, for 100%–199% of federal poverty level). Smokers with baseline financial strain who quit at follow-up had lower odds of financial strain at follow-up (AOR=0.57, 95% CI=0.36, 0.89). Conclusions: Financially strained smokers made slightly more quit attempts than non-strained smokers but were no more likely to successfully quit. Low-income (less than 200% of the federal poverty level) smokers were less likely to quit than higher-income smokers, suggesting that financial strain alone may not explain the low quit rates in this population. Further efforts are needed to increase the success of quit attempts in low-income and financially strained smokers

Interventions for smoking cessation in hospitalised patients.

In 2020, 32.6% of the world's population used tobacco. Smoking contributes to many illnesses that require hospitalisation. A hospital admission may prompt a quit attempt. Initiating smoking cessation treatment, such as pharmacotherapy and/or counselling, in hospitals may be an effective preventive health strategy. Pharmacotherapies work to reduce withdrawal/craving and counselling provides behavioural skills for quitting smoking. This review updates the evidence on interventions for smoking cessation in hospitalised patients, to understand the most effective smoking cessation treatment methods for hospitalised smokers. To assess the effects of any type of smoking cessation programme for patients admitted to an acute care hospital. We used standard, extensive Cochrane search methods. The latest search date was 7 September 2022. We included randomised and quasi-randomised studies of behavioural, pharmacological or multicomponent interventions to help patients admitted to hospital quit. Interventions had to start in the hospital (including at discharge), and people had to have smoked within the last month. We excluded studies in psychiatric, substance and rehabilitation centres, as well as studies that did not measure abstinence at six months or longer. We used standard Cochrane methods. Our primary outcome was abstinence from smoking assessed at least six months after discharge or the start of the intervention. We used the most rigorous definition of abstinence, preferring biochemically-validated rates where reported. We used GRADE to assess the certainty of the evidence. We included 82 studies (74 RCTs) that included 42,273 participants in the review (71 studies, 37,237 participants included in the meta-analyses); 36 studies are new to this update. We rated 10 studies as being at low risk of bias overall (low risk in all domains assessed), 48 at high risk of bias overall (high risk in at least one domain), and the remaining 24 at unclear risk. Cessation counselling versus no counselling, grouped by intensity of intervention Hospitalised patients who received smoking cessation counselling that began in the hospital and continued for more than a month after discharge had higher quit rates than patients who received no counselling in the hospital or following hospitalisation (risk ratio (RR) 1.36, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.24 to 1.49; 28 studies, 8234 participants; high-certainty evidence). In absolute terms, this might account for an additional 76 quitters in every 1000 participants (95% CI 51 to 103). The evidence was uncertain (very low-certainty) about the effects of counselling interventions of less intensity or shorter duration (in-hospital only counselling ≤ 15 minutes: RR 1.52, 95% CI 0.80 to 2.89; 2 studies, 1417 participants; and in-hospital contact plus follow-up counselling support for ≤ 1 month: RR 1.04, 95% CI 0.90 to 1.20; 7 studies, 4627 participants) versus no counselling. There was moderate-certainty evidence, limited by imprecision, that smoking cessation counselling for at least 15 minutes in the hospital without post-discharge support led to higher quit rates than no counselling in the hospital (RR 1.27, 95% CI 1.02 to 1.58; 12 studies, 4432 participants). Pharmacotherapy versus placebo or no pharmacotherapy Nicotine replacement therapy helped more patients to quit than placebo or no pharmacotherapy (RR 1.33, 95% CI 1.05 to 1.67; 8 studies, 3838 participants; high-certainty evidence). In absolute terms, this might equate to an additional 62 quitters per 1000 participants (95% CI 9 to 126). There was moderate-certainty evidence, limited by imprecision (as CI encompassed the possibility of no difference), that varenicline helped more hospitalised patients to quit than placebo or no pharmacotherapy (RR 1.29, 95% CI 0.96 to 1.75; 4 studies, 829 participants). Evidence for bupropion was low-certainty; the point estimate indicated a modest benefit at best, but CIs were wide and incorporated clinically significant harm and clinically significant benefit (RR 1.11, 95% CI 0.86 to 1.43, 4 studies, 872 participants). Hospital-only intervention versus intervention that continues after hospital discharge Patients offered both smoking cessation counselling and pharmacotherapy after discharge had higher quit rates than patients offered counselling in hospital but not offered post-discharge support (RR 1.23, 95% CI 1.09 to 1.38; 7 studies, 5610 participants; high-certainty evidence). In absolute terms, this might equate to an additional 34 quitters per 1000 participants (95% CI 13 to 55). Post-discharge interventions offering real-time counselling without pharmacotherapy (RR 1.23, 95% CI 0.95 to 1.60, 8 studies, 2299 participants; low certainty-evidence) and those offering unscheduled counselling without pharmacotherapy (RR 0.97, 95% CI 0.83 to 1.14; 2 studies, 1598 participants; very low-certainty evidence) may have little to no effect on quit rates compared to control. Telephone quitlines versus control To provide post-discharge support, hospitals may refer patients to community-based telephone quitlines. Both comparisons relating to these interventions had wide CIs encompassing both possible harm and possible benefit, and were judged to be of very low certainty due to imprecision, inconsistency, and risk of bias (post-discharge telephone counselling versus quitline referral: RR 1.23, 95% CI 1.00 to 1.51; 3 studies, 3260 participants; quitline referral versus control: RR 1.17, 95% CI 0.70 to 1.96; 2 studies, 1870 participants). Offering hospitalised patients smoking cessation counselling beginning in hospital and continuing for over one month after discharge increases quit rates, compared to no hospital intervention. Counselling provided only in hospital, without post-discharge support, may have a modest impact on quit rates, but evidence is less certain. When all patients receive counselling in the hospital, high-certainty evidence indicates that providing both counselling and pharmacotherapy after discharge increases quit rates compared to no post-discharge intervention. Starting nicotine replacement or varenicline in hospitalised patients helps more patients to quit smoking than a placebo or no medication, though evidence for varenicline is only moderate-certainty due to imprecision. There is less evidence of benefit for bupropion in this setting. Some of our evidence was limited by imprecision (bupropion versus placebo and varenicline versus placebo), risk of bias, and inconsistency related to heterogeneity. Future research is needed to identify effective strategies to implement, disseminate, and sustain interventions, and to ensure cessation counselling and pharmacotherapy initiated in the hospital is sustained after discharge

Effect of treatment on established osteoporosis in young women with amenorrhoea

Background and Objective - Amenorrhoea in women of reproductive age causes loss of bone mineral. This study assessed the effect of treatment of amenorrhoea on bone mineral density. Design - Serial measurements of bone mineral density were obtained in women receiving treatment for amenorrhoea. Patients - Eighty-five women aged 17-40 with a past or current history of amenorrhoea, from various causes, with median duration of 46.5 months (range 8 months-21 years). Measurements - Bone mineral density in the lumbar spine was measured by dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry. Results - Initial vertebral bone mineral density was low, mean 0.85 (SD 0.10) g/cm2. After an interval of 19.6 (SD 7.5) months on treatment there was a highly significant increase to 0.89 (SD 0.10) g/cm2 (P < 0.0005). This was equivalent to a gain in bone mass of 2.1% per year (95% confidence interval 1.5-2.8%). Improvement was seen in all diagnostic groups (except polycystic ovary syndrome) and with all types of therapy. We observed no difference in the response of previously untreated patients compared with those already on treatment, nor any change in response with increasing duration of treatment. No new fractures were reported during the study. Conclusions - Bone mineral density in young women with amenorrhoea is improved by appropriate treatment, but recovery is not substantial. Hence early diagnosis and therapy is essential to prevent bone loss

Smoking cessation at the workplace. Results of a randomised controlled intervention study

OBJECTIVES—To compare the effects of a worksite intervention by the occupational physician offering simple advice of smoking cessation with a more active strategy of advice including a "quit date" and extra support.
POPULATION—Employees of an electrical and gas company seen at the annual visit by their occupational physicians.
CRITERIA END POINTS—Smoking point prevalence defined as the percentage of smokers who were non-smokers at one year. Secondary criteria were the percentage of smokers who stopped smoking for more than six months and the difference in prevalence of smoking in both groups.
METHODS—Randomised controlled trial. The unit of randomisation was the work site physician and a random sample of the employees of whom he or she was in charge. The length of the follow up was one year. Each of 30 work site physicians included in the study 100 to 150( )employees.
RESULTS—Among 504 subjects classified as smokers at baseline receiving simple advice (group A) and 591 the more active programme (group B), 68 (13.5%) in group A and 109 (18.4%) were non-smokers one year later (p=0.03; p=0.01 taking the occupational physician as the statistical unit and using a non-parametric test). Twenty three subjects (4.6%) in group A and 36 (6.1%) in group B (p=0.26) declared abstinence of six months or more. Among non-smokers at baseline, 3.4% in both groups were smokers after one year follow up. The prevalence of smokers did not differ significantly at baseline (32.9% and 32.4%, p=0.75). After the intervention the prevalence of smoking was 30.8% in group A and 28.7% in group B (p=0.19). An increase of the mean symptoms score for depression in those who quit was observed during this period.
CONCLUSIONS—A simple cessation intervention strategy during a mandatory annual examination, targeting a population of smokers independently of their motivation to stop smoking or their health status, showed a 36% relative increase of the proportion of smokers who quit smoking as compared with what can be achieved through simple advice.


Keywords: tobacco smoking; smoking cessation; randomised controlled trial; work sit