Search

Objective: To assess current and former smokers' reactions to US warning labels as a baseline for comparison to new labels. Methods: The mail-in Consumer- Styles survey was sent to a representative sample of US adult consumers in 2010 (N = 10,328). Results: Among current smokers, 51.5% (95% CI: 47.5-55.5) reported that they had 'never/rarely' seen or looked closely at the labels in the past 30 days. Current smokers (91.1%) reported that warning labels never stopped them from having a cigarette (95% CI: 89.1- 93.1) and that the labels had no effect on their likelihood of quitting (75.5%; 95% CI: 71.6-79.4). Conclusions: Current warning labels do not make smokers think about the risks of smoking or have an effect on their likelihood of forgoing cigarettes or quitting. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objectives. We sought to modify an instrument and to use it to collect information on smoking knowledge, attitudes, beliefs, and behaviors among Hispanics/Latinos, and to adapt survey methods to obtain high participation levels. Methods. Promotoras (outreach workers) conducted face-to-face interviews with 1485 Hispanic adults (July 2007-April 2008). The project team used Geo-Frame field enumeration methods to develop a sampling frame from households in randomly selected colonias (residential areas along the Texas-Mexico border that may lack some basic necessities (e.g. portable water), in El Paso, Texas. Results. The revised questionnaire included 36 unchanged items from the State Adult Tobacco Survey, 7 modified items, and 17 new items focusing on possible culturally specific quitting methods, secondhand smoke issues, and attitudes and knowledge about tobacco use that might be unique for Hispanic/ Latino groups. The eligibility rate was 90.2%, and the conservative combined completed screener and interview response rate was 80.0%. Conclusions. Strategic, targeted, carefully designed methods and surveys can achieve high reach and response rates in hard-to-reach populations. Similar procedures could be used to obtain cooperation of groups who may not be accessible with traditional methods. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: In 1984, the United States Congress enacted legislation requiring four new warning labels for cigarettes; warning labels in the United States have not changed since then. Other countries, such as Canada, have taken a more active and aggressive approach. The purpose of this study was to examine how U.S. smokers and former smokers might respond to stronger and more graphic warnings for U.S. cigarettes packages. Methods: Data were collected in 2003 and analyzed in 2004. The perceived impact and effectiveness of the more-explicit Canadian labels was examined among young adult smokers (n=572) and former smokers (n=191) between the ages of 18 and 24 years in the United States, using a web-based survey that allowed participants to view both the text-only and the text-plus-graphic warning labels. Results: Both current and former smokers thought that cigarette warning labels with text plus graphics were substantially more of a deterrent than text-only labels. The perceived effectiveness of these labels was not only higher overall, but also for the specific areas of smoking-related health effects, prevention, cessation, and maintenance of abstinence. Few differences were noted by gender. Conclusions: The findings from this study support previous research that has found that text-plus-graphic warning labels are more salient and potentially more effective than text-only labels. [Copyright &y& Elsevier]

Objective: To explore risk perceptions of traditional and nontraditional tobacco products (NTPs) among young adult smokers. Methods: Focus groups with African Americans, non-Hispanic whites, and Hispanics. Risk ratings of light, regular, and menthol cigarettes and of NTPs and marijuana and cigarettes were compared. Results: Participants tended to view light cigarettes as safer than regular cigarettes. Shisha and herbal products were rated as safer than traditional cigarettes, but there were differences in ratings by race/ethnicity, related to preferred cigarette variety. Conclusions: Health communication messages about the use of cigarettes and NTPs should consider risk perceptions about the products and racial/ethnic differences. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Households are a significant source of SARS-CoV-2 transmission, even during periods of low community-level spread. Comparing household transmission rates by SARS-CoV-2 variant may provide relevant information about current risks and prevention strategies. This investigation aimed to estimate differences in household transmission risk comparing the SARS-CoV-2 Delta and Omicron variants using data from contact tracing and interviews conducted from November 2021 through February 2022 in five U.S. public health jurisdictions (City of Chicago, Illinois; State of Connecticut; City of Milwaukee, Wisconsin; State of Maryland; and State of Utah). Generalized estimating equations were used to estimate attack rates and relative risks for index case and household contact characteristics. Data from 848 households, including 2,622 individuals (median household size = 3), were analyzed. Overall transmission risk was similar in households with Omicron (attack rate = 47.0%) compared to Delta variant (attack rate = 48.0%) circulation. In the multivariable model, a pattern of increased transmission risk was observed with increased time since a household contact's last COVID-19 vaccine dose in Delta households, although confidence intervals overlapped (0-3 months relative risk = 0.8, confidence interval: 0.5-1.2; 4-7 months relative risk = 1.3, 0.9-1.8; ≥8 months relative risk = 1.2, 0.7-1.8); no pattern was observed in Omicron households. Risk for household contacts of symptomatic index cases was twice that of household contacts of asymptomatic index cases (relative risk = 2.0, 95% confidence interval: 1.4-2.9), emphasizing the importance of symptom status, regardless of variant. Uniquely, this study adjusted risk estimates for several index case and household contact characteristics and demonstrates that few characteristics strongly dictate risk, likely reflecting the complexity of the biological and social factors which combine to impact SARS-CoV-2 transmission., Competing Interests: I have read the journal’s policy and the authors of this manuscript have the below competing interests. This does not alter our adherence to PLOS ONE policies on sharing data and materials. LES: Support for the present manuscript from Centers for Disease Control and Prevention; Support for attending meetings and/or travel from Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Council of State and Territorial Epidemiologists, Association of State and Territorial Health Officers; Participation on a Data Safety Monitoring Board or Advisory Board for Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. NRY: Grants or contracts from CDC’s Epidemiology and Laboratory Capacity for Prevention and Control of Emerging Infectious Diseases (ELC) Cares, ELC PPP, ELC EED (Constituted hourly wages received through Utah Department of Health and Human Services’ payroll system). BC: Grants or contracts from CDC’s Epidemiology and Laboratory Capacity for Prevention and Control of Emerging Infectious Diseases (ELC) PPPHEA, ELC ED (Constituted hourly wages received through Utah Department of Health and Human Services’ payroll system). AP: Grants or contracts from CDC’s Epidemiology and Laboratory Capacity for Prevention and Control of Emerging Infectious Diseases (ELC) Cares, ELC PPP, ELC EED (Constituted hourly wages received through Utah Department of Health and Human Services’ payroll system). RH: Support for the present manuscript from CDC’s Epidemiology and Laboratory Capacity for Prevention and Control of Emerging Infectious Diseases (ELC) Cares (Constituted hourly wages and received through Utah Department of Health and Human Services’ payroll system); Grants or contracts from ELC PPP and Immunization Cooperative Agreements (Constituted hourly wages and received through Utah Department of Health and Human Services’ payroll system). MP: Support for the present manuscript from CDC’s Epidemiology and Laboratory Capacity for Prevention and Control of Emerging Infectious Diseases (ELC) (Cooperative agreement funding supported staff to conduct routine disease investigations and data analysis). TWW: Support for the present manuscript from DC Grant: CDC’s Epidemiology and Laboratory Capacity for Prevention and Control of Emerging Infectious Diseases (ELC) (Cooperative agreement funding supported staff to conduct routine disease investigations and data analysis)., (Copyright: This is an open access article, free of all copyright, and may be freely reproduced, distributed, transmitted, modified, built upon, or otherwise used by anyone for any lawful purpose. The work is made available under the Creative Commons CC0 public domain dedication.)

The B.1.1.529 (Omicron) variant, first detected in November 2021, was responsible for a surge in U.S. infections with SARS-CoV-2, the virus that causes COVID-19, during December 2021-January 2022 (1). To investigate the effectiveness of prevention strategies in household settings, CDC partnered with four U.S. jurisdictions to describe Omicron household transmission during November 2021-February 2022. Persons with sequence-confirmed Omicron infection and their household contacts were interviewed. Omicron transmission occurred in 124 (67.8%) of 183 households. Among 431 household contacts, 227 were classified as having a case of COVID-19 (attack rate [AR] = 52.7%). † The ARs among household contacts of index patients who had received a COVID-19 booster dose, of fully vaccinated index patients who completed their COVID-19 primary series within the previous 5 months, and of unvaccinated index patients were 42.7% (47 of 110), 43.6% (17 of 39), and 63.9% (69 of 108), respectively. The AR was lower among household contacts of index patients who isolated (41.2%, 99 of 240) compared with those of index patients who did not isolate (67.5%, 112 of 166) (p-value <0.01). Similarly, the AR was lower among household contacts of index patients who ever wore a mask at home during their potentially infectious period (39.5%, 88 of 223) compared with those of index patients who never wore a mask at home (68.9%, 124 of 180) (p-value <0.01). Multicomponent COVID-19 prevention strategies, including up-to-date vaccination, isolation of infected persons, and mask use at home, are critical to reducing Omicron transmission in household settings., Competing Interests: All authors have completed and submitted the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors form for disclosure of potential conflicts of interest. Lynn E. Sosa reports being a past Council of State and Territorial Epidemiologists STD Subcommittee chair. No other potential conflicts of interest were disclosed.

Background: The evidence base for severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus-2 (SARS-CoV-2) is nascent. We sought to characterize SARS-CoV-2 transmission within US households and estimate the household secondary infection rate (SIR) to inform strategies to reduce transmission., Methods: We recruited patients with laboratory-confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection and their household contacts in Utah and Wisconsin during 22 March 2020-25 April 2020. We interviewed patients and all household contacts to obtain demographics and medical histories. At the initial household visit, 14 days later, and when a household contact became newly symptomatic, we collected respiratory swabs from patients and household contacts for testing by SARS-CoV-2 real-time reverse-transcription polymerase chain reaction (rRT-PCR) and sera for SARS-CoV-2 antibodies testing by enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA). We estimated SIR and odds ratios (ORs) to assess risk factors for secondary infection, defined by a positive rRT-PCR or ELISA test., Results: Thirty-two (55%) of 58 households secondary infection among household contacts. The SIR was 29% (n = 55/188; 95% confidence interval [CI], 23%-36%) overall, 42% among children (aged <18 years) of the COVID-19 patient and 33% among spouses/partners. Household contacts to COVID-19 patients with immunocompromised conditions and household contacts who themselves had diabetes mellitus had increased odds of infection with ORs 15.9 (95% CI, 2.4-106.9) and 7.1 (95% CI: 1.2-42.5), respectively., Conclusions: We found substantial evidence of secondary infections among household contacts. People with COVID-19, particularly those with immunocompromising conditions or those with household contacts with diabetes, should take care to promptly self-isolate to prevent household transmission., (Published by Oxford University Press for the Infectious Diseases Society of America 2020.)

Objective: To evaluate the risk of adverse birth outcomes among adults who use electronic cigarettes (e-cigarettes) before and during pregnancy., Methods: Data from the 2016-2018 PRAMS (Pregnancy Risk Assessment Monitoring System) were used to assess the association between e-cigarette use during the 3 months before and last 3 months of pregnancy among 79,176 individuals with a recent live birth and the following birth outcomes: preterm birth, small for gestational age, and low birth weight (LBW). Adjusted prevalence ratios were generated using average marginal predictions from multivariable logistic regression models. Models were stratified by prenatal combustible cigarette smoking and frequency of e-cigarette use (daily or less than daily use)., Results: In the 3 months before pregnancy, 2.7% (95% CI 2.6-2.9%) of respondents used e-cigarettes; 1.1% (95% CI 1.0-1.2%) used e-cigarettes during the last 3 months of pregnancy. Electronic cigarette use before pregnancy was not associated with adverse birth outcomes. Electronic cigarette use during pregnancy was associated with increased prevalence of LBW compared with nonuse (8.1% vs 6.1%; adjusted prevalence ratio 1.33; 95% CI 1.06-1.66). Among respondents who did not also smoke combustible cigarettes during pregnancy (n=72,256), e-cigarette use was associated with higher prevalence of LBW (10.6%; adjusted prevalence ratio 1.88; 95% CI 1.38-2.57) and preterm birth (12.4%; adjusted prevalence ratio 1.69; 95% CI 1.20-2.39). When further stratified by frequency of e-cigarette use, associations were seen only for daily users., Conclusion: E-cigarette use during pregnancy, particularly when used daily by individuals who do not also smoke combustible cigarettes, is associated with adverse birth outcomes., Competing Interests: Financial Disclosure The authors did not report any potential conflicts of interest., (Copyright © 2021 by the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists. Published by Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. All rights reserved.)

CDC, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), state and local health departments, and public health and clinical stakeholders are investigating a nationwide outbreak of e-cigarette, or vaping, product use-associated lung injury (EVALI) (1). CDC has published recommendations for health care providers regarding EVALI (2-4). Recently, researchers from Utah and New York published proposed diagnosis and treatment algorithms for EVALI (5,6). EVALI remains a diagnosis of exclusion because, at present, no specific test or marker exists for its diagnosis, and evaluation should be guided by clinical judgment. Because patients with EVALI can experience symptoms similar to those associated with influenza or other respiratory infections (e.g., fever, cough, headache, myalgias, or fatigue), it might be difficult to differentiate EVALI from influenza or community-acquired pneumonia on initial assessment; EVALI might also co-occur with respiratory infections. This report summarizes recommendations for health care providers managing patients with suspected or known EVALI when respiratory infections such as influenza are more prevalent in the community than they have been in recent months (7). Recommendations include 1) asking patients with respiratory, gastrointestinal, or constitutional symptoms about the use of e-cigarette, or vaping, products; 2) evaluating those suspected to have EVALI with pulse oximetry and obtaining chest imaging, as clinically indicated; 3) considering outpatient management for clinically stable EVALI patients who meet certain criteria; 4) testing patients for influenza, particularly during influenza season, and administering antimicrobials, including antivirals, in accordance with established guidelines; 5) using caution when considering prescribing corticosteroids for outpatients, because this treatment modality has not been well studied among outpatients, and corticosteroids could worsen respiratory infections; 6) recommending evidence-based treatment strategies, including behavioral counseling, to help patients discontinue using e-cigarette, or vaping, products; and 7) emphasizing the importance of annual influenza vaccination for all persons aged ≥6 months, including patients who use e-cigarette, or vaping products., Competing Interests: All authors have completed and submitted the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors form for disclosure of potential conflicts of interest. No potential conflicts of interest were disclosed.