Search

Introduction: Smoking is a key determinant of mortality among people living with HIV (PLWH).Methods: To better understand the effects of smoking cessation interventions in PLWH, we conducted a pooled analysis of four randomized controlled trials of hospital-initiated smoking interventions conducted through the Consortium of Hospitals Advancing Research on Tobacco (CHART). In each study, cigarette smokers were randomly assigned to usual care or a smoking cessation intervention. The primary outcome was self-reported past 30-day tobacco abstinence at 6-month follow-up. Abstinence rates were compared between PLWH and participants without HIV and by treatment arm, using both complete-case and intention-to-treat analyses. Multivariable logistic regression was used to determine the effect of HIV status on 6-month tobacco abstinence and to determine predictors of smoking cessation within PLWH.Results: Among 5550 hospitalized smokers, there were 202 (3.6%) PLWH. PLWH smoked fewer cigarettes per day and were less likely to be planning to quit than smokers without HIV. At 6 months, cessation rates did not differ between intervention and control groups among PLWH (28.9% vs. 30.5%) or smokers without HIV (36.1% vs. 34.1%). In multivariable regression analysis, HIV status was not significantly associated with smoking cessation at 6 months. Among PLWH, confidence in quitting was the only clinical factor independently associated with smoking cessation (OR 2.0, 95% CI = 1.4 to 2.8, p < .01).Conclusions: HIV status did not alter likelihood of quitting smoking after hospital discharge, whether or not the smoker was offered a tobacco cessation intervention, but power was limited to identify potentially important differences.Implications: PLWH had similar quit rates to participants without HIV following a hospital-initiated smoking cessation intervention. The findings suggest that factors specific to HIV infection may not influence response to smoking cessation interventions and that all PLWH would benefit from efforts to assist in quitting smoking.Trial Registration: (1) Using "warm handoffs" to link hospitalized smokers with tobacco treatment after discharge: study protocol of a randomized controlled trial: NCT01305928. (2) Web-based smoking cessation intervention that transitions from inpatient to outpatient: NCT01277250. (3) Effectiveness of smoking-cessation interventions for urban hospital patients: NCT01363245. (4) Effectiveness of Post-Discharge Strategies for Hospitalized Smokers (HelpingHAND2): NCT01714323. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Introduction: Though many interventions have been shown to be effective in helping smokers quit, outcomes may differ between light and heavy smokers. We identified differences in baseline characteristics and post-intervention cessation rates among smoker groups at two safety-net hospitals.Methods: We retrospectively analyzed cessation rates in 1604 patients randomized to either a quitline referral (1-2 telephone counseling sessions) or intensive counseling program (seven telephone sessions). Participants were stratified into light-intermittent (smoked on ≤24 of last 30 days), light-daily (smoked on >24/30 days, 1-9 cigarettes per day [CPD]), or heavy smokers (smoked on >24/30 days, ≥10 CPD). We compared baseline characteristics between smoker types using chi-squared tests, then identified predictors of 30-day abstinence using a multivariable model.Results: Compared with light-daily and light-intermittent smokers, heavy smokers were more likely to be white, male, concomitant e-cigarette users, to have high-risk alcohol use, to have used quitting aids previously, to have current or lifetime substance use (excluding cannabis), and have lower confidence in quitting. However, in multivariable analysis, smoker type was not significantly associated with cessation. The statistically significant predictors of cessation at 6 months were higher confidence in quitting and enrollment in the intensive counseling intervention.Conclusions: Smoker type (light-intermittent, light-daily, or heavy) does not independently predict success in a cessation program. However, smoker type is strongly associated with patients' confidence in quitting, which may be one predictor of cessation.Implications: This study of two safety-net hospitals emphasizes that the number of cigarettes smoked per day does not independently predict smoking cessation. Additionally, heavy smokers are at highest risk for the detrimental health effects of tobacco, yet have lower confidence and motivation to quit. Confidence in quitting may be one factor that affects cessation rates; however, further study is needed to identify which other attributes predict cessation. These findings suggest that smoker type may still be a useful proxy for predicting cessation and that interventions specifically designed for and validated in heavy smokers are needed to better aid these individuals. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Aim: To identify barriers to implementing the World Health Organization (WHO) Framework Convention on Tobacco Control (FCTC) Article 14 guidelines on tobacco dependence treatment (TDT). Design Cross‐sectional survey conducted from December 2014 to July 2015 to assess implementation of Article 14 recommendations. Setting and participants: Survey respondents (n = 127 countries) who completed an open‐ended question on the 26‐item survey. Measurements The open‐ended question asked the following: 'In your opinion, what are the main barriers or challenges to developing further tobacco dependence treatment in your country?'. We conducted thematic analysis of the responses. Findings The most frequently reported barriers included a lack of health‐care system infrastructure (n = 86) (e.g. treatment not integrated into primary care, lack of health‐care worker training), low political priority (n = 66) and lack of funding (n = 51). The absence of strategic plans and national guidelines for Article 14 implementation emerged as subthemes of political priority. Also described as barriers were negative provider attitudes towards offering offer TDT (n = 11), policymakers' lack of awareness about the effectiveness and affordability of TDT (n = 5), public norms supporting tobacco use (n = 11), a lack of health‐care leadership and expertise in the area of TDT (n = 6) and a lack of grassroots and multi‐sector networks supporting policy implementation (n = 8). The analysis captured patterns of co‐occurring themes that linked, for example, low levels of political support with a lack of funding necessary to develop health‐care infrastructure and capacity to implement Article 14. Conclusion: Important barriers to implementing the Framework Convention on Tobacco Control Article 14 guidelines include lack of a health‐care system infrastructure, low political priority and lack of funding. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Despite the high prevalence of smokeless tobacco (SLT) use in South Asia, little is known about the use of cultural smokeless tobacco among South Asians in the United States (US). This study examines the prevalence and correlates of SLT products among South Asians living in New York City (NYC). A total of 602 South Asians living in NYC completed a community health needs and resource assessment and answered questions about the use of SLT. Multivariable logistic regression models were run to examine predictors of SLT use (ever and current use). A total of 28.2% South Asian individuals reported ever use of SLT (35.9% among men and 21.5% among women) and a total of 12.9% reported current use of SLT (16.5% among men and 9.7% among women). Logistic regression models were stratified by sex. Among men, factors associated with ever or current use included: Bangladeshi and Himalayan ethnic subgroup, speaking English very well, attending a religious service a few times a year (ever use only), and current or former cigarette smoking. Among women, factors associated with ever use included: Bangladeshi ethnic subgroup, self-reporting condition of mouth and teeth as fair/poor, and at risk for depression. No factors were significant among women for current use. Overall, prevalence of current and ever use of SLT is high, and important differences exist by sex. Future studies are needed to better understand SLT use patterns in South Asian communities in the US and to inform culturally relevant interventions aiming to decrease overall tobacco use. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective: To examine the association between state-level tobacco control measures and current use estimates of both e-cigarettes and cigarettes, while accounting for socio-demographic correlates.Methods: Using the 2012-2013 and 2013-2014 National Adult Tobacco Survey (NATS), we assessed prevalence estimates of US adults' e-cigarette and cigarette current use. Four state groups were created based on the combined state-specific prevalence of both products: low cigarette/e-cigarette (n = 15), high cigarette/e-cigarette (n = 16), high cigarette/low e-cigarette (n = 11), and low cigarette/high e-cigarette) (n = 9). To evaluate the implementation of state-level tobacco control measures, Tobacco Control Index (TCI) was calculated using the State of Tobacco Control annual reports for 2012 and 2013. Multinomial logistic regression models were used to examine differences among the four groups on socio-demographic factors and TCI. Low cigarette/e-cigarette group was used as the referent group.Results: Current use estimates of each product varied substantially by state; current e-cigarette use was highest in Oklahoma (10.3%) and lowest in Delaware (2.7%), and current cigarette use was highest in West Virginia (26.1%), and lowest in Vermont (12.6%). Compared to low cigarette/e-cigarette, all other US-state categories had significantly lower TCI scores (high cigarette/e-cigarette: adjusted Relative Risk Ratio [aRRR] = 0.61; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.60-0.61, high cigarette/low e-cigarette: aRRR = 0.74; 95% CI: 0.73-0.74, and low cigarette/high e-cigarette: aRRR = 0.72; 95% CI: 0.71-073).Conclusions: Enforcing existing tobacco control measures likely interacts with e-cigarette use despite being cigarette-focused. Continuing to monitor e-cigarette use is critical to establish baseline use and evaluate future e-cigarette specific federal and state-level tobacco regulatory actions while accounting for the existing tobacco control environment.Implications: This study investigates state-level current use estimates of e-cigarettes and cigarettes among US adults; and their association with four existing tobacco control measures. The overall score of these measures was negatively associated with state-level current use estimates such that states with low current e-cigarette and cigarette use had the highest mean overall score. This study assesses the potential relationship between existing state-level tobacco control measures and e-cigarette use and calls for improving the enforcement of the known-to-work tobacco control measures across all US states, while developing evidence-based regulations and interventions specific to e-cigarettes within the existing US tobacco use environment. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The septin 9 blood test is indicated for colorectal cancer screening in individuals who decline first-line tests, but participation in this context is unclear. We conducted a randomized controlled trial to compare reoffering colonoscopy and fecal immunochemical test (FIT) alone versus also offering the blood test among individuals who declined colonoscopy and FIT. Screen-eligible Veterans aged 50–75 years who declined colonoscopy and FIT within the previous 6 months were randomized to letter and telephone outreach to reoffer screening with colonoscopy/FIT only (control), or additionally offering the blood test as a second-line option (intervention). The primary outcome was completion of any screening test within 6 months. The secondary outcome was completion of a full screening strategy within 6 months, including colonoscopy for those with a positive noninvasive test. Of 359 participants who completed follow-up, 9.6% in the control group and 17.1% in the intervention group completed any screening (7.5% difference; P =.035). Uptake of colonoscopy and FIT was similar in the 2 groups. The full screening strategy was completed in 9.0% and 14.9% in the control and intervention groups, respectively (5.9% difference; P =.084). Among individuals who previously declined colonoscopy and FIT, offering a blood test as a secondary option increased screening by 7.5% without decreasing uptake of first-line screening options. However, completion of a full screening strategy did not increase. These findings indicate that a blood test is a promising method to improve colorectal cancer screening, but obtaining a timely colonoscopy after a positive noninvasive test remains a challenge (ClincialTrials.gov number, NCT03598166). [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]