BACKGROUND: People living in coastal communities have some of the worst health outcomes in the UK, driven in part by high smoking rates. Deprived coastal communities include socially disadvantaged groups that struggle to access traditional stop smoking services. The study aimed to seek the views of people who smoke living in coastal communities, to assess the optimal smoking cessation intervention for this population. In addition, the Template for Intervention Description Replication (TIDieR) checklist was adapted as an analytical framework for qualitative data to inform intervention design.
METHODS: Current or recent ex-smokers (n = 25) were recruited to participate in qualitative interviews from a range of community locations in a deprived English seaside town. A thematic analysis of the interview data was undertaken adapting the TIDieR framework. This analysis was triangulated with relevant literature and notes from stakeholder meetings and observations to map onto the TIDieR checklist to describe the optimal intervention.
RESULTS: Barriers to quitting smoking in the target population included low motivation to quit, high anxiety/boredom, normalisation of smoking and widespread illicit tobacco use. There was broad support for combining behavioural support, e-cigarettes and financial incentives, with a strong preference for the intervention to be delivered opportunistically and locally within (non-healthcare) community settings, in a non-pressurising manner, ideally by a community worker specially trained to give stop smoking support.
CONCLUSIONS: An intensive community-based smoking cessation intervention was acceptable to the target population. Adapting the TIDieR checklist as a deductive qualitative analytical framework offered a systematic approach to intervention development. Combined with other intervention development activities, this ensured that the intervention design process was transparent and the proposed intervention was well defined. It is recommended that prior to intervention development researchers speak to members of the target population who may give valuable insight into the optimal intervention.

OBJECTIVE: To explore the acceptability and perceived motivations and barriers of using nicotine replacement therapy (NRT) to reduce the number of daily cigarettes smoked in pregnancy, rather than for stopping completely.
METHODS: Telephone, semi-structured interviews, audio-recorded and transcribed verbatim. Transcripts were analysed using an inductive thematic analysis.
METHODS: Eighteen pregnant women in the UK, who were smoking or had recently stopped smoking, were recruited.
RESULTS: Half of interviewees reported having used NRT to reduce smoking during their current pregnancy, and there was overwhelming support for the UK National Health Service to recognise this as a potentially useful way to use these products. The cost and stigma associated with purchasing NRT products when pregnant were seen as barriers to using NRT in this way. The early offer of NRT for reduction along with a tailored, structured approach to support was seen as important.
CONCLUSIONS: Using NRT to help women, who are unable to stop smoking, to reduce their smoking may be acceptable to pregnant women. This study found women were already using NRT alongside ad hoc strategies to reduce their smoking. Further research evaluating structured smoking reduction support, alongside concurrent NRT use is needed.

BACKGROUND: Cigarette smoking has major detrimental effects on oral health. Tobacco interventions in dental settings are effective, but rarely delivered. The American Dental Hygienists Association recommends that oral health providers: Ask patients about tobacco use, Advise quitting tobacco use, and Refer to state quitlines (Ask-Advise-Refer; AAR). While AAR connects patients to counseling, it does not directly connect patients to medication. Nicotine replacement therapy sampling (NRTS) is an empirically supported intervention to provide starter packs of nicotine replacement therapy (NRT) to people who smoke. NRTS combined with AAR could be an effective tobacco treatment intervention for dental settings.
METHODS: This manuscript describes the study protocol for the Free Samples for Health (FreSH) study, a group randomized clinical trial testing the effectiveness of NRTS + AAR vs. AAR alone on long-term smoking abstinence. Fifty dental practices in the Midwest and Northeast nodes of the National Dental Practice-Based Research Network are randomly assigned to provide AAR and either a 2-week supply of 14-mg nicotine patches and 4-mg nicotine lozenges (NRTS condition) or an electric toothbrush (ET condition). Approximately 1,200 patients who currently smoke-regardless of interest in quitting- are recruited during dental visits. Participants complete a baseline survey in-person, then after visit, 1-, 3-, and 6-month follow-up surveys remotely. The primary outcome is carbon monoxide-confirmed 7-day point prevalence abstinence from combustible tobacco measured at 6 months post-enrollment. Secondary outcomes include: 24-h intentional quit attempts, change in cigarettes smoked per day, NRT utilization, attitudes toward NRT, intention to use NRT, and intention to quit smoking. A key informant process evaluation and cost effectiveness analysis will provide information for future implementation of NRTS.
CONCLUSIONS: This is the first clinical trial to assess the effectiveness of NRTS on promoting smoking cessation in dental settings. If effective, this treatment could be implemented to increase the provision of smoking cessation interventions in dental settings to provide an additional treatment access point for people who smoke.
BACKGROUND: Registered at ClincalTrials.gov (NCT05627596) on 11/25/2022.

On December 7, 2022, China switched from dynamic zeroing strategy against severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) to reopening. A nationwide SARS-CoV-2 epidemic emerged rapidly. The effect of smoking on SARS-CoV-2 infection remains unclear. We aimed to retrospectively investigate the relationship between smoking and coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) using a community-based cohort of smokers and non-smokers. We included participants from a pre-pandemic cohort with a prolonged follow-up period. Data on smoking status, body mass index, and history of other diseases were collected from health examination and consultation clinic records. Cox regression analysis was used to identify the relationship between groups and SARS-CoV-2 infection over time. We analysed 218 male patients with varied smoking statuses (46.3% current or ex-smokers; average age 68.63 ± 9.81 years). Two peaks in the epidemic were observed following the December 2022 outbreak. At the end of the second peak, non-smokers, current smokers, and ex-smokers had primary infection rates increase to 88.0%, 65.1%, and 81.0%, respectively, with a significant difference between the groups. Current smoking significantly protected against SARS-CoV-2 infection (HR 0.625, 95% CI 0.402-0.970, p = 0.036). Further analyses showed that the prevalence of pneumonia in the unvaccinated, older, diabetic, and non-smoking groups was significantly higher than that in the other groups (p < 0.05). Our study suggests a potential association between smoking and a reduced risk of SARS-CoV-2 infection and pneumonia. This indicates that nicotine and ACE2 play important roles in preventing COVID-19 and its progression. We suggest smokers use nicotine replacement therapy during hospitalization for COVID-19.

BACKGROUND: Latino adults experience multiple barriers to healthcare access and treatment that result in tobacco-related disparities. Mobile interventions have the potential to deliver smoking cessation treatment among Latino adults, the highest users of mobile technologies.
OBJECTIVE: Is Decídetexto, a culturally accommodated mobile health intervention, more effective for smoking cessation compared to standard care among Latino adults who smoke?
METHODS: A two-arm parallel group randomized clinical trial (RCT) was conducted in Kansas, New Jersey, and New York between October 2018 and September 2021. Eligible Latino adults who smoke (n=457) were randomly assigned to Decídetexto or a standard care group. The primary outcome was biochemically verified 7-day smoking abstinence at week 24. Secondary outcomes included self-reported 7-day smoking abstinence at weeks 12 and 24, and uptake and adherence of nicotine replacement therapy (NRT).
RESULTS: Participants mean age was 48.7 (SD 11.1) years, 45.2% were female, and 50.3% smoked ≥10 cigarettes per day. Two hundred twenty-nine participants were assigned to Decídetexto and 228 to standard care. Treating those lost to follow-up as participants who continued smoking, 14.4% of participants in the Decídetexto group were biochemically verified abstinent at week 24 compared to 9.2% in the standard care group (OR 1.66 [95% CI, 0.93-2.97], p=0.09). Treating those lost to follow-up as participants who continued smoking, 34.1% of the participants in the Decídetexto group self-reported smoking abstinence at week 24 compared to 20.6% of participants in the standard care group (OR 1.99 [95%, 1.31-3.03]; p<0.001). Analyzing only participants who completed the assessment at week 24, 90.6% (174/192) of participants in the Decídetexto group self-reported using NRT for at least one day compared to 70.2% (139/198) of participants in standard care (OR 4.10 [95% CI, 2.31-7.28]; p<0.01).
CONCLUSIONS: Among Latino adults who smoke, the Decídetexto intervention was not associated with a statistically significant increase in biochemically verified abstinence at week 24. However, the Decídetexto intervention was associated with a statistically significant increase in self-reported 7-day smoking abstinence at weeks 12 and 24, and uptake of NRT. This RCT provides encouragement for the use of Decídetexto for smoking cessation among Latino adults.
BACKGROUND: ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT03586596.

暂无摘要。

BACKGROUND: The effectiveness of nicotine replacement therapy (NRT) in critically ill patients remains uncertain, as conflicting research results have been reported. Despite potential side effects and inconsistent data on safety and efficacy, NRT is still prescribed in intensive care units (ICUs) to prevent withdrawal symptoms and manage agitation in patients who are smokers. This meta-analysis aimed to assess the effectiveness of nicotine replacement therapy in critically ill smoking patients.
METHODS: A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials investigated the outcomes of smokers admitted to ICUs and were randomized either to receive or not receive nicotine replacement therapy (NRT) during their ICU stay. The MEDLINE and Embase databases were searched from inception through 13 February 2023 using OVID. The primary outcome was ICU length of stay (LOS) for this systematic review and meta-analysis. Meta-analysis was conducted using both random-effects and fixed-effect models; the latter is recommended when meta-analysis is restricted to just a few studies. The study was registered in the Prospective International Register of Systematic Reviews (PROSPERO) under reference number CRD42023407804.
RESULTS: Of 28 studies initially identified, three, with 67 patients on NRT and 72 controls, were deemed eligible for pooled analysis. Patients who received NRT experienced a shorter LOS (mean difference, MD= -3.06; 95% CI: -5.88 - -0.25, p=0.0, I2=0%). The mechanical ventilation (MV) duration was also shorter in the NRT group, but this difference was not statistically significant (MD= -1.24; 95% CI: -3.21-0.72, p=0.22, I2=12.69%). Delirium duration was reported by two studies, from which pooled analysis revealed an MD of -0.50 (95% CI: -1.63-0.62, I2=0%). The vasopressor duration was assessed in two studies, and the overall MD for vasopressor duration was not statistically different between NRT patients and controls in the fixed-effects model (MD=0.11; 95% CI: -0.75-0.96, I2=0%).
CONCLUSIONS: Critically ill smoker patients who received NRT experienced a significantly shorter ICU LOS but no significant differences in the durations of MV, vasopressor use, or delirium.

OBJECTIVE: In hospitalized patients, cigarette smoking is linked to increased readmission rates, emergency department visits, and overall mortality. Smoking cessation reduces these risks, but many patients who smoke are unsuccessful in quitting. Nicotine replacement therapy (NRT) is an effective tool that assists patients who smoke with quitting. This study evaluates NRT prescriptions during and after hospitalization at a large health system for patients who smoke.
METHODS: A retrospective cohort study was conducted to determine the number of patients who were prescribed NRT during an inpatient admission and at time of discharge from a network of nine hospitals across South Carolina between January 1, 2019 and January 1, 2023.
RESULTS: This study included 20,757 patients identified as actively smoking with at least one hospitalization during the study period. Of the cohort, 34.9% were prescribed at least one prescription for NRT during their admission to the hospital. Of the patients identified, 12.6% were prescribed NRT upon discharge from the hospital.
CONCLUSIONS: This study identified significantly low rates of NRT prescribed to smokers during hospitalization and at discharge. Although the management of chronic conditions is typically addressed in the outpatient setting, hospitalization may provide an opportunity for patients to initiate health behavior changes. The low rates of prescriptions for NRT present an opportunity to improve tobacco treatment during hospitalization and beyond.

Smoking is a major risk factor for cardiovascular diseases (CVD), in particular in women, but smoking cessation (SC) reduces or even cancels the risk for both sexes. Using a nationwide SC services database, we aimed to determine the predictive factors of SC in men and women smokers with CV risk factors (CVRF) or CVD. A retrospective study from the French CDTnet database was conducted. Inclusion criteria were age ≥18years, and≥1 CVRF (Body Mass Index ≥25kg/m2, hypertension, diabetes, hypercholesterolemia) or CVD (myocardial infarction (MI) or angina pectoris, stroke, peripheral arterial disease [PAD]). Self-reported smoking abstinence (≥28 consecutive days) was confirmed by exhaled carbon monoxide<10ppm. Logistic regression analysis assessed the association between SC and sociodemographic, medical characteristics, and smoking profile. Among the 36,864 smokers at high CV risk, abstinence rate was slightly lower in women than in men, (52.6% [n=8,102] vs 55.0% [n=11,848], P<0.001). For both sexes, factors associated with the lowest abstinence rates were diabetes, respiratory and psychiatric diseases, anxiolytic/antidepressant use, and cannabis consumption. In women, the factors associated with smoking abstinence were suffering from MI or angina and taking contraceptive pill and the factors associated with persistent smoking were alcohol disorder and high cigarette consumption. In men, there was a positive relationship between overweight and abstinence while being dual users of cigarettes and electronic cigarettes at first visit, having tobacco-related diseases (cancer and PAD) and taking opioid substitution treatment were associated with persistent smoking. Finally, in both sexes, the factors associated with abstinence were: age≥65years, having a diploma, being employed, self-referred or encouraged by entourage, ≥1 previous quit attempt, ≤20 cigarettes per day consumption, benefiting from SC medication prescription and ≥4 follow-up visits. In conclusion, our results suggest the relevance of SC intensive management in smokers at high CV risk, based on sociodemographic, medical, and smoking behaviour characteristics, as well as a gender-specific SC approach.

Background: There are many tools to assist with cigarette smoking cessation (e.g., counseling, pharmacotherapy). However, tool use among cancer patients is understudied despite the consequences of continued smoking after a cancer diagnosis.
Objectives: Study aims included describing and comparing cessation tool use among individuals with and without cancer who were currently smoking and who quit to determine if there are different preferences among those with cancer.
Methods: Participants (N = 203) completed an online survey about demographics, cigarette use, and cessation tool use.
Results: Eighty-nine participants reported being diagnosed with cancer (45 quit after diagnosis, 44 currently smoking) and 114 reported not having cancer (57 quit, 57 currently smoking). Individuals with cancer who were smoking used more evidence-based resources than those with cancer who quit (B = 1.86, SE = 0.50, p < 0.0001). Individuals with cancer who were smoking used more total cessation resources than participants without cancer who were smoking (B = 2.00, SE = 0.58, p = 0.001), but there was no difference in use of evidence-based resources between these two groups (p > 0.05). Lastly, individuals with cancer who quit also used more total cessation tools (B = 1.23, SE = 0.41, p = 0.003) and evidence-based tools (B = 1.03, SE = 0.36, p = 0.005) than those without cancer who quit.
Conclusions: Individuals with cancer may be using more resources before successfully quitting. Cancer patients may need additional help to quit smoking, and further research is needed to better understand unique barriers that preclude quitting among this vulnerable population.