-
European Urology Aug 2023Bladder cancer (BC) is common worldwide and poses a significant public health challenge. External risk factors and the wider exposome (totality of exposure from external... (Review)
Review
CONTEXT
Bladder cancer (BC) is common worldwide and poses a significant public health challenge. External risk factors and the wider exposome (totality of exposure from external and internal factors) contribute significantly to the development of BC. Therefore, establishing a clear understanding of these risk factors is the key to prevention.
OBJECTIVE
To perform an up-to-date systematic review of BC's epidemiology and external risk factors.
EVIDENCE ACQUISITION
Two reviewers (I.J. and S.O.) performed a systematic review using PubMed and Embase in January 2022 and updated it in September 2022. The search was restricted to 4 yr since our previous review in 2018.
EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS
Our search identified 5177 articles and a total of 349 full-text manuscripts. GLOBOCAN data from 2020 revealed an incidence of 573 000 new BC cases and 213 000 deaths worldwide in 2020. The 5-yr prevalence worldwide in 2020 was 1 721 000. Tobacco smoking and occupational exposures (aromatic amines and polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons) are the most substantial risk factors. In addition, correlative evidence exists for several risk factors, including specific dietary factors, imbalanced microbiome, gene-environment risk factor interactions, diesel exhaust emission exposure, and pelvic radiotherapy.
CONCLUSIONS
We present a contemporary overview of the epidemiology of BC and the current evidence for BC risk factors. Smoking and specific occupational exposures are the most established risk factors. There is emerging evidence for specific dietary factors, imbalanced microbiome, gene-external risk factor interactions, diesel exhaust emission exposure, and pelvic radiotherapy. Further high-quality evidence is required to confirm initial findings and further understand cancer prevention.
PATIENT SUMMARY
Bladder cancer is common, and the most substantial risk factors are smoking and workplace exposure to suspected carcinogens. On-going research to identify avoidable risk factors could reduce the number of people who get bladder cancer.
Topics: Humans; Vehicle Emissions; Risk Factors; Urinary Bladder Neoplasms; Smoking; Tobacco Smoking; Occupational Exposure
PubMed: 37198015
DOI: 10.1016/j.eururo.2023.03.029 -
EBioMedicine Aug 2022The causal association between cigarette smoking and several diseases remains equivocal. The purpose of this study was to appraise the causal role of smoking in a wide... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
The causal association between cigarette smoking and several diseases remains equivocal. The purpose of this study was to appraise the causal role of smoking in a wide range of diseases by summarizing the evidence from Mendelian randomization (MR) studies.
METHODS
MR studies on genetic liability to smoking initiation or lifetime smoking (composite of smoking initiation, heaviness, duration, and cessation) in relation to circulatory system, digestive system, nervous system, musculoskeletal system, endocrine, metabolic, and eye diseases, and neoplasms published until February 15, 2022, were identified in PubMed. De novo MR analyses were performed using summary statistics data from genome-wide association studies. Meta-analysis was applied to combine study-specific estimates.
FINDINGS
Meta-analyses of findings of 29 published MR studies and 123 de novo MR analyses of 57 distinct primary outcomes showed that genetic liability to smoking (smoking initiation or lifetime smoking) was associated with increased risk of 13 circulatory system diseases, several digestive system diseases (including diverticular, gallstone, gastroesophageal reflux, and Crohn's disease, acute pancreatitis, and periodontitis), epilepsy, certain musculoskeletal system diseases (including fracture, osteoarthritis, and rheumatoid arthritis), endocrine (polycystic ovary syndrome), metabolic (type 2 diabetes) and eye diseases (including age-related macular degeneration and senile cataract) as well as cancers of the lung, head and neck, esophagus, pancreas, bladder, kidney, cervix, and ovaries, and myeloid leukemia. Smoking liability was associated with decreased risk of Parkinson's disease and prostate cancer.
INTERPRETATION
This study found robust evidence that cigarette smoking causes a wide range of diseases.
FUNDING
This work was supported by research grants from the Swedish Cancer Society (Cancerfonden), the Swedish Heart Lung Foundation (Hjärt-Lungfonden, 20210351), the Swedish Research Council for Health, Working Life and Welfare (Forte, 2018-00123), and the Swedish Research Council (Vetenskapsrådet, 2019-00977). Stephen Burgess is supported by Sir Henry Dale Fellowship jointly funded by the Wellcome Trust and the Royal Society (204623/Z/16/Z) and the National Institute for Health Research Cambridge Biomedical Research Centre (BRC-1215-20014). The views expressed are those of the authors and not necessarily those of the National Institute for Health Research or the Department of Health and Social Care.
Topics: Acute Disease; Diabetes Mellitus, Type 2; Female; Genome-Wide Association Study; Humans; Male; Mendelian Randomization Analysis; Neoplasms; Pancreatitis; Polymorphism, Single Nucleotide; Smoking
PubMed: 35816897
DOI: 10.1016/j.ebiom.2022.104154 -
Medicina (Kaunas, Lithuania) Dec 2021: Tobacco is today the single most preventable cause of death, being associated with countless diseases, including cancer and neurological, cardiovascular, and... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
: Tobacco is today the single most preventable cause of death, being associated with countless diseases, including cancer and neurological, cardiovascular, and respiratory diseases. Smoking also brings negative consequences to oral health, potentially impairing treatment with dental implants. The present review aimed to evaluate the influence of smoking on dental implant failure rates and marginal bone loss (MBL). : Electronic search was undertaken in three databases, plus a manual search of journals. Meta-analyses were performed, in addition to meta-regressions, in order to verify how the odds ratio (OR) and MBL were associated with follow-up time. : The review included 292 publications. Altogether, there were 35,511 and 114,597 implants placed in smokers and in non-smokers, respectively. Pairwise meta-analysis showed that implants in smokers had a higher failure risk in comparison with non-smokers (OR 2.402, < 0.001). The difference in implant failure between the groups was statistically significant in the maxilla (OR 2.910, < 0.001), as well as in the mandible (OR 2.866, < 0.001). The MBL mean difference (MD) between the groups was 0.580 mm ( < 0.001). There was an estimated decrease of 0.001 in OR ( = 0.566) and increase of 0.004 mm ( = 0.279) in the MBL MD between groups for every additional month of follow-up, although without statistical significance. Therefore, there was no clear influence of the follow-up on the effect size (OR) and on MBL MD between groups. : Implants placed in smokers present a 140.2% higher risk of failure than implants placed in non-smokers.
Topics: Dental Implants; Humans; Mandible; Maxilla; Smokers; Smoking
PubMed: 35056347
DOI: 10.3390/medicina58010039 -
Lung Cancer (Amsterdam, Netherlands) Sep 2020Lung cancer remains the leading cause of cancer related deaths worldwide. Lung cancer screening using low-dose computed tomography (LDCT) has been shown to reduce lung... (Review)
Review
Lung cancer remains the leading cause of cancer related deaths worldwide. Lung cancer screening using low-dose computed tomography (LDCT) has been shown to reduce lung cancer specific mortality. In 2013, the United States Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) recommended annual lung cancer screening with LDCT for smokers aged between 55 years to 80 years, with at least 30 pack-years of smoking exposure that currently smoke or who have quit smoking within 15 years. Risk-based lung cancer screening is an alternative approach that defines screening eligibility based on the personal risk of individuals. Selection of individuals for lung cancer screening based on their personal lung cancer risk has been shown to improve the sensitivity and specificity associated with the eligibility criteria of the screening program as compared to the 2013 USPSTF criteria. Numerous risk prediction models have been developed to estimate the lung cancer risk of individuals incorporating sociodemographic, smoking, and clinical risk factors associated with lung cancer, including age, smoking history, sex, race/ethnicity, personal and family history of cancer, and history of emphysema and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), among others. Some risk prediction models include biomarker information, such as germline mutations or protein-based biomarkers as independent risk predictors, in addition to clinical, smoking, and sociodemographic risk factors. While, the majority of lung cancer risk prediction models are suitable for selecting high-risk individuals for lung cancer screening, some risk models have been developed to predict the probability of malignancy of screen-detected solidary pulmonary nodules or to optimize the screening frequency of eligible individuals by incorporating past screening findings. In this systematic review, we provide an overview of existing risk prediction models and their applications to lung cancer screening. We discuss potential strengths and limitations of lung cancer screening using risk prediction models and future research directions.
Topics: Early Detection of Cancer; Humans; Lung Neoplasms; Mass Screening; Middle Aged; Smoking; Tomography, X-Ray Computed; United States
PubMed: 32721652
DOI: 10.1016/j.lungcan.2020.07.007 -
The Medical Journal of Australia Apr 2023To review and synthesise the global evidence regarding the health effects of electronic cigarettes (e-cigarettes, vapes). (Review)
Review
OBJECTIVE
To review and synthesise the global evidence regarding the health effects of electronic cigarettes (e-cigarettes, vapes).
STUDY DESIGN
Umbrella review (based on major independent reviews, including the 2018 United States National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine [NASEM] report) and top-up systematic review of published, peer-reviewed studies in humans examining the relationship of e-cigarette use to health outcomes published since the NASEM report.
DATA SOURCES
Umbrella review: eight major independent reviews published 2017-2021. Systematic review: PubMed, MEDLINE, Scopus, Web of Science, the Cochrane Library, and PsycINFO (articles published July 2017 - July 2020 and not included in NASEM review).
DATA SYNTHESIS
Four hundred eligible publications were included in our synthesis: 112 from the NASEM review, 189 from our top-up review search, and 99 further publications cited by other reviews. There is conclusive evidence linking e-cigarette use with poisoning, immediate inhalation toxicity (including seizures), and e-cigarette or vaping product use-associated lung injury (EVALI; largely but not exclusively for e-liquids containing tetrahydrocannabinol and vitamin E acetate), as well as for malfunctioning devices causing injuries and burns. Environmental effects include waste, fires, and generation of indoor airborne particulate matter (substantial to conclusive evidence). There is substantial evidence that nicotine e-cigarettes can cause dependence or addiction in non-smokers, and strong evidence that young non-smokers who use e-cigarettes are more likely than non-users to initiate smoking and to become regular smokers. There is limited evidence that freebase nicotine e-cigarettes used with clinical support are efficacious aids for smoking cessation. Evidence regarding effects on other clinical outcomes, including cardiovascular disease, cancer, development, and mental and reproductive health, is insufficient or unavailable.
CONCLUSION
E-cigarettes can be harmful to health, particularly for non-smokers and children, adolescents, and young adults. Their effects on many important health outcomes are uncertain. E-cigarettes may be beneficial for smokers who use them to completely and promptly quit smoking, but they are not currently approved smoking cessation aids. Better quality evidence is needed regarding the health impact of e-cigarette use, their safety and efficacy for smoking cessation, and effective regulation.
REGISTRATION
Systematic review: PROSPERO, CRD42020200673 (prospective).
Topics: Young Adult; Adolescent; Child; Humans; Electronic Nicotine Delivery Systems; Nicotine; Prospective Studies; Smoking; Smoking Cessation
PubMed: 36939271
DOI: 10.5694/mja2.51890 -
Clinical and Experimental Dental... Jun 2021While tobacco cigarette smoking has been proven to be a risk factor for periodontitis, limited information is available regarding vaping, a new alternative to smoking... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE
While tobacco cigarette smoking has been proven to be a risk factor for periodontitis, limited information is available regarding vaping, a new alternative to smoking that has been branded as less harmful. Several important in vitro studies have shown that vaping has a similarly damaging effect as cigarette smoking on the health of the periodontium. However, a comprehensive review is lacking in this field. Therefore, we aimed to systematically review the literature about the impact of vaping on periodontitis.
METHODS
The research question was created using the PICOs format. A systematic search of the following electronic databases was performed up to March 2020: Medline, Embase, PubMed, Cochrane, and grey literature. Human studies that assessed periodontal status (plaque index, bleeding on probing, clinical attachment loss, marginal bone loss, and probing depth) in e-cigarette users compared to non-smokers (control group) were assessed based on an estimate of fixed effects. The weights of the studies were calculated based on their risks of bias.
RESULTS
After duplicates were removed, 1,659 studies were screened and 8 case-control studies that investigated the relationship between vaping and periodontal parameters in humans were selected after their risk of bias assessment. Estimated effects of vaping after weighting results based on their standard deviation showed increased plaque, marginal bone loss, clinical attachment loss, pocket depth, and reduced bleeding on probing.
CONCLUSION
This study concluded that there is not enough evidence to fully characterize the impacts of vaping on periodontitis. However, within the limitations of our review and the selected included studies, the available results point to increased destruction of the periodontium leading to the development of the disease.
Topics: Electronic Nicotine Delivery Systems; Humans; Periodontitis; Smokers; Smoking; Vaping
PubMed: 33274850
DOI: 10.1002/cre2.360 -
Journal of Oral Rehabilitation Jan 2022Alveolar osteitis (AO) is a poorly understood, common, painful complication following exodontia. It is sometimes managed by inappropriate prescription of antibiotics... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Alveolar osteitis (AO) is a poorly understood, common, painful complication following exodontia. It is sometimes managed by inappropriate prescription of antibiotics which contributes to the global threat of antimicrobial resistance. Use of intra-alveolar chlorhexidine also presents a serious risk of anaphylaxis to the patient.
OBJECTIVE
This scoping review aims to investigate the aetiology, prevention and management of AO and highlight the extent of inappropriate prescribing and intra-alveolar chlorhexidine use.
DESIGN
A scoping review was undertaken using the PRISMA guidelines. Medline, Ovid and Pubmed were searched between 2010 and 2020, from which 63 studies were selected for review that related to the aetiology, prevention or management of AO. Data were analysed for frequency of studies reporting information on risk factors for aetiology, prevention strategies and management including inappropriate management using antibiotic prescribing and intra-alveolar chlorhexidine.
RESULTS
Impaired immune response, surgical technique and age were identified as significant factors in the development of AO, while there is conflicting evidence regarding the effects of smoking and gender. With regard to prevention, the use of prophylactic antibiotics is not supported within the literature. Saline irrigation and eugenol pastes used preventively have been shown to be cheap and effective alternatives to chlorhexidine with no adverse effects. Hyaluronic acid and low-level laser therapies showed a significant reduction in pain and soft-tissue inflammation in the management of AO compared to Alveogyl.
CONCLUSIONS
Further understanding of the pathophysiology of AO is needed, in addition to large high-quality RCTs or long-term observational studies into the aetiology, prevention, and management of AO to produce up-to-date evidence-based clinical guidelines. Clinicians should also be mindful of their contribution to growing antimicrobial resistance and avoid inappropriate prescribing of antibiotics. Saline should replace chlorhexidine as the intra-alveolar irrigant of choice.
Topics: Chlorhexidine; Dry Socket; Humans; Molar, Third; Smoking; Tooth Extraction
PubMed: 34625985
DOI: 10.1111/joor.13268 -
Nicotine & Tobacco Research : Official... Mar 2021Studies have shown the health benefits of cigarette smoking cessation. However, the literature remains unclear about the relationship between smoking reduction and... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
INTRODUCTION
Studies have shown the health benefits of cigarette smoking cessation. However, the literature remains unclear about the relationship between smoking reduction and health risks. This comprehensive review and meta-analysis updates previous reviews with the newest estimates.
AIMS AND METHODS
We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis evaluating the association between smoking reduction and some health risks in observational studies. We defined the following smoking categories: heavy smokers smoked ≥15-20 cigarettes per day (CPD), moderate smokers smoked 10-19 CPD, and light smokers smoked <10 CPD. The relative risks (RRs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were estimated using random-effect models.
RESULTS
We identified 19 studies including four case-control and 15 cohort studies. Compared with continuing heavy smokers, we found decreased lung cancer risk for those who reduced CPD by more than 50% (RR = 0.72, 95% CI: 0.52, 0.91), from heavy to moderate (RR = 0.66, 95% CI: 0.46, 0.85), and from heavy to light (RR = 0.60, 95% CI: 0.49, 0.72). We also found lower risk of cardiovascular disease (CVD) for those who reduced from heavy to light smoking (RR = 0.78, 95% CI: 0.67, 0.89) but not those who reduced by more than 50% and reduced smoking from heavy to moderate. We did not find any significant difference in all-cause mortality, all-cancer risks, and smoking-/tobacco-related cancer risk among those who reduced.
CONCLUSIONS
Substantial smoking reduction may decrease lung cancer risk but results on CVD (coronary heart disease and stroke combined) risk were mixed. The relationships between smoking reduction and other endpoints examined were not significant.
IMPLICATIONS
This meta-analysis helps clarify our understanding of various smoking reduction levels on some health risks. While smoking reduction may decrease risks of lung cancer, the relationships between smoking reduction and other endpoints, including all-cause mortality and cardiovascular disease, remain unclear. Although smoking reduction may decrease lung cancer risks, the magnitude of lung cancer risk remain high. Among smokers, complete cessation remains the most effective approach for cancer and CVD prevention.
Topics: Cardiovascular Diseases; Cigarette Smoking; Humans; Neoplasms; Risk Factors; Smokers; Smoking Cessation
PubMed: 32803250
DOI: 10.1093/ntr/ntaa156 -
Journal of Clinical Periodontology Apr 2020The present systematic review and meta-analysis was performed to investigate if there was a significantly enhanced risk of dental implant failure due to the increased... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
AIM
The present systematic review and meta-analysis was performed to investigate if there was a significantly enhanced risk of dental implant failure due to the increased number of cigarettes smoked per day.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
Four databases, including PubMed, Embase, Web of Science and Scopus, were searched until January, 2019. The search terms "dental implant, oral implant, smoking, smoker, tobacco, nicotine and non-smoker" were used in combination to identify the publications providing data for dental implant failures related to the smoking habit. Publications were excluded if the quantity of cigarettes consumed per day was not reported. Fixed- or random-effects meta-analyses were used to pool the estimates of relative risk (RR) with 95% confidence intervals (CI).
RESULTS
Having additional information supplied by the authors, 23 articles were selected for final analysis. The meta-analyses based on implant- and patient-related data showed a significant increase in the RR of implant failure in patients who smoked >20 cigarettes per day compared with non-smokers (implant based: p = .001; RR: 2.45; CI: 1.42-4.22 and patient based: p < .001; RR: 4; CI: 2.72-5.89).
CONCLUSION
The risk of implant failure was elevated with an increase in the number of cigarettes smoked per day.
Topics: Dental Implants; Dental Restoration Failure; Humans; Smokers; Smoking
PubMed: 31955453
DOI: 10.1111/jcpe.13257 -
International Journal of Environmental... Jun 2021Heated tobacco products (HTP) are a form of nicotine delivery intended to be an alternative to traditional cigarettes. HTP tobacco products are sold to consumers as a... (Review)
Review
Heated tobacco products (HTP) are a form of nicotine delivery intended to be an alternative to traditional cigarettes. HTP tobacco products are sold to consumers as a less harmful alternative to traditional cigarettes, both for users and bystanders. The actual impact of HTP on the health of users and its overall impact on public health is still not fully known. A systematic search of the literature was carried out to identify relevant studies published in English from 2015 to February 2021. The following databases were used: PubMed, Scopus, Elsevier and ClinicalKey. 25 studies (independent and sponsored by the tobacco industry) were considered. The analysis of exposure biomarkers and cardiovascular and respiratory biomarkers showed differences between smokers and people using heated tobacco products. Improvements in clinically relevant risk markers, especially cholesterol, sICAM-1, 8-epi-PGF2α, 11-DTX-B2, HDL and FEV1, were observed compared to persistent cigarette smokers. On the other hand, exposure to IQOS has been reported to alter mitochondrial function, which may further exaggerate airway inflammation, airway remodeling and lung cancer. These products have the potential to increase oxidative stress and increase respiratory tract infections by increasing microbial adherence to the respiratory tract. Our review suggests that HTP products may be products with a reduced risk of chronic diseases, including respiratory and cardiovascular diseases and cancer compared to traditional smoking, although in the case of non-smokers so far, they may pose a risk of their occurrence. Research seems to be necessary to assess the frequency of HTP use and its potential negative health effects.
Topics: Electronic Nicotine Delivery Systems; Humans; Nicotine; Smokers; Nicotiana; Tobacco Products; Tobacco Smoking
PubMed: 34205612
DOI: 10.3390/ijerph18126651