-
Psychiatry Research Mar 2020Anxiety disorders are highly prevalent in the general population and associated with high rates of impairment and disability. This burden highlights the need to identify...
Anxiety disorders are highly prevalent in the general population and associated with high rates of impairment and disability. This burden highlights the need to identify risk factors that individuals can modify without professional intervention. A systematic review was conducted to identify studies that examined modifiable risk and protective factors for anxiety disorders among adults in the general population. Searches were conducted in PubMed, PsycINFO and MEDLINE using medical subject headings and text words related to risk factors, protective factors, and each anxiety disorder. Screening, data extraction, and quality assessment were performed by three study authors. Modifiable risk and protective factors from 19 studies across seven countries were identified. Risk factors identified included cigarette smoking, alcohol use, cannabis use, negative appraisals of life events, avoidance, and occupational factors. Protective factors included social support, coping, and physical activity. Cigarette smoking was the most studied risk factor. Support was found for cigarette smoking as a risk factor for agoraphobia and panic disorder. Mixed results were found for generalized anxiety disorder and specific phobia. Across disorders, smoking frequency was associated with greater risk. Results indicate an important gap in the literature in that few studies have examined modifiable risk factors for anxiety disorders.
Topics: Adult; Agoraphobia; Anxiety Disorders; Avoidance Learning; Cigarette Smoking; Cross-Sectional Studies; Female; Humans; Male; Occupational Health; Panic Disorder; Prevalence; Protective Factors; Retrospective Studies; Risk Factors; Substance-Related Disorders
PubMed: 31839417
DOI: 10.1016/j.psychres.2019.112705 -
Nutrients Mar 2022Lung cancer is one of the most common neoplasms globally, with about 2.2 million new cases and 1.8 million deaths annually. Although the most important factor in... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
Lung cancer is one of the most common neoplasms globally, with about 2.2 million new cases and 1.8 million deaths annually. Although the most important factor in reducing lung cancer risk is lifestyle change, most patients favour the use of supplements, for example, rather than quitting smoking or following a healthy diet. To better understand the efficacy of such interventions, a systematic review was performed of data from randomized controlled trials concerning the influence of beta-carotene supplementation on lung cancer risk in subjects with no lung cancer before the intervention. The search corpus comprised a number of databases and eight studies involving 167,141 participants, published by November 2021. The findings indicate that beta-carotene supplementation was associated with an increased risk of lung cancer (RR = 1.16, 95% CI = 1.06-1.26). This effect was even more noticeable among smokers and asbestos workers (RR = 1.21, 95% CI = 1.08-1.35) and non-medics (RR = 1.18, 95% CI = 1.07-1.29). A meta-regression found no relationship between the beta-carotene supplementation dose and the size of the negative effect associated with lung cancer risk. Our findings indicate that beta-carotene supplementation has no effect on lung cancer risk. Moreover, when used as the primary chemoprevention, beta-carotene may, in fact, increase the risk of lung cancer.
Topics: Antioxidants; Dietary Supplements; Humans; Lung Neoplasms; Smoking; beta Carotene
PubMed: 35405977
DOI: 10.3390/nu14071361 -
Endocrine Nov 2023To investigate whether maternal cigarette smoking during pregnancy is a risk factor for developing GDM. (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
PURPOSE
To investigate whether maternal cigarette smoking during pregnancy is a risk factor for developing GDM.
METHODS
MEDLINE, Scopus, CENTRAL and Google Scholar databases were searched from inception to December 2022 to identify eligible original articles. A systematic review and meta-analysis (weighted data, random-effects model) were performed. The primary outcome was the development of GDM in pregnant women. The results were expressed as odds ratios (OR) with 95% confidence interval (CI) (inverse variance method). Subgroup analysis was planned according to the maternal smoking status and GDM diagnostic criteria. Statistical heterogeneity was checked with the Chi-squared (Chi) test and the I index was used to quantify it. The studies were evaluated for publication bias.
RESULTS
Thirty-five studies, including 23,849,696 pregnant women, met the inclusion criteria. The pooled OR of smoking during pregnancy compared with non-smoking (never smokers and former smokers) was 1.06 (95% CI 0.95-1.19), p = 0.30; I = 90%; Chi = 344; df=34; p < 0.001. Subgroup analysis was performed according to the two-step Carpenter-Coustan diagnostic criteria, due to the high heterogeneity among the other applied methods. The pooled OR for the Carpenter-Coustan subgroup was 1.19 (95% CI 0.95-1.49), p = 0.12; I = 63%; Chi = 27; df=10; p < 0.002. Further subgroup analysis according to maternal smoking status was not performed due to missing data.
CONCLUSION
There is no evidence to support an association between maternal cigarette smoking during pregnancy and the risk for GDM. Universally accepted diagnostic criteria for GDM must be adopted to reduce heterogeneity and clarify the association between smoking and GDM.
Topics: Pregnancy; Female; Humans; Diabetes, Gestational; Cigarette Smoking
PubMed: 37347387
DOI: 10.1007/s12020-023-03423-6 -
Dermatologic Therapy Mar 2021Rosacea is a chronic inflammatory disease of the centrofacial region. However, the association between rosacea and smoking remains controversial. To evaluate the... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
Rosacea is a chronic inflammatory disease of the centrofacial region. However, the association between rosacea and smoking remains controversial. To evaluate the association between rosacea and smoking, we performed a systematic review and meta-analysis. A comprehensive systematic search of literature published before October 15, 2020 on online databases (including Web of Science, PubMed, Cochrane Library, and Embase) was performed. The pooled odds ratios (ORs) were calculated. 12 articles were included, covering 80 156 controls and 54 132 patients with rosacea. Tobacco consumption was not found to increase the risk of rosacea. However, using subtype analysis (involving 5 articles), we found there was a decreased risk of rosacea in current smokers but an increased risk in ex-smokers. In addition, smoking appears to increase the risk of papulopustular rosacea and phymatous rosacea. Analysis of all included studies also showed that ex-smoking was associated with an increased risk, while current smoking was associated with a reduced risk of rosacea. In order to prevent many diseases, including rosacea, the public should be encouraged to avoid smoking.
Topics: Humans; Odds Ratio; Rosacea; Smoking
PubMed: 33406295
DOI: 10.1111/dth.14747 -
Journal of Medical Internet Research Jul 2023Rapid advancements in eHealth and mobile health (mHealth) technologies have driven researchers to design and evaluate numerous technology-based interventions to promote... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Rapid advancements in eHealth and mobile health (mHealth) technologies have driven researchers to design and evaluate numerous technology-based interventions to promote smoking cessation. The evolving nature of cessation interventions emphasizes a strong need for knowledge synthesis.
OBJECTIVE
This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to summarize recent evidence from randomized controlled trials regarding the effectiveness of eHealth-based smoking cessation interventions in promoting abstinence and assess nonabstinence outcome indicators, such as cigarette consumption and user satisfaction, via narrative synthesis.
METHODS
We searched for studies published in English between 2017 and June 30, 2022, in 4 databases: PubMed (including MEDLINE), PsycINFO, Embase, and Cochrane Library. Two independent reviewers performed study screening, data extraction, and quality assessment based on the GRADE (Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluations) framework. We pooled comparable studies based on the population, follow-up time, intervention, and control characteristics. Two researchers performed an independent meta-analysis on smoking abstinence using the Sidik-Jonkman random-effects model and log risk ratio (RR) as the effect measurement. For studies not included in the meta-analysis, the outcomes were narratively synthesized.
RESULTS
A total of 464 studies were identified through an initial database search after removing duplicates. Following screening and full-text assessments, we deemed 39 studies (n=37,341 participants) eligible for this review. Of these, 28 studies were shortlisted for meta-analysis. According to the meta-analysis, SMS or app text messaging can significantly increase both short-term (3 months) abstinence (log RR=0.50, 95% CI 0.25-0.75; I=0.72%) and long-term (6 months) abstinence (log RR=0.77, 95% CI 0.49-1.04; I=8.65%), relative to minimal cessation support. The frequency of texting did not significantly influence treatment outcomes. mHealth apps may significantly increase abstinence in the short term (log RR=0.76, 95% CI 0.09-1.42; I=88.02%) but not in the long term (log RR=0.15, 95% CI -0.18 to 0.48; I=80.06%), in contrast to less intensive cessation support. In addition, personalized or interactive interventions showed a moderate increase in cessation for both the short term (log RR=0.62, 95% CI 0.30-0.94; I=66.50%) and long term (log RR=0.28, 95% CI 0.04-0.53; I=73.42%). In contrast, studies without any personalized or interactive features had no significant impact. Finally, the treatment effect was similar between trials that used biochemically verified or self-reported abstinence. Among studies reporting outcomes besides abstinence (n=20), a total of 11 studies reported significantly improved nonabstinence outcomes in cigarette consumption (3/14, 21%) or user satisfaction (8/19, 42%).
CONCLUSIONS
Our review of 39 randomized controlled trials found that recent eHealth interventions might promote smoking cessation, with mHealth being the dominant approach. Despite their success, the effectiveness of such interventions may diminish with time. The design of more personalized interventions could potentially benefit future studies.
TRIAL REGISTRATION
PROSPERO CRD42022347104; https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?RecordID=347104.
Topics: Humans; Smoking Cessation; Health Behavior; Smoking; Text Messaging; Telemedicine
PubMed: 37505802
DOI: 10.2196/45111 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Jan 2022Heated tobacco products (HTPs) are designed to heat tobacco to a high enough temperature to release aerosol, without burning it or producing smoke. They differ from... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Heated tobacco products (HTPs) are designed to heat tobacco to a high enough temperature to release aerosol, without burning it or producing smoke. They differ from e-cigarettes because they heat tobacco leaf/sheet rather than a liquid. Companies who make HTPs claim they produce fewer harmful chemicals than conventional cigarettes. Some people report stopping smoking cigarettes entirely by switching to using HTPs, so clinicians need to know whether they are effective for this purpose and relatively safe. Also, to regulate HTPs appropriately, policymakers should understand their impact on health and on cigarette smoking prevalence.
OBJECTIVES
To evaluate the effectiveness and safety of HTPs for smoking cessation and the impact of HTPs on smoking prevalence. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Tobacco Addiction Group's Specialised Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, and six other databases for relevant records to January 2021, together with reference-checking and contact with study authors and relevant groups.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) in which people who smoked cigarettes were randomised to switch to exclusive HTP use or a control condition. Eligible outcomes were smoking cessation, adverse events, and selected biomarkers. RCTs conducted in clinic or in an ambulatory setting were deemed eligible when assessing safety, including those randomising participants to exclusively use HTPs, smoke cigarettes, or attempt abstinence from all tobacco. Time-series studies were also eligible for inclusion if they examined the population-level impact of heated tobacco on smoking prevalence or cigarette sales as an indirect measure.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
We followed standard Cochrane methods for screening and data extraction. Our primary outcome measures were abstinence from smoking at the longest follow-up point available, adverse events, serious adverse events, and changes in smoking prevalence or cigarette sales. Other outcomes included biomarkers of harm and exposure to toxicants/carcinogens (e.g. NNAL and carboxyhaemoglobin (COHb)). We used a random-effects Mantel-Haenszel model to calculate risk ratios (RR) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for dichotomous outcomes. For continuous outcomes, we calculated mean differences on the log-transformed scale (LMD) with 95% CIs. We pooled data across studies using meta-analysis where possible.
MAIN RESULTS
We included 13 completed studies, of which 11 were RCTs assessing safety (2666 participants) and two were time-series studies. We judged eight RCTs to be at unclear risk of bias and three at high risk. All RCTs were funded by tobacco companies. Median length of follow-up was 13 weeks. No studies reported smoking cessation outcomes. There was insufficient evidence for a difference in risk of adverse events between smokers randomised to switch to heated tobacco or continue smoking cigarettes, limited by imprecision and risk of bias (RR 1.03, 95% CI 0.92 to 1.15; I = 0%; 6 studies, 1713 participants). There was insufficient evidence to determine whether risk of serious adverse events differed between groups due to very serious imprecision and risk of bias (RR 0.79, 95% CI 0.33 to 1.94; I = 0%; 4 studies, 1472 participants). There was moderate-certainty evidence for lower NNAL and COHb at follow-up in heated tobacco than cigarette smoking groups, limited by risk of bias (NNAL: LMD -0.81, 95% CI -1.07 to -0.55; I = 92%; 10 studies, 1959 participants; COHb: LMD -0.74, 95% CI -0.92 to -0.52; I = 96%; 9 studies, 1807 participants). Evidence for additional biomarkers of exposure are reported in the main body of the review. There was insufficient evidence for a difference in risk of adverse events in smokers randomised to switch to heated tobacco or attempt abstinence from all tobacco, limited by risk of bias and imprecision (RR 1.12, 95% CI 0.86 to 1.46; I = 0%; 2 studies, 237 participants). Five studies reported that no serious adverse events occurred in either group (533 participants). There was moderate-certainty evidence, limited by risk of bias, that urine concentrations of NNAL at follow-up were higher in the heated tobacco use compared with abstinence group (LMD 0.50, 95% CI 0.34 to 0.66; I = 0%; 5 studies, 382 participants). In addition, there was very low-certainty evidence, limited by risk of bias, inconsistency, and imprecision, for higher COHb in the heated tobacco use compared with abstinence group for intention-to-treat analyses (LMD 0.69, 95% CI 0.07 to 1.31; 3 studies, 212 participants), but lower COHb in per-protocol analyses (LMD -0.32, 95% CI -1.04 to 0.39; 2 studies, 170 participants). Evidence concerning additional biomarkers is reported in the main body of the review. Data from two time-series studies showed that the rate of decline in cigarette sales accelerated following the introduction of heated tobacco to market in Japan. This evidence was of very low-certainty as there was risk of bias, including possible confounding, and cigarette sales are an indirect measure of smoking prevalence.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
No studies reported on cigarette smoking cessation, so the effectiveness of heated tobacco for this purpose remains uncertain. There was insufficient evidence for differences in risk of adverse or serious adverse events between people randomised to switch to heated tobacco, smoke cigarettes, or attempt tobacco abstinence in the short-term. There was moderate-certainty evidence that heated tobacco users have lower exposure to toxicants/carcinogens than cigarette smokers and very low- to moderate-certainty evidence of higher exposure than those attempting abstinence from all tobacco. Independently funded research on the effectiveness and safety of HTPs is needed. The rate of decline in cigarette sales accelerated after the introduction of heated tobacco to market in Japan but, as data were observational, it is possible other factors caused these changes. Moreover, falls in cigarette sales may not translate to declining smoking prevalence, and changes in Japan may not generalise elsewhere. To clarify the impact of rising heated tobacco use on smoking prevalence, there is a need for time-series studies that examine this association.
Topics: Humans; Prevalence; Smoking; Smoking Cessation; Tobacco Products; Tobacco Use Cessation Devices
PubMed: 34988969
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD013790.pub2 -
Public Health Sep 2021This study investigated the impact of smoking on the incidence of insomnia. (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
OBJECTIVE
This study investigated the impact of smoking on the incidence of insomnia.
STUDY DESIGN
Systematic review and meta-analysis of cohort studies.
METHODS
PubMed, EMBASE, Web of Science, Cochrane Library, and OVID were searched through March 2020. Cohort studies reporting the effect of smoking on the incidence of insomnia were included. We quantitatively analyzed the basic framework and study characteristics and then pooled estimate effects with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) of outcomes of each included study using fixed-effects meta-analyses.
RESULTS
This systematic review included six cohort studies involving 12,445 participants. Quantitatively summarized results suggested that smoking could significantly increase the incidence of insomnia (odds ratio [OR]: 1.07, 95% CI: 1.02, 1.13). Regular smoking was significantly associated with the incidence of insomnia (OR = 1.07, 95% CI: 1.01, 1.13). As for occasional smokers and ex-smokers, the pooled analysis did not indicate a significant association (occasional smoker: OR = 2.09, 95% CI: 0.44, 9.95; ex-smoker; OR = 1.02, 95% CI: 0.67, 1.54). Subgroup analysis by age, gender ratio, and region showed a statistically significant relationship between smoking and the incidence of insomnia in specific groups.
CONCLUSIONS
Integrated longitudinal observational evidence identified smoking as a significant risk factor of insomnia. Considering the limited amount of available studies, more high-quality and prospective cohort studies of large sample sizes are needed to explore details of this association.
Topics: Cohort Studies; Humans; Incidence; Prospective Studies; Sleep Initiation and Maintenance Disorders; Smoking
PubMed: 34507139
DOI: 10.1016/j.puhe.2021.07.012 -
BMC Oral Health Nov 2019Smoking is a major risk factor for periodontitis and tooth loss. Smoking cessation has a positive impact in periodontal treatment. However, so far, no systematic review... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Smoking is a major risk factor for periodontitis and tooth loss. Smoking cessation has a positive impact in periodontal treatment. However, so far, no systematic review has evaluated the effect of smoking cessation on tooth loss. Therefore, this review aimed to evaluate if smoking cessation reduces the risk of tooth loss.
METHODS
Observational (cross-sectional and longitudinal) studies that investigated the association between smoking cessation and tooth loss were included. MEDLINE, EMBASE and LILACS databases were searched for articles published up to November 2018. Pooled results for subgroups of current and former smokers were compared in meta-analysis. Meta-regression was used to test the influence of smoking status on estimates and explore the heterogeneity.
RESULTS
Of 230 potentially relevant publications, 21 studies were included in the qualitative review and 12 in the quantitative analysis. Meta-analysis of cross-sectional studies did not show any differences between former and current smokers in the chance of losing 1 or more teeth (OR = 1.00; 95% CI = 0.80 to 1.24, I = 80%), losing more than 8 teeth (OR = 1.02; 95% CI = 0.78 to 1.32, I = 0%) or being edentulous (OR = 1.37; 95% CI = 0.94 to 1.99, I = 98%). Meta-analysis from longitudinal studies showed that, when compared to never smokers, former smokers presented no increased risk of tooth loss (RR = 1.15; 95% CI = 0.98 to 1.35, I = 76%), while current smokers presented an increased risk of tooth loss (RR = 2.60; 95% CI = 2.29 to 2.96, I = 61%). Meta-regression showed that, among former smokers, the time of cessation was the variable that better explained heterogeneity (approximately 60%).
CONCLUSIONS
Risk for tooth loss in former smokers is comparable to that of never smokers. Moreover, former smokers have a reduced risk of tooth loss, when compared to current smokers.
Topics: Humans; Oral Health; Risk Factors; Smoking; Smoking Cessation; Tooth Loss
PubMed: 31718636
DOI: 10.1186/s12903-019-0930-2 -
The Indian Journal of Tuberculosis Oct 2023Of the problems in tuberculosis (TB) control program is the recurrence of this disease. In some studies, smoking has been reported as the most important risk factor.... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
INTRODUCTION
Of the problems in tuberculosis (TB) control program is the recurrence of this disease. In some studies, smoking has been reported as the most important risk factor. Therefore, the present study aimed at examining the association between smoking and tuberculosis recurrence using meta-analysis.
METHODS
To report the findings of this meta-analysis, we used PRISMA. The protocol of this study has been recorded in PROSPERO. The research question has been formulated based on PICO, and the search was performed using both MeSH and non-MeSH keywords. After screening and selecting the articles and evaluating their quality using the NOS checklist, the overall estimate of the odds ratio of tuberculosis recurrence in smokers was assessed with a 95% confidence interval.
RESULTS
Fourteen studies met the inclusion criteria. The total number of samples in the group of patients with tuberculosis recurrence was 1988 with 855 (43%) smokers, and in the group of patients affected by tuberculosis without recurrence, it was 27,226 with 7503 (27.56%) smokers. In 13 studies, the odds ratio of tuberculosis recurrence was higher in smokers; this difference was statistically significant in 12 of them. Combining the results of these 14 studies, the odds ratio of tuberculosis recurrence in smokers was 2.10 times higher, using the random effects model (95% CI:1.69, 2.61).
CONCLUSION
Based on the results of study present, smoking increases the risk of tuberculosis recurrence. Therefore, to eradicate tuberculosis by 2030, more serious interventions should be taken to quit smoking, which in turn reduces the incidence of tuberculosis.
Topics: Humans; Smoking; Tobacco Smoking; Tuberculosis; Smoking Cessation; Risk Factors; Recurrence
PubMed: 37968054
DOI: 10.1016/j.ijtb.2023.04.010 -
Journal of Addictive Diseases 2022Unemployment is an economic and social phenomenon that has economic, social, personal, and health consequences. This study aimed to investigate the relationship between... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
Unemployment is an economic and social phenomenon that has economic, social, personal, and health consequences. This study aimed to investigate the relationship between unemployment and alcohol use and smoking as a systematic review and meta-analysis. The two databases PubMed and Scopus were selected for the search and using a set of keywords, these two sources of scientific information were searched from 2004 to June 2021 and 1996 until June 2021, respectively. To meta-analyze the relationship between unemployment and smoking and alcohol use, odds ratio and confidence interval were calculated for this relationship. The meta-analysis was performed based on a random-effects. Subgroups were also performed for men and women. Heterogeneity in studies as well as publication bias were also examined. A total of 52 cross-sectional and cohort studies were included in the meta-analysis. In the relationship between unemployment and alcohol use, the odds ratio was 1.25 and the confidence interval was between 1.12 and 1.41. In the relationship between unemployment and smoking, the odds ratio was 1.43 and the confidence interval was between 1.13 and 1.81. According to the results, it can be said that unemployment increases the likelihood of alcohol use and smoking. Therefore, policymakers must pay more attention to the health consequences of economic problems, especially unemployment.
Topics: Alcohol Drinking; Cross-Sectional Studies; Female; Humans; Male; Odds Ratio; Smoking; Unemployment
PubMed: 34747337
DOI: 10.1080/10550887.2021.1981124