Dataset Information

Lung Cancer Mortality Associated With Smoking and Smoking Cessation Among People Living With HIV in the United States.

ABSTRACT:

Importance

Lung cancer has become a leading cause of death among people living with human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) (PLWH). Over 40% of PLWH in the United States smoke cigarettes; HIV independently increases the risk of lung cancer.

Objective

To project cumulative lung cancer mortality by smoking exposure among PLWH in care.

Design

Using a validated microsimulation model of HIV, we applied standard demographic data and recent HIV/AIDS epidemiology statistics with specific details on smoking exposure, combining smoking status (current, former, or never) and intensity (heavy, moderate, or light). We stratified reported mortality rates attributable to lung cancer and other non-AIDS-related causes by smoking exposure and accounted for an HIV-conferred independent risk of lung cancer. Lung cancer mortality risk ratios (vs never smokers) for male and female current moderate smokers were 23.6 and 24.2, respectively, and for those who quit smoking at age 40 years were 4.3 and 4.5. In sensitivity analyses, we accounted for nonadherence to antiretroviral therapy (ART) and for a range of HIV-conferred risks of death from lung cancer and from other non-AIDS-related diseases (eg, cardiovascular disease).

Main outcomes and measures

Cumulative lung cancer mortality by age 80 years (stratified by sex, age at entry to HIV care, and smoking exposure); total expected lung cancer deaths, accounting for nonadherence to ART.

Results

Among 40-year-old men with HIV, estimated cumulative lung cancer mortality for heavy, moderate, and light smokers who continued to smoke was 28.9%, 23.0%, and 18.8%, respectively; for those who quit smoking at age 40 years, it was 7.9%, 6.1%, and 4.3%; and for never smokers, it was 1.6%. Among women, the corresponding mortality for current smokers was 27.8%, 20.9%, and 16.6%; for former smokers, it was 7.5%, 5.2%, and 3.7%; and for never smokers, it was 1.2%. ART-adherent individuals who continued to smoke were 6 to 13 times more likely to die from lung cancer than from traditional AIDS-related causes, depending on sex and smoking intensity. Due to greater AIDS-related mortality risks, individuals with incomplete ART adherence had higher overall mortality but lower lung cancer mortality. Applying model projections to the approximately 644 200 PLWH aged 20 to 64 in care in the United States, 59 900 (9.3%) are expected to die from lung cancer if smoking habits do not change.

Conclusions and relevance

Those PLWH who adhere to ART but smoke are substantially more likely to die from lung cancer than from AIDS-related causes.

SUBMITTER: Reddy KP

PROVIDER: S-EPMC5675744 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:IntroductionThe prevalence of smoking among people living with HIV (PLWH) in Uganda is high.Aims and methodsWe assessed the smoking patterns, behaviors, and associated factors among PLWH in Uganda through a cross-sectional survey. Descriptive statistics were used to describe smoking patterns and behaviors. Logistic regression was used to identify factors associated with current smoking status.ResultsWe recruited 777 participants between October and November 2019: 387 (49.8%) current smokers and 390 (50.2%) nonsmokers. 60.9% were males, and the mean age was 40.5 (SD 10.7) years. In multivariate logistic regression, the following increased the odds of being a current smoker: being male (odds ratio [OR] 6.60 [95% confidence interval, CI = 4.34-10.04]), having at least two smokers among five closest friends (OR 3.97 [95% CI = 2.08-7.59]), living in smoking-permitted households (OR 5.83 [95% CI = 3.32-10.23]), alcohol use (OR 3.96 [95% CI = 2.34-6.71]), a higher perceived stress score (OR 2.23 [95% CI = 1.50-3.34]), and higher health-related quality of life (OR 5.25 [95% CI = 1.18-23.35]). Among smokers, the mean Fagerström Test for Nicotine Dependence score was 3.0 (SD 1.9), and 52.5% were making plans to quit. Self-efficacy to resist smoking and knowledge of the impact of smoking on PLWH's health were low.ConclusionsBeing male, having at least two smokers among five closest friends, living in smoking-permitted households, alcohol use, higher perceived stress scores, and higher health-related quality of life were associated with being a current smoker. Smokers had low to moderate nicotine dependence, high willingness to quit, and low self-efficacy.ImplicationsFuture behavioral smoking cessation interventions for PLWH should address co-consumption with alcohol and comorbid mental health conditions that are common among PLWH such as stress. In addition, they should take into account the lack of knowledge among this population of the impact of smoking on their health, and low self-efficacy. Given the relatively low levels of nicotine dependency and high levels of willingness to quit in our sample, smoking cessation interventions, if offered, are likely to support this population in achieving long-term smoking abstinence.

Project description:BackgroundThe prevalence of smoking among people living with HIV (PLHIV) is higher than that reported in the general population, and it is a significant risk factor for noncommunicable diseases in this group. Mobile phone interventions to promote healthier behaviors (mobile health, mHealth) have the potential to reach a large number of people at a low cost. It has been hypothesized that mHealth interventions may not be as effective as face-to-face strategies in achieving smoking cessation, but there is no systematic evidence to support this, especially among PLHIV.ObjectiveThis study aimed to compare two modes of intervention delivery (mHealth vs face-to-face) for smoking cessation among PLHIV.MethodsLiterature on randomized controlled trials (RCTs) investigating effects of mHealth or face-to-face intervention strategies on short-term (4 weeks to <6 months) and long-term (≥6 months) smoking abstinence among PLHIV was sought. We systematically reviewed relevant RCTs and conducted pairwise meta-analyses to estimate relative treatment effects of mHealth and face-to-face interventions using standard care as comparison. Given the absence of head-to-head trials comparing mHealth with face-to-face interventions, we performed adjusted indirect comparison meta-analyses to compare these interventions.ResultsA total of 10 studies involving 1772 PLHIV met the inclusion criteria. The average age of the study population was 45 years, and women comprised about 37%. In the short term, mHealth-delivered interventions were significantly more efficacious in increasing smoking cessation than no intervention control (risk ratio, RR, 2.81, 95% CI 1.44-5.49; n=726) and face-to-face interventions (RR 2.31, 95% CI 1.13-4.72; n=726). In the short term, face-to-face interventions were no more effective than no intervention in increasing smoking cessation (RR 1.22, 95% CI 0.94-1.58; n=1144). In terms of achieving long-term results among PLHIV, there was no significant difference in the rates of smoking cessation between those who received mHealth-delivered interventions, face-to-face interventions, or no intervention. Trial sequential analysis showed that only 15.16% (726/1304) and 5.56% (632/11,364) of the required information sizes were accrued to accept or reject a 25% relative risk reduction for short- and long-term smoking cessation treatment effects. In addition, sequential monitoring boundaries were not crossed, indicating that the cumulative evidence may be unreliable and inconclusive.ConclusionsCompared with face-to-face interventions, mHealth-delivered interventions can better increase smoking cessation rate in the short term. The evidence that mHealth increases smoking cessation rate in the short term is encouraging but not sufficient to allow a definitive conclusion presently. Future research should focus on strategies for sustaining smoking cessation treatment effects among PLHIV in the long term.

Project description:BackgroundLung cancer is one of the most common causes of death from cancer worldwide. Smoking induces and aggravates many health problems, including vascular diseases, respiratory illnesses and cancers. Tobacco smoking constitutes the most important risk factor for lung cancer. Most people with lung cancer are still active smokers at diagnosis or frequently relapse after smoking cessation. Quitting smoking is the most effective way for smokers to reduce the risk of premature death and disability. People with lung cancer may benefit from stopping smoking. Whether smoking cessation interventions are effective for people with lung cancer and whether one method of quitting is more effective than any other has not been systematically reviewed.ObjectivesTo determine the effectiveness of smoking cessation programmes for people with lung cancer.Search methodsWe searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE (accessed via PubMed) and Embase up to 22 December 2018. We also searched the American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) Annual Meeting proceedings, the lung cancer sections of the proceedings of the ESMO Congress, the lung cancer sections of the proceedings of the European Conference of Clinical Oncology (ECCO) Congress, the World Conference on Lung Cancer proceedings, the Society for Research on Nicotine and Tobacco Annual Meeting from 2013, the Food and Drug Administration website, the European Medicine Agency for drug registration website, the World Health Organization (WHO) International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP) search portal, ClinicalTrials.gov, and the metaRegister of Controlled Trials (mRCT) to 30 December 2018. We applied no restriction on language of publication.Selection criteriaWe planned to include any randomised controlled trial (RCT) of any psychosocial or pharmacological smoking cessation intervention or combinations of both, compared with no intervention, a different psychosocial or pharmacological (or both) intervention or placebo for pharmacological interventions in people with lung cancer.Data collection and analysisTwo review authors independently screened the studies from the initial search for potential trials for inclusion. We planned to use standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane. We found no trials that met the inclusion criteria.Main resultsWe identified no RCTs that met our inclusion criteria. Among the 1817 records retrieved using our search strategy, we retrieved 19 studies for further investigation. We excluded 15 trials: ten trials because we could not distinguish people with lung cancer from the other participants, or the participants were not people with lung cancer, four because they were not randomised, or RCTs. We excluded one trial because, though it was completed in 2004, no results are available. We assessed four ongoing trials for inclusion when data become available.Authors' conclusionsThere were no RCTs that determined the effectiveness of any type of smoking cessation programme for people with lung cancer. There was insufficient evidence to determine whether smoking cessation interventions are effective for people with lung cancer and whether one programme is more effective than any other. People with lung cancer should be encouraged to quit smoking and offered smoking cessation interventions. However, due to the lack of RCTs, the efficacy of smoking cessation interventions for people with lung cancer cannot be evaluated and concluded. This systematic review identified a need for RCTs to explore these.

Project description:BackgroundContinued smoking after stroke is associated with a high risk of stroke recurrence and other cardiovascular disease. We sought to comprehensively understand the epidemiology of smoking cessation in stroke survivors in the United States. Furthermore, we compared smoking cessation in stroke and cancer survivors because cancer is another smoking-related condition in which smoking cessation is prioritized.MethodsWe performed a cross-sectional analysis of data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System, an annual, nationally representative health survey. Using pooled data from 2013 to 2019, we identified stroke and cancer survivors with a history of smoking. We used survey procedures to estimate frequencies and summarize quit ratios with attention to demographic and geographic (state-wise and rural-urban) factors for stroke survivors. The quit ratio is conventionally defined as the proportion of ever smokers who have quit. Then, we used multivariable logistic regression to compare quit ratios in stroke and cancer survivors while adjusting for demographics and smoking-related comorbidities.ResultsAmong 4 434 604 Americans with a history of stroke and smoking, the median age was 68 years (interquartile range, 59-76), and 45.4% were women. The overall quit ratio was 60.8% (95% CI, 60.1%-61.6%). Quit ratios varied by age group, sex, race and ethnicity, and several geographic factors. There was marked geographic variation in quit ratios, ranging from 48.3% in Kentucky to 71.5% in California. Furthermore, compared with cancer survivors, stroke survivors were less likely to have quit smoking (odds ratio, 0.72 [95% CI, 0.67-0.79]) after accounting for differences in demographics and smoking-related comorbidities.ConclusionsThere were considerable demographic and geographic disparities in smoking quit ratios in stroke survivors, who were less likely to have quit smoking than cancer survivors. A targeted initiative is needed to improve smoking cessation for stroke survivors.