Search

Introduction: Available evidence is mixed concerning associations between smoking status and COVID-19 clinical outcomes. Effects of nicotine replacement therapy (NRT) and vaccination status on COVID-19 outcomes in smokers are unknown., Methods: Electronic health record data from 104 590 COVID-19 patients hospitalized February 1, 2020 to September 30, 2021 in 21 U.S. health systems were analyzed to assess associations of smoking status, in-hospital NRT prescription, and vaccination status with in-hospital death and ICU admission., Results: Current (n = 7764) and never smokers (n = 57 454) did not differ on outcomes after adjustment for age, sex, race, ethnicity, insurance, body mass index, and comorbidities. Former (vs never) smokers (n = 33 101) had higher adjusted odds of death (aOR, 1.11; 95% CI, 1.06-1.17) and ICU admission (aOR, 1.07; 95% CI, 1.04-1.11). Among current smokers, NRT prescription was associated with reduced mortality (aOR, 0.64; 95% CI, 0.50-0.82). Vaccination effects were significantly moderated by smoking status; vaccination was more strongly associated with reduced mortality among current (aOR, 0.29; 95% CI, 0.16-0.66) and former smokers (aOR, 0.47; 95% CI, 0.39-0.57) than for never smokers (aOR, 0.67; 95% CI, 0.57, 0.79). Vaccination was associated with reduced ICU admission more strongly among former (aOR, 0.74; 95% CI, 0.66-0.83) than never smokers (aOR, 0.87; 95% CI, 0.79-0.97)., Conclusions: Former but not current smokers hospitalized with COVID-19 are at higher risk for severe outcomes. SARS-CoV-2 vaccination is associated with better hospital outcomes in COVID-19 patients, especially current and former smokers. NRT during COVID-19 hospitalization may reduce mortality for current smokers., Implications: Prior findings regarding associations between smoking and severe COVID-19 disease outcomes have been inconsistent. This large cohort study suggests potential beneficial effects of nicotine replacement therapy on COVID-19 outcomes in current smokers and outsized benefits of SARS-CoV-2 vaccination in current and former smokers. Such findings may influence clinical practice and prevention efforts and motivate additional research that explores mechanisms for these effects., (© The Author(s) 2022. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the Society for Research on Nicotine and Tobacco.)

Background: There is mixed evidence about the relations of current versus past cancer with severe COVID-19 outcomes and how they vary by patient and cancer characteristics., Methods: Electronic health record data of 104,590 adult hospitalized patients with COVID-19 were obtained from 21 United States health systems from February 2020 through September 2021. In-hospital mortality and ICU admission were predicted from current and past cancer diagnoses. Moderation by patient characteristics, vaccination status, cancer type, and year of the pandemic was examined., Results: 6.8% of the patients had current (n = 7,141) and 6.5% had past (n = 6,749) cancer diagnoses. Current cancer predicted both severe outcomes but past cancer did not; adjusted odds ratios (aOR) for mortality were 1.58 [95% confidence interval (CI), 1.46-1.70] and 1.04 (95% CI, 0.96-1.13), respectively. Mortality rates decreased over the pandemic but the incremental risk of current cancer persisted, with the increment being larger among younger vs. older patients. Prior COVID-19 vaccination reduced mortality generally and among those with current cancer (aOR, 0.69; 95% CI, 0.53-0.90)., Conclusions: Current cancer, especially among younger patients, posed a substantially increased risk for death and ICU admission among patients with COVID-19; prior COVID-19 vaccination mitigated the risk associated with current cancer. Past history of cancer was not associated with higher risks for severe COVID-19 outcomes for most cancer types., Impact: This study clarifies the characteristics that modify the risk associated with cancer on severe COVID-19 outcomes across the first 20 months of the COVID-19 pandemic. See related commentary by Egan et al., p. 3., (©2022 The Authors; Published by the American Association for Cancer Research.)

Background: Fax referral programs quickly and economically can link smokers' visiting primary care clinics to state-based telephone quitlines. Yet, it is unclear how to optimize use of this strategy., Purpose: To evaluate the potential of enhanced academic detailing in clinics (i.e., on-site training, technical assistance, and performance feedback) to boost utilization of a fax referral program called Fax to Quit., Design: Participants were randomized to one of two intervention conditions., Setting/participants: Participants were drawn from 49 primary care clinics in southeastern Wisconsin. The sample size was based on a power analysis in which the control intervention condition was estimated to generate 0.5 referrals/clinic/month and the experimental condition 2.0 referrals/clinic/month., Interventions: One of two fax referral program interventions was administered: the control condition Fax to Quit-Only (F2Q-Only) or the experimental condition Fax to Quit plus Enhanced Academic Detailing (F2Q+EAD)., Main Outcome Measures: Clinic- and clinician-specific referral and quality referral rates (those resulting in quitline enrollment) were measured for 13 months post-intervention, starting in March 2009., Results: Mean number of post-intervention referrals/clinician to the Wisconsin Tobacco Quitline was 5.6 times greater for F2Q+EAD (8.5, SD=7.0) compared to F2Q-Only (1.6, SD=3.6, p<0.001). The F2Q+EAD (4.8, SD=4.1) condition produced a greater mean number of quality referrals/clinician than did the F2Q-Only (0.86, SD=1.8, p<0.001) condition. Data were analyzed in 2010., Conclusions: Enhanced academic detailing, which included on-site training, technical assistance, and performance feedback, increased the number of referrals more than fivefold over a fax referral program implemented without such enhanced academic detailing., Trial Registration: This study is registered at Clinicaltrials.gov NCT00989755., (Copyright © 2012 American Journal of Preventive Medicine. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)