Search

Introduction Current evidence indicates that smoking worsens COVID-19 outcomes. However, when studies restricted their analyses to current smokers, the risks for COVID-19 severity and death are inconsistent. Aims and Methods This meta-analysis explored the association between current smoking and the risk for mortality based on the studies that reported all three categories of smoking (current, former, and never smokers) to overcome the limitation of the previous meta-analyses which former smokers might have been classified as nonsmokers. We searched PubMed and Embase up to January 1, 2021. We included studies reporting all three categories of smoking behaviors of COVID-19 patients and mortality outcomes. A random-effects meta-analysis and meta-regression were used to examine relationships in the data. Results A total of 34 articles with 35 193 COVID-19 patients was included. The meta-analysis confirmed the association between current smoking (odds ratio [OR] 1.26, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.01–1.58) and former smoking (OR 1.76, 95% CI: 1.53–2.03) with COVID-19 mortality. We also found that the risk for COVID-19 death in current smokers does not vary by age, but significantly drops by age in former smokers. Moreover, current smokers in non-high-income countries have higher risks of COVID-19 death compared with high-income countries (OR 3.11, 95% CI: 2.04–4.72 vs. OR 1.14, 95% CI: 0.91–1.43; p =.015). Conclusions Current and former smokers are at higher risk of dying from COVID-19. Tobacco control should be strengthened to encourage current smokers to quit and prevent the initiation of smoking. Public health professionals should take the COVID-19 pandemic as an opportunity to promote smoking prevention and cession. Implications This study makes an important contribution to the existing literature by distinguishing between current and former smoking and their separate effects on COVID-19 mortality. We also explore the effects by age of patients and country income level. Findings from this study provide empirical evidence against misinformation about the relationship between smoking and COVID-19 mortality. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The threat that the tobacco epidemic poses to public health underscores the importance of comprehensive tobacco‐related regulation. Despite aiming to reduce the prevalence of smoking, Indonesia still falls short of this goal. In contrast, within the same region, Thailand's achievement in controlling tobacco serves as a potential role model for Indonesia. To understand the issue, we conducted a literature review of the current regulatory framework as well as the implementation of the World Health Organization's Framework Convention on Tobacco Control (FCTC) and MPOWER framework in both countries. The review was supplemented with a Focus Group Discussion and an in‐depth interview with stakeholders in Thailand and Indonesia. This study finds that: (1) Indonesia currently lacks a strong tobacco control policy champion, whereas Thailand has several authorities that focus on the issue; (2) Thailand's tobacco product advertising and promotion and smoking bans are more restrictive compared to Indonesia's policies; and (3) Thailand's policies on tobacco pictorial health warnings, pharmacotherapy, and excise taxes are more extensive than Indonesia's. We recommend that Indonesia ratify the FCTC as the foundation of tobacco control policies while also strengthening and coordinating organizations working on tobacco control, encouraging subnational governments to introduce regulations, and enforce control, as well as improving excise policies to reduce the affordability of tobacco products. Key Points: Indonesia has yet to make significant progress in reducing smoking prevalence.Comprehensive tobacco control regulations are needed.Indonesia currently does not have a strong tobacco control policy, while Thailand has several authorities that focus on this issue.Indonesia needs to ratify the FCTC as a cornerstone of tobacco control policies and strengthen regulations on tobacco control. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

We based our analysis on the data in Table 2 of Kim et al. 3 which, as Yue et al. correctly note, implicitly assumes that the one patient without data on smoking was a nonsmoker. 2 They note that the paper by Kim et al. 3 only reported smoking status for 27 of the 28 hospitalized COVID-19 patients they studied, but did not report which patient did not have data on smoking status. [Extracted from the article]

Rationale: A small number of earlier studies have suggested an effect of temporary abstinence campaigns on alcohol consumption. However, all were based on self-reported consumption estimates., Objectives: Using a time series of 23-year monthly alcohol sales data, this study examined the effect of an annual temporary abstinence campaign, which has been organised annually since 2003 during the Buddhist Lent period (spanning 3 months), on population-level alcohol consumption., Methods: Data used in the analysis included a time series of monthly alcohol sales data from January 1995 to September 2017 and the midyear population counts for those years. Generalised additive models (GAM) were applied to estimate trends as smooth functions of time, while identifying a relationship between the Buddhist Lent abstinence campaigns on alcohol consumption. The sensitivity analysis was performed using a seasonal autoregressive integrated moving average with exogenous variables (SARIMAX) model., Intervention: The Buddhist Lent abstinence campaign is a national mass media campaign combined with community-based activities that encourages alcohol abstinence during the Buddhist Lent period, spanning 3 months and varying between July and October depending on the lunar calendar. The campaign has been organised annually since 2003., Main Outcome: Per capita alcohol consumption using monthly alcohol sales data divided by the midyear total population number used as a proxy., Results: Median monthly per capita consumption was 0.43 (IQR: 0.37 to 0.51) litres of pure alcohol. Over the study period, two peaks of alcohol consumption were in March and December of each year. The significant difference between before-campaign and after-campaign coefficients in the GAM, -0.102 (95% CI: -0.163 to -0.042), indicated an effect of the campaign on alcohol consumption after adjusting for the time trend and monthly seasonality, corresponding to an average reduction of 9.97% (95% CI: 3.65% to 24.18%). The sensitivity analyses produced similar results, where the campaign was associated with a decrease in consumption of 8.1% (95% CI: 0.4% to 15.7%)., Conclusions: This study demonstrated that the temporary abstinence campaign was associated with a decrease in population-level alcohol consumption during campaign periods. The finding contributed to a growing body of evidence on the effectiveness of emerging temporary abstinence campaigns., Competing Interests: Competing interests: None declared., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2024. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.)

Background: Tobacco industry denormalisation is a key strategy recommended by the WHO Framework Convention on Tobacco Control as it is associated with reducing smoking behaviours and positively influencing public and policymakers' opinion towards tobacco control. However, studies of awareness of tobacco industry tactics among public health players and policymakers in low-income and middle-income countries are limited., Methods: We conducted an online survey of individuals who had been involved in tobacco control in Thailand. Multivariate ordinal logistic regression analysis was used to determine the association between awareness of tobacco industry tactics and different attitudes towards tobacco industry and perceptions towards e-cigarettes, controlling for role in tobacco control and demographics among 441 respondents., Results: Of the respondents, 11.3% had never heard of any tobacco industry tactics, whereas 11.1% had heard of all tactics asked in the survey. Tobacco industry tactics which were less known by participants were intimidation (30.6%) and illicit trade (37.4%). Participants who were more aware of tobacco industry tactics were more likely to have negative attitudes towards the tobacco industry and e-cigarettes. Compared with active experts of the Provincial Tobacco Products Control Committee and provincial public health officials who work in tobacco control programmes, advocates who worked for civil society organisations in tobacco control were more aware of tobacco industry tactics and had less favourable perceptions of e-cigarettes., Conclusion: This study emphasises the importance of educating public health professionals and policymakers about tobacco industry behaviour, especially in the era of e-cigarettes., Competing Interests: Competing interests: There are no competing interests., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2024. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.)