1. Home
  2. smoke

smoke

Screening for Lung Cancer US Preventive Services Task Force Recommendation Statement

Author/s: 
US Preventive Services Task Force

Importance: Lung cancer is the second most common cancer and the leading cause of cancer death in the US. In 2020, an estimated 228 820 persons were diagnosed with lung cancer, and 135 720 persons died of the disease. The most important risk factor for lung cancer is smoking. Increasing age is also a risk factor for lung cancer. Lung cancer has a generally poor prognosis, with an overall 5-year survival rate of 20.5%. However, early-stage lung cancer has a better prognosis and is more amenable to treatment.

Objective: To update its 2013 recommendation, the US Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) commissioned a systematic review on the accuracy of screening for lung cancer with low-dose computed tomography (LDCT) and on the benefits and harms of screening for lung cancer and commissioned a collaborative modeling study to provide information about the optimum age at which to begin and end screening, the optimal screening interval, and the relative benefits and harms of different screening strategies compared with modified versions of multivariate risk prediction models.

Population: This recommendation statement applies to adults aged 50 to 80 years who have a 20 pack-year smoking history and currently smoke or have quit within the past 15 years.

Evidence assessment: The USPSTF concludes with moderate certainty that annual screening for lung cancer with LDCT has a moderate net benefit in persons at high risk of lung cancer based on age, total cumulative exposure to tobacco smoke, and years since quitting smoking.

Recommendation: The USPSTF recommends annual screening for lung cancer with LDCT in adults aged 50 to 80 years who have a 20 pack-year smoking history and currently smoke or have quit within the past 15 years. Screening should be discontinued once a person has not smoked for 15 years or develops a health problem that substantially limits life expectancy or the ability or willingness to have curative lung surgery. (B recommendation) This recommendation replaces the 2013 USPSTF statement that recommended annual screening for lung cancer with LDCT in adults aged 55 to 80 years who have a 30 pack-year smoking history and currently smoke or have quit within the past 15 years.

Keywords 
tobacco smoking Cancer Screeing

Final Update Summary: Abdominal Aortic Aneurysm: Screening

Author/s: 
U. S. Preventive Services Task Force

IMPORTANCE:

An abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA) is typically defined as aortic enlargement with a diameter of 3.0 cm or larger. The prevalence of AAA has declined over the past 2 decades among screened men 65 years or older in various European countries. The current prevalence of AAA in the United States is unclear because of the low uptake of screening. Most AAAs are asymptomatic until they rupture. Although the risk for rupture varies greatly by aneurysm size, the associated risk for death with rupture is as high as 81%.

OBJECTIVE:

To update its 2014 recommendation, the USPSTF commissioned a review of the evidence on the effectiveness of 1-time and repeated screening for AAA, the associated harms of screening, and the benefits and harms of available treatments for small AAAs (3.0-5.4 cm in diameter) identified through screening.

POPULATION:

This recommendation applies to asymptomatic adults 50 years or older. However, the randomized trial evidence focuses almost entirely on men aged 65 to 75 years.

EVIDENCE ASSESSMENT:

Based on a review of the evidence, the USPSTF concludes with moderate certainty that screening for AAA in men aged 65 to 75 years who have ever smoked is of moderate net benefit. The USPSTF concludes with moderate certainty that screening for AAA in men aged 65 to 75 years who have never smoked is of small net benefit. The USPSTF concludes that the evidence is insufficient to determine the net benefit of screening for AAA in women aged 65 to 75 years who have ever smoked or have a family history of AAA. The USPSTF concludes with moderate certainty that the harms of screening for AAA in women aged 65 to 75 years who have never smoked and have no family history of AAA outweigh the benefits.

RECOMMENDATIONS:

The USPSTF recommends 1-time screening for AAA with ultrasonography in men aged 65 to 75 years who have ever smoked. (B recommendation) The USPSTF recommends that clinicians selectively offer screening for AAA with ultrasonography in men aged 65 to 75 years who have never smoked rather than routinely screening all men in this group. (C recommendation) The USPSTF recommends against routine screening for AAA with ultrasonography in women who have never smoked and have no family history of AAA. (D recommendation) The USPSTF concludes that the current evidence is insufficient to assess the balance of benefits and harms of screening for AAA with ultrasonography in women aged 65 to 75 years who have ever smoked or have a family history of AAA. (I statement).

Keywords 
abdominal aortic aneurysm recommendation AAA ultrasonography risk smoke

Mobile phone text messaging and app-based interventions for smoking cessation

Author/s: 
Whittaker, R, McRobbie, H, Bullen, C, Rodgers, A, Gu, Y, Dobson, R

Abstract

Background

Mobile phone‐based smoking cessation support (mCessation) offers the opportunity to provide behavioural support to those who cannot or do not want face‐to‐face support. In addition, mCessation can be automated and therefore provided affordably even in resource‐poor settings. This is an update of a Cochrane Review first published in 2006, and previously updated in 2009 and 2012.

Objectives

To determine whether mobile phone‐based smoking cessation interventions increase smoking cessation rates in people who smoke.

Search methods

For this update, we searched the Cochrane Tobacco Addiction Group's Specialised Register, along with clinicaltrials.gov and the ICTRP. The date of the most recent searches was 29 October 2018.

Selection criteria

Participants were smokers of any age. Eligible interventions were those testing any type of predominantly mobile phone‐based programme (such as text messages (or smartphone app) for smoking cessation. We included randomised controlled trials with smoking cessation outcomes reported at at least six‐month follow‐up.

Data collection and analysis

We used standard methodological procedures described in the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions. We performed both study eligibility checks and data extraction in duplicate. We performed meta‐analyses of the most stringent measures of abstinence at six months' follow‐up or longer, using a Mantel‐Haenszel random‐effects method, pooling studies with similar interventions and similar comparators to calculate risk ratios (RR) and their corresponding 95% confidence intervals (CI). We conducted analyses including all randomised (with dropouts counted as still smoking) and complete cases only.

Main results

This review includes 26 studies (33,849 participants). Overall, we judged 13 studies to be at low risk of bias, three at high risk, and the remainder at unclear risk. Settings and recruitment procedures varied across studies, but most studies were conducted in high‐income countries. There was moderate‐certainty evidence, limited by inconsistency, that automated text messaging interventions were more effective than minimal smoking cessation support (RR 1.54, 95% CI 1.19 to 2.00; I2 = 71%; 13 studies, 14,133 participants). There was also moderate‐certainty evidence, limited by imprecision, that text messaging added to other smoking cessation interventions was more effective than the other smoking cessation interventions alone (RR 1.59, 95% CI 1.09 to 2.33; I2 = 0%, 4 studies, 997 participants). Two studies comparing text messaging with other smoking cessation interventions, and three studies comparing high‐ and low‐intensity messaging, did not show significant differences between groups (RR 0.92 95% CI 0.61 to 1.40; I2 = 27%; 2 studies, 2238 participants; and RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.95 to 1.06; I2 = 0%, 3 studies, 12,985 participants, respectively) but confidence intervals were wide in the former comparison. Five studies compared a smoking cessation smartphone app with lower‐intensity smoking cessation support (either a lower‐intensity app or non‐app minimal support). We pooled the evidence and deemed it to be of very low certainty due to inconsistency and serious imprecision. It provided no evidence that smartphone apps improved the likelihood of smoking cessation (RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.66 to 1.52; I2 = 59%; 5 studies, 3079 participants). Other smartphone apps tested differed from the apps included in the analysis, as two used contingency management and one combined text messaging with an app, and so we did not pool them. Using complete case data as opposed to using data from all participants randomised did not substantially alter the findings.

Authors' conclusions

There is moderate‐certainty evidence that automated text message‐based smoking cessation interventions result in greater quit rates than minimal smoking cessation support. There is moderate‐certainty evidence of the benefit of text messaging interventions in addition to other smoking cessation support in comparison with that smoking cessation support alone. The evidence comparing smartphone apps with less intensive support was of very low certainty, and more randomised controlled trials are needed to test these interventions.

Plain Language Summary

Can programmes delivered by mobile phones help people to stop smoking?

Background

Tobacco smoking is a leading cause of preventable death. Mobile phones can be used to support people who want to quit smoking. In this review, we have focused on programmes that use text messages or smartphone apps to do so.

Search date

We searched for published and unpublished studies in October 2018.

Study characteristics

We included 26 randomised controlled studies (involving over 33,000 people) that compared smoking quit rates in people who received text messages or smartphone apps to help them quit, with people who did not receive these programmes. We were interested in studies that measured smoking for six months or longer.

Key results

We found that text messaging programmes may be effective in supporting people to quit, increasing quit rates by 50% to 60%. This was the case when they were compared to minimal support or were tested as an addition to other forms of stop‐smoking support. There was not enough evidence to determine the effect of smartphone apps.

Quality and completeness of the evidence

Most of the studies were of high quality, although three studies had high drop out rates. We are moderately confident in the results of the text messaging interventions, but there were some issues with unexplained differences between study findings and for some comparisons there was not much data. We have low confidence in the results concerning smartphone apps, and more studies are needed in this field.

Keywords 
smoking cessation mobile phone tobacco tobacco use text message

Draft Recommendation Statement, Abdominal Aortic Aneurysm: Screening

Draft: Recommendation Summary

Population
Recommendation
Grade
(What's This?)

Men ages 65 to 74 years who have ever smoked

The USPSTF recommends one-time screening for abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA) with ultrasonography in men ages 65 to 75 years who have ever smoked.

B

Men ages 65 to 75 years who have never smoked

The USPSTF recommends that clinicians selectively offer screening for AAA with ultrasonography in men ages 65 to 75 years who have never smoked rather than routinely screening all men in this group. Evidence indicates that the net benefit of screening all men in this group is small. In determining whether this service is appropriate in individual cases, patients and clinicians should consider the balance of benefits and harms on the basis of evidence relevant to the patient’s medical history, family history, other risk factors, and personal values.

C

Women who have never smoked with no family history

The USPSTF recommends against routine screening for AAA with ultrasonography in women who have never smoked and have no family history.

D

Women ages 65 to 75 years who have ever smoked or have a family history

The USPSTF concludes that the current evidence is insufficient to assess the balance of benefits and harms of screening for AAA with ultrasonography in women ages 65 to 75 years who have ever smoked or have a family history.

I

Keywords 
tobacco smoke ultrasonography

Electronic Nicotine Delivery Systems (ENDS)

Electronic nicotine delivery systems (ENDS), also called electronic cigarettes, e-cigarettes, vaping devices, or vape pens, are battery-powered devices used to smoke or “vape” a flavored solution which usually contains nicotine. The American Academy of Family Physicians (AAFP) recognizes the alarmingly increased use of ENDS, especially among youth and young adults, as well as its use by those attempting to quit smoking tobacco.

The AAFP calls for further research to assess ENDS’ safety, quality, and efficacy as a potential cessation device. The AAFP also recommends that the marketing and advertising of ENDS to children and youth cease immediately. The AAFP encourages members to screen for ENDS use starting with school-age children, to discuss the potential harms of ENDS, and to recommend cessation interventions with e-cigarette users. The AAFP encourages members to inform patients who use ENDS, especially children, that the majority of these products contain nicotine and are addictive.  (2014 COD) (April 2019 BOD)

Keywords 
adolescent adult child nicotine tobacco vaping family electronic protocol U.S.

Different doses, durations and modes of delivery of nicotine replacement therapy for smoking cessation

Author/s: 
Lindson, Nicola, Chepkin, Samantha C., Ye, Weiyu, Fanshawe, Thomas R., Bullen, Chris, Hartmann-Boyce, Jamie

BACKGROUND:

Nicotine replacement therapy (NRT) aims to replace nicotine from cigarettes to ease the transition from cigarette smoking to abstinence. It works by reducing the intensity of craving and withdrawal symptoms. Although there is clear evidence that NRT used after smoking cessation is effective, it is unclear whether higher doses, longer durations of treatment, or using NRT before cessation add to its effectiveness.

OBJECTIVES:

To determine the effectiveness and safety of different forms, deliveries, doses, durations and schedules of NRT, for achieving long-term smoking cessation, compared to one another.

SEARCH METHODS:

We searched the Cochrane Tobacco Addiction Group trials register, and trial registries for papers mentioning NRT in the title, abstract or keywords. Date of most recent search: April 2018.

SELECTION CRITERIA:

Randomized trials in people motivated to quit, comparing one type of NRT use with another. We excluded trials that did not assess cessation as an outcome, with follow-up less than six months, and with additional intervention components not matched between arms. Trials comparing NRT to control, and trials comparing NRT to other pharmacotherapies, are covered elsewhere.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS:

We followed standard Cochrane methods. Smokingabstinence was measured after at least six months, using the most rigorous definition available. We extracted data on cardiac adverse events (AEs), serious adverse events (SAEs), and study withdrawals due to treatment. We calculated the risk ratio (RR) and the 95% confidence interval (CI) for each outcome for each study, where possible. We grouped eligible studies according to the type of comparison. We carried out meta-analyses where appropriate, using a Mantel-Haenszel fixed-effect model.

MAIN RESULTS:

We identified 63 trials with 41,509 participants. Most recruited adults either from the community or from healthcare clinics. People enrolled in the studies typically smoked at least 15 cigarettes a day. We judged 24 of the 63 studies to be at high risk of bias, but restricting the analysis only to those studies at low or unclear risk of bias did not significantly alter results, apart from in the case of the preloading comparison. There is high-certainty evidence that combination NRT (fast-acting form + patch) results in higher long-term quit rates than single form (RR 1.25, 95% CI 1.15 to 1.36, 14 studies, 11,356 participants; I2 = 4%). Moderate-certainty evidence, limited by imprecision, indicates that 42/44 mg are as effective as 21/22 mg (24-hour) patches (RR 1.09, 95% CI 0.93 to 1.29, 5 studies, 1655 participants; I2 = 38%), and that 21 mg are more effective than 14 mg (24-hour) patches (RR 1.48, 95% CI 1.06 to 2.08, 1 study, 537 participants). Moderate-certainty evidence (again limited by imprecision) also suggests a benefit of 25 mg over 15 mg (16-hour) patches, but the lower limit of the CI encompassed no difference (RR 1.19, 95% CI 1.00 to 1.41, 3 studies, 3446 participants; I2 = 0%). Five studies comparing 4 mg gum to 2 mg gum found a benefit of the higher dose (RR 1.43, 95% CI 1.12 to 1.83, 5 studies, 856 participants; I2 = 63%); however, results of a subgroup analysis suggest that only smokers who are highly dependent may benefit. Nine studies tested the effect of using NRT prior to quit day (preloading) in comparison to using it from quit day onward; there was moderate-certainty evidence, limited by risk of bias, of a favourable effect of preloading on abstinence (RR 1.25, 95% CI 1.08 to 1.44, 9 studies, 4395 participants; I2 = 0%). High-certainty evidence from eight studies suggests that using either a form of fast-acting NRT or a nicotine patch results in similar long-term quit rates (RR 0.90, 95% CI 0.77 to 1.05, 8 studies, 3319 participants; I2 = 0%). We found no evidence of an effect of duration of nicotine patch use (low-certainty evidence); 16-hour versus 24-hour daily patch use; duration of combination NRT use (low- and very low-certainty evidence); tapering of patch dose versus abrupt patch cessation; fast-acting NRT type (very low-certainty evidence); duration of nicotine gum use; ad lib versus fixed dosing of fast-acting NRT; free versus purchased NRT; length of provision of free NRT; ceasing versus continuing patch use on lapse; and participant- versus clinician-selected NRT. However, in most cases these findings are based on very low- or low-certainty evidence, and are the findings from single studies.AEs, SAEs and withdrawals due to treatment were all measured variably and infrequently across studies, resulting in low- or very low-certainty evidence for all comparisons. Most comparisons found no evidence of an effect on cardiac AEs, SAEs or withdrawals. Rates of these were low overall. Significantly more withdrawals due to treatment were reported in participants using nasal spray in comparison to patch in one trial (RR 3.47, 95% CI 1.15 to 10.46, 922 participants; very low certainty) and in participants using 42/44 mg patches in comparison to 21/22 mg patches across two trials (RR 4.99, 95% CI 1.60 to 15.50, 2 studies, 544 participants; I2 = 0%; low certainty).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS:

There is high-certainty evidence that using combination NRT versus single-form NRT, and 4 mg versus 2 mg nicotine gum, can increase the chances of successfully stopping smoking. For patch dose comparisons, evidence was of moderate certainty, due to imprecision. Twenty-one mg patches resulted in higher quit rates than 14 mg (24-hour) patches, and using 25 mg patches resulted in higher quit rates than using 15 mg (16-hour) patches, although in the latter case the CI included one. There was no clear evidence of superiority for 42/44 mg over 21/22 mg (24-hour) patches. Using a fast-acting form of NRT, such as gum or lozenge, resulted in similar quit rates to nicotine patches. There is moderate-certainty evidence that using NRT prior to quitting may improve quit rates versus using it from quit date only; however, further research is needed to ensure the robustness of this finding. Evidence for the comparative safety and tolerability of different types of NRT use is of low and very low certainty. New studies should ensure that AEs, SAEs and withdrawals due to treatment are both measured and reported.

Keywords 
smoking nicotine tobacco use risk
Subscribe to smoke