scholarly journals PER3 VNTR variant and susceptibility to smoking status/substance use disorder in a Turkish population

2020 ◽  
Vol 47 (3) ◽  
pp. 71-74
Author(s):  
AYSE FEYDA NURSAL ◽  
PINAR CETINAY AYDIN ◽  
MEHMET ATILLA UYSAL ◽  
MUSTAFA PEHLIVAN ◽  
YASEMIN OYACI ◽  
...  
2020 ◽  
pp. tobaccocontrol-2020-056000
Author(s):  
Joseph R Guydish ◽  
Elana R Straus ◽  
Thao Le ◽  
Noah Gubner ◽  
Kevin L Delucchi

IntroductionThis study examined the impact of a San Francisco City and County ban on all flavoured tobacco products, including menthol cigarettes, among clients in residential substance use disorder (SUD) treatment.MethodsWe conducted cross-sectional surveys of clients at two residential SUD programmes before the County began enforcing the ban (n=160) and twice after enforcement began (n=102, n=120). The samples were compared on demographic characteristics, smoking status, smoking behaviours and the proportion reporting menthol as their usual cigarette. Menthol smokers were asked whether they smoked only menthol cigarettes, mostly menthol, both menthol and non-menthol or mostly non-menthol. Post-ban samples were asked about awareness of the ban and access to menthol cigarettes.ResultsIn multivariate analyses, we found no evidence that the ban was associated with decreased number of cigarettes per day or increased readiness to quit among current smokers. However, odds were lower post-ban for reporting menthol as the usual cigarette (OR=0.80, 95% CI 0.72 to 0.90), and for smoking only menthol cigarettes (OR=0.19, 95% CI 0.18 to 0.19). Perhaps most importantly, and with the ability to influence all other findings, 50% of self-identified menthol smokers reported purchasing menthol cigarettes in San Francisco nearly 1 year after the ban was implemented.ConclusionIn subgroups where smoking has remained elevated, like those receiving SUD treatment, local menthol bans may have only modest impacts on smoking behaviour. Broader regional, state or national bans, that effectively restrict access to menthol products, may be needed to show stronger effects on smoking behaviour.


2020 ◽  
Vol 9 (9) ◽  
pp. 2710
Author(s):  
Ana Isabel López-Lazcano ◽  
Antoni Gual ◽  
Jordi Colmenero ◽  
Elsa Caballería ◽  
Anna Lligoña ◽  
...  

Tobacco use is more prevalent among alcohol liver disease (ALD) transplant patients and exerts harmful effects to the patient and to the graft. The aims of this study were to examine the impact of smoking status (nonsmoker, ex-smoker, active smoker) on patient survival and clinical outcomes, and to assess risk factors for active smoking before and after liver transplant (LT). An observational retrospective cohort study with 314 ALD patients undergoing LT from January 2004 to April 2016. Recipients were followed until April 2017 or death. Kaplan–Meier and Cox proportional hazards regression analyses were used to assess risk of mortality according to smoking status before LT. Smokers had a 79% higher risk of dying than those who had never smoked or quit smoking before LT. Ex-smokers had a greater survival probability (96.2%, 93.8%, 86.9%, and 83.1% at 1, 3, 5, and 10 years after LT) than active smokers until LT (96.0%, 85.6%, 80.0%, and 70.4%). Active smokers before LT with poor toxicity awareness had more than a twofold higher risk of mortality (Cox HR = 2.20, 95% CI: 1.05–4.58, p = 0.04) than ex-smokers. Younger age (OR = 94), higher Model for End-Stage Liver Disease (MELD) (OR = 1.06), and comorbid substance use disorder (OR = 2.35) were predictors of smoking until LT. Six months or less of alcohol abstinence (OR = 3.23), and comorbid substance use disorder (OR = 4.87) were predictors of active smoking after LT. Quitting smoking before transplantation improved survival. Evidence based smoking cessation interventions should be offered before and after LT.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document