The effects of smoking on Corona Virus Disease 2019 are currently unknown. The purpose of this study was to systematically examine the prevalence of current smoking among hospitalized patients with COVID-19 in China, considering the high-population smoking prevalence in China (26.6%). A systematic review of the literature (PubMed) was performed on April 1. Thirteen studies examining the clinical characteristics of hospitalized COVID-19 patients in China and presenting data on the smoking status were found. The pooled prevalence of current smoking from all studies was calculated by random-effect meta-analysis. To address the possibility that some smokers had quit shortly before hospitalization and were classified as former smokers on admission to the hospital, we performed a secondary analysis in which all former smokers were classified as current smokers. A total of 5960 patients were included in the studies identified. The current smoking prevalence ranged from 1.4% (95% CI 0.0-3.4%) to 12.6% (95% CI 10.6-14.6%). An unusually low prevalence of current smoking was observed from the pooled analysis (6.5%, 95% CI 4.9-8.2%) as compared to population smoking prevalence in China. The secondary analysis, classifying former smokers as current smokers, found a pooled estimate of 7.3% (95% CI 5.7-8.9%). In conclusion, an unexpectedly low prevalence of current smoking was observed among patients with COVID-19 in China, which was approximately 1/4th the population smoking prevalence. Although the generalized advice to quit smoking as a measure to reduce health risk remains valid, the findings, together with the well-established immunomodulatory effects of nicotine, suggest that pharmaceutical nicotine should be considered as a potential treatment option in COVID-19.

No abstract

Background: The purpose of this study was to examine the prevalence and effects of current smoking on adverse outcomes among hospitalized COVID-19 patients. Methods: A systematic review of the literature (PubMed) identified 18 (from a total of 1398) relevant studies. Pooled current smoking prevalence was compared with the gender-adjusted and gender and age-adjusted, population-based expected prevalence by calculating prevalence odds ratio (POR). The association between current, compared with non-current and former, smoking and adverse outcome was examined. A secondary analysis was performed by including 12 pre-publications (30 studies in total). All analyses were performed using random-effects meta-analysis. Results: Among 6515 patients, the pooled prevalence of current smoking was 6.8% [95% confidence interval (CI): 4.8–9.1%]. The gender-adjusted POR was 0.20 (95% CI: 0.16–0.25, p < 0.001), and the gender and age-adjusted POR was 0.24 (95% CI: 0.19–0.30, p < 0.001). Current smokers were more likely to have an adverse outcome compared with non-current smokers [odds ratio (OR): 1.53, 95%CI: 1.06–2.20, p = 0.022] but less likely compared with former smokers (OR: 0.42, 95% CI: 0.27–0.74, p = 0.003). When pre-publications were added ( n = 10,631), the gender-adjusted POR was 0.27 (95% CI: 0.19–0.38, p < 0.001) and the gender and age-adjusted POR was 0.34 (95% CI: 0.24–0.48, p < 0.001). Conclusion: This meta-analysis of retrospective observational case series found an unexpectedly low prevalence of current smoking among hospitalized patients with COVID-19. Hospitalized current smokers had higher odds compared with non-current smokers but lower odds compared with former smokers for an adverse outcome. Smoking cannot be considered a protective measure for COVID-19. However, the hypothesis that nicotine may have a protective effect in COVID-19 that is partially masked by smoking-related toxicity and by the abrupt cessation of nicotine intake when smokers are hospitalized should be explored in laboratory studies and clinical trials using pharmaceutical nicotine products.

Introduction. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the knowledge and perceptions of Greek healthcare professionals about nicotine, nicotine replacement therapies and electronic cigarettes. Methods. An online survey was performed, in which physicians and nurses working in private and public healthcare sectors in Athens-Greece were asked to participate through email invitations. A knowledge score was calculated by scoring the correct answers to specific questions with 1 point. Results. A total of 262 healthcare professionals were included to the analysis. Most had daily contact with smokers in their working environment. About half of them considered that nicotine has an extremely or very important contribution to smoking-related disease. More than 30% considered nicotine replacement therapies equally or more addictive than smoking, 76.7% overestimated their smoking cessation efficacy and only 21.0% would recommend them as long-term smoking substitutes. For electronic cigarettes, 45.0% considered them equally or more addictive than smoking and 24.4% equally or more harmful than tobacco cigarettes. Additionally, 35.5% thought they involve combustion while the majority responded that nicotine in electronic cigarettes is synthetically produced. Only 14.5% knew about the pending European regulation, but 33.2% have recommended them to smokers in the past. Still, more than 40% would not recommend electronic cigarettes to smokers unwilling or unable to quit smoking with currently approved medications. Cardiologists and respiratory physicians, who are responsible for smoking cessation therapy in Greece, were even more reluctant to recommend electronic cigarettes to this subpopulation of smokers compared to all other participants. The knowledge score of the whole study sample was 7.7 (SD: 2.4) out of a maximum score of 16. Higher score was associated with specific physician specialties. Conclusions. Greek healthcare professionals appear to overestimate the adverse effects of nicotine, and many would not recommend any nicotine-containing product as a long-term smoking substitute. Additionally, they have poor knowledge about the function and characteristics of electronic cigarettes.

Objective: To evaluate how well respondents perceive digital images of food portions commonly consumed in Greece. Design: The picture series was defined on the basis of usual dietary intakes assessed in earlier large-scale studies in Greece. The evaluation included 2218 pre-weighed actual portions shown to participants, who were subsequently asked to link each portion to a food picture. Mean differences between picture numbers selected and portions actually shown were compared using the Wilcoxon paired signed-rank test. The effect of personal characteristics on participants' selections was evaluated through unpaired t tests (sex and school years) or through Tukey-Kramer pairwise comparisons (age and food groups). Setting: Testing of participants' perception of digital food images used in the Greek national nutrition survey. Subjects: Individuals (n 103, 61 % females) aged 12 years and over, selected on the basis of the target population of the Greek nutrition survey using convenience sampling. Results: Individuals selected the correct or adjacent image in about 90 % of the assessments and tended to overestimate small and underestimate large quantities. Photographs of Greek traditional pies and meat-based pastry dishes led participants to perceive the amounts in the photos larger than they actually were. Adolescents were more prone to underestimating food quantities through the pictures. Conclusions: The digital food atlas appears generally suitable to be used for the estimation of average food intakes in large-scale dietary surveys in Greece. However, individuals who consistently consume only small or only large food portions may have biased perceptions in relation to others.