Background Guidelines are critical for facilitating cost-effective COPD care. Development and implementation in low-and middle-income countries (LMICs) is challenging. To guide future strategy, an overview of current global COPD guidelines is required. Research Question We systematically reviewed national COPD guidelines, focusing on worldwide availability and identification of potential development, content, context, and quality gaps that may hamper effective implementation. Study Design and Methods Scoping review of national COPD management guidelines. We assessed: (1) global guideline coverage; (2) guideline information (authors, target audience, dissemination plans); (3) content (prevention, diagnosis, treatments); (4) ethical, legal, and socio-economic aspects; and (5) compliance with the eight Institute of Medicine (IOM) guideline standards. LMICs guidelines were compared with those from high-income countries (HICs). Results Of the 61 national COPD guidelines identified, 30 were from LMICs. Guidelines did not cover 1.93 billion (30.2%) people living in LMICs, whereas only 0.02 billion (1.9%) in HICs were without national guidelines. Compared with HICs, LMIC guidelines targeted fewer health-care professional groups and less often addressed case finding and co-morbidities. More than 90% of all guidelines included smoking cessation advice. Air pollution reduction strategies were less frequently mentioned in both LMICs (47%) and HICs (42%). LMIC guidelines fulfilled on average 3.37 (42%) of IOM standards, compared with 5.29 (66%) in HICs ( P < .05). LMICs scored significantly lower compared with HICs regarding conflicts of interest management, updates, articulation of recommendations, and funding transparency (all, P < .05). Interpretation Several development, content, context, and quality gaps exist in COPD guidelines from LMICs that may hamper effective implementation. Overall, COPD guidelines in LMICs should be more widely available and should be transparently developed and updated. Guidelines may be further enhanced by better inclusion of local risk factors, case findings, and co-morbidity management, preferably tailored to available financial and staff resources.

The present study evaluate medical history, smoking profile, serum cholesterol, triglycerides, creatinine in addition to uric acid and exhaled carbon monoxide levels (two biomarkers in use) for assessing tobacco exposure in 57 smokers versus 54 nonsmokers. Association of expired air carbon monoxide and plasmatic uric acid proved to be useful and necessary tool in evaluating smokers versus non-smokers, compared to medical history and serum cholesterol-triglycerides-creatinine profile.

BackgroundThe objective of this study is to assess anxiety, depression and panic disorders among patients diagnosed with COPD and to investigate their correlation with disease severity, quality of life as well as tobacco use.MethodsAn observational study was performed between January and September 2014 among 60 patients diagnosed with COPD. COPD staging according to GOLD criteria, while anxiety and depression were assessed using Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale and panic attacks were evaluated based on ICD 10 criteria.ResultsAlmost 40% of the sample were smokers, the medium packs-years was 34.3 and the medium Fagerstrom score was 7.5. Overall, mean Modified Medical Research Council Dyspnea Scale (mMRC) was 2.86, mean COPD Assessment Test (CAT) score was 21.75 and study participants had 1.93 COPD exacerbations/year. Mean distribution of anxiety and depression symptoms scores among COPD subjects was 10.65 ± 3.5 and 9.93 ± 3.8, respectively. Smokers and ex-smokers had similar scores with regard to anxiety, depression or the presence of panic attacks. The results of the bivariate correlations indicated associations between anxiety, depression, panic attacks and disease severity, as well as poor quality of life of patients with COPD, regardless of their current tobacco use status.ConclusionsIn conclusion, the results of this study indicate that anxiety, depression and panic attacks were constant characteristics among COPD patients- regardless of their current tobacco use.

Background The European (EU) Tobacco Product Directive (TPD) was implemented in May 2016 to regulate the design and labelling of cigarettes and roll-your-own tobacco. At the same time, the UK introduced standardized packaging measures, whereas Germany, Greece, Hungary, Poland, Romania and Spain did not. This study examines the impact of introducing standardized packaging in England using a quasi-experimental design. Methods Data from adult smokers in Waves 1 (2016; N=9547) and 2 (2018; N=9724) from the International Tobacco Control Policy Evaluation surveys (England) and EUREST-PLUS surveys (Germany, Greece, Hungary, Poland, Romania and Spain) were used. Generalized estimating equations were used to estimate changes in pack/brand appeal, salience of health-warning labels (HWLs) and perceived relative harm of different brands in England (where larger HWLs and standardized packaging were implemented), vs. each EU country (where only larger HWLs were implemented). Results There was an increase in the percentage of respondents from Germany, Hungary and Poland reporting they did not like the look of the pack (4.7%, 9.6%, and 14.2%, respectively), but the largest increase was in England (41.0%). Moreover, there was a statistically significant increase in the salience of HWLs in Hungary, Poland and Romania (17.0%, 13.9%, and 15.3%, respectively), but the largest increase was in England (27.6%). Few differences were observed in cross-country comparisons of the perceived relative harm of different brands. Conclusions Findings suggest that standardized packaging reduces pack appeal and enhances the salience of HWLs over and above the effects of larger HWLs. Findings provide additional evidence and support for incorporating standardized packaging into the EU TPD.

INTRODUCTION This study explores whether current smokers’ social norms towards smoking and electronic cigarettes (e-cigarettes) vary across seven European countries alongside smoking and e-cigarette prevalence rates. At the time of surveying, England had the lowest current smoking prevalence and Greece the highest. Hungary, Romania and Spain had the lowest prevalence of any e-cigarette use and England the highest. METHODS Respondents were adult (≥18 years) current smokers from the 2016 EUREST-PLUS ITC (Romania, Spain, Hungary, Poland, Greece, Germany) and ITC 4CV England Surveys (N=7779). Using logistic regression, associations between country and (a) smoking norms and (b) e-cigarette norms were assessed, adjusting for age, sex, income, education, smoking status, heaviness of smoking, and e-cigarette status. RESULTS Compared with England, smoking norms were higher in all countries: reporting that at least three of five closest friends smoke (19% vs 65–84% [AOR=6.9–24.0; Hungary–Greece]), perceiving that people important to them approve of smoking (8% vs 14–57% [1.9–51.1; Spain–Hungary]), perceiving that the public approves of smoking (5% vs 6–37% [1.7–15.8; Spain–Hungary]), disagreeing that smokers are marginalised (9% vs 16–50% [2.3–12.3; Poland–Greece]) except in Hungary. Compared with England: reporting that at least one of five closest friends uses e-cigarettes was higher in Poland (28% vs 36% [2.7]) but lower in Spain and Romania (28% vs 6–14% [0.3–0.6]), perceiving that the public approves of e-cigarettes was higher in Poland, Hungary and Greece (32% vs 36–40% [1.5–1.6]) but lower in Spain and Romania in unadjusted analyses only (32% vs 24–26%), reporting seeing e-cigarette use in public at least some days was lower in all countries (81% vs 12–55% [0.1–0.4]; Spain–Greece). CONCLUSIONS Smokers from England had the least pro-smoking norms. Smokers from Spain had the least pro-e-cigarette norms. Friend smoking and disagreeing that smokers are marginalised broadly aligned with country-level current smoking rates. Seeing e-cigarette use in public broadly aligned with country-level any e-cigarette use. Generally, no other norms aligned with product prevalence.