Using routinely collected primary care records to identify and investigate severe asthma: a scoping review

The predisposition of smokers to COVID-19 infection: A mini-review of global perspectives

Both SARS-CoV-2 and smoking tobacco adversely impact the respiratory system, damaging the airways and impairing lung function. While some studies have identified a positive association between smoking and increased susceptibility to COVID-19 infections, a few papers have concluded that smokers may be protected against such infections. Given these contradictory findings, there is an ongoing debate in the scientific community about whether or not smokers have a stronger predisposition towards COVID-19 infections. Through this mini-review, we aimed to study the relationship between tobacco smoking and COVID-19 infections by conducting a comprehensive literature search of peer reviewed articles that reported on the effects of smoking on COVID-19 susceptibility and were published globally over the past two years (January 2020-April 2022). Our search identified 31 articles that demonstrated a positive or strong relationship between smoking and COVID-19, while 13 articles had contrasting results. Additionally, we evaluated mechanistic studies suggesting that, among smokers, angiotensin-converting enzyme-2 genes are upregulated, facilitating easier binding of SARS-CoV-2, thereby increasing the risk of COVID-19 infection. In conclusion, the majority of studies in this area to date provide evidence of a strong relationship between smoking and COVID-19 infection; however, the strength of this association may vary across the smoking behaviors of differing populations. Future work could involve a meta-analysis of studies focusing on susceptibility to COVID-19 infection for different types of tobacco product smokers, which would result in a more comprehensive understanding of the predisposition of smokers towards COVID-19 infections.

Symptom Burden, Health Status, and Productivity in Patients with Uncontrolled and Controlled Severe Asthma in NOVELTY

Background

Few studies have quantified symptom burden, health status, and productivity in patients with uncontrolled and controlled severe asthma. Up-to-date, real-world, global evidence is needed.

Objective

To quantify symptom burden, health status, and productivity in patients with uncontrolled and controlled severe asthma using baseline data from the NOVEL observational longiTudinal studY (NOVELTY; NCT02760329).

Methods

NOVELTY included patients aged ≥18 years (or ≥12 years in some countries) from primary care and specialist centres in 19 countries, with a physician-assigned diagnosis of asthma, asthma+chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), or COPD. Disease severity was physician-assessed. Uncontrolled severe asthma was defined by an Asthma Control Test (ACT) score <20 and/or severe physician-reported exacerbations in the previous year; controlled severe asthma required an ACT score ≥20 and no severe exacerbations. Assessment of symptom burden included Respiratory Symptoms Questionnaire (RSQ) and ACT score. Assessment of health status included St George's Respiratory Questionnaire (SGRQ), EuroQoL 5 Dimensions 5 Levels Health Questionnaire (EQ-5D-5L) index value, and EQ-5D-5L Visual Analog Score (EQ-VAS). Assessment of productivity loss included absenteeism, presenteeism, overall work impairment, and activity impairment.

Results

Of 1652 patients with severe asthma, asthma was uncontrolled in 1078 (65.3%; mean age 52.6 years, 65.8% female) and controlled in 315 (19.1%; mean age 55.2 years, 56.5% female). With uncontrolled versus controlled severe asthma, symptom burden was higher (mean RSQ score 7.7 vs 2.5), health status more impaired (mean SGRQ total score 47.5 vs 22.4; mean EQ-5D-5L index value 0.68 vs 0.90; mean EQ-VAS score 64.1 vs 78.1), and productivity lower (presenteeism 29.3% vs 10.5%).

Conclusion

Our findings highlight the symptom burden of uncontrolled severe asthma compared with controlled severe asthma and its impact on patient health status and productivity, and support the need for interventions to improve control of severe asthma.

Knowledge deficit and fear of COVID-19 among higher education students during the first wave of the pandemic and implications for public health: a multi-country cross-sectional survey

BACKGROUND

Public health measures such as physical distancing and distance learning have been implemented during the COVID-19 pandemic. COVID-19 related knowledge deficit can increase fear that leads to negative mental health and COVID-19, especially among adolescents. Therefore, our study aimed to assess COVID-19 related knowledge deficit and its association with fear among higher education (HE) students during the first wave of COVID-19.

METHODS

A cross-sectional survey, COVID-19 International Students Well-being Study (C-19 ISWS) was conducted in 133 Higher Education Institutions (HEIs) in 26 countries between April 27 and July 7, 2020. A stratified convenience sampling technique was used. Descriptive, bivariate, mixed-effect logistic regression analyses were conducted using R software.

RESULTS

Out of 127,362 respondents, 72.1% were female, and 76.5% did not report a previous history of confirmed COVID-19. The majority of those without the previous infection 81,645 (83.7%) were from 21 European countries while the rest 15,850 (16.3%) were from 5 non-European countries. The most frequent correct response to COVID-19 related knowledge questions among respondents was having the virus without having symptoms (94.3%). Compared to participants with good knowledge, the odds of being afraid of acquiring SARS-COV-2 infection among those with poor knowledge was 1.05 (95%CI:1.03,1.08) and the odds of being afraid of contracting severe COVID-19 was 1.36 (95%CI:1.31,1.40).

CONCLUSION

COVID-19 related knowledge was independently associated with both fear of acquiring SARS-COV-2 infection as well as contracting severe COVID-19. Our findings will serve as a basis for public health response for both the current and similar future pandemics by highlighting the need for addressing the COVID-19 knowledge deficit to fight the infodemic and prevent negative mental health outcomes.

Changes in Cannabis Consumption Among Emerging Adults in Relation to Policy and Public Health Developments

Background: Rates of cannabis use appear to be highest among emerging adults (EA). Evidence suggests that cannabis smoking, as well as alternate methods of cannabis use (e.g., vaping, edibles) have become a prevalent mode of consumption among this population. Substance use or misuse peaks during emerging adulthood and may be influenced by extreme economic, social and community developments, such as policy changes, public health concerns, and significant global events such as pandemics. For instance, it is highly likely that cannabis consumption trends among at-risk populations were influenced by the legalization of recreational cannabis in Canada, the declaration of the "e-cigarette or vaping product use associated lung injury" or "EVALI" outbreak, and the "COVID-19" pandemic. ObjectivesWe aimed to examine self-reported changes in frequency of cannabis use among EA in Canada (N = 312): pre-legalization, post-legalization; pre-EVALI, post-EVALI; pre-COVID-19, since-COVID-19. ResultsThere was a gradual increase in average frequency of smoking and vaping cannabis across the six different time intervals from the pre-legalization period (2018) to the COVID-19 pandemic period (2020). Males reported higher frequencies of cannabis smoking and vaping compared to females. ConclusionsDespite health concerns and expectations that EVALI and COVID-19 events would lead to decreased consumption, our results suggest an average increase in smoking and vaping cannabis, although the most notable increase was after legalization. There are important sex differences in behavioral factors of cannabis use in EA, though it appears that the "gender-gap" in cannabis consumption is closing. These findings may facilitate the development of intervention programs for policy measures to address cannabis-attributable outcomes in the face of contextual factors that promote use, such as public emergencies or changes in policy landscapes.