Reasons for late presentation to HIV care in Switzerland.

INTRODUCTION: Late presentation to HIV care leads to increased morbidity and mortality. We explored risk factors and reasons for late HIV testing and presentation to care in the nationally representative Swiss HIV Cohort Study (SHCS). METHODS: Adult patients enrolled in the SHCS between July 2009 and June 2012 were included. An initial CD4 count <350 cells/µl or an AIDS-defining illness defined late presentation. Demographic and behavioural characteristics of late presenters (LPs) were compared with those of non-late presenters (NLPs). Information on self-reported, individual barriers to HIV testing and care were obtained during face-to-face interviews. RESULTS: Of 1366 patients included, 680 (49.8%) were LPs. Seventy-two percent of eligible patients took part in the survey. LPs were more likely to be female (p<0.001) or from sub-Saharan Africa (p<0.001) and less likely to be highly educated (p=0.002) or men who have sex with men (p<0.001). LPs were more likely to have their first HIV test following a doctor's suggestion (p=0.01), and NLPs in the context of a regular check-up (p=0.02) or after a specific risk situation (p<0.001). The main reasons for late HIV testing were "did not feel at risk" (72%), "did not feel ill" (65%) and "did not know the symptoms of HIV" (51%). Seventy-one percent of the participants were symptomatic during the year preceding HIV diagnosis and the majority consulted a physician for these symptoms. CONCLUSIONS: In Switzerland, late presentation to care is driven by late HIV testing due to low risk perception and lack of awareness about HIV. Tailored HIV testing strategies and enhanced provider-initiated testing are urgently needed.

Some go without a cigarette: characteristics of cannabis users who have never smoked tobacco.

OBJECTIVES: To estimate the prevalence of youth who use cannabis but have never been tobacco smokers and to assess the characteristics that differentiate them from those using both substances or neither substance. DESIGN: School survey. SETTING: Postmandatory schools. PARTICIPANTS: A total of 5263 students (2439 females) aged 16 to 20 years divided into cannabis-only smokers (n = 455), cannabis and tobacco smokers (n = 1703), and abstainers (n = 3105). OUTCOME MEASURES: Regular tobacco and cannabis use; and personal, family, academic, and substance use characteristics. RESULTS: Compared with those using both substances, cannabis-only youth were younger (adjusted odds ratio [AOR], 0.82) and more likely to be male (AOR, 2.19), to play sports (AOR, 1.64), to live with both parents (AOR, 1.33), to be students (AOR, 2.56), and to have good grades (AOR, 1.57) and less likely to have been drunk (AOR, 0.55), to have started using cannabis before the age of 15 years (AOR, 0.71), to have used cannabis more than once or twice in the previous month (AOR, 0.64), and to perceive their pubertal timing as early (AOR, 0.59). Compared with abstainers, they were more likely to be male (AOR, 2.10), to have a good relationship with friends (AOR, 1.62), to be sensation seeking (AOR, 1.32), and to practice sports (AOR, 1.37) and less likely to have a good relationship with their parents (AOR, 0.59). They were more likely to attend high school (AOR, 1.43), to skip class (AOR, 2.28), and to have been drunk (AOR, 2.54) or to have used illicit drugs (AOR, 2.28). CONCLUSIONS: Cannabis-only adolescents show better functioning than those who also use tobacco. Compared with abstainers, they are more socially driven and do not seem to have psychosocial problems at a higher rate.

Biomedical risk assessment as an aid for smoking cessation.

BACKGROUND: A possible strategy for increasing smoking cessation rates could be to provide smokers who have contact with healthcare systems with feedback on the biomedical or potential future effects of smoking, e.g. measurement of exhaled carbon monoxide (CO), lung function, or genetic susceptibility to lung cancer. OBJECTIVES: To determine the efficacy of biomedical risk assessment provided in addition to various levels of counselling, as a contributing aid to smoking cessation. SEARCH STRATEGY: We systematically searched the Cochrane Collaboration Tobacco Addiction Group Specialized Register, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials 2008 Issue 4, MEDLINE (1966 to January 2009), and EMBASE (1980 to January 2009). We combined methodological terms with terms related to smoking cessation counselling and biomedical measurements. SELECTION CRITERIA: Inclusion criteria were: a randomized controlled trial design; subjects participating in smoking cessation interventions; interventions based on a biomedical test to increase motivation to quit; control groups receiving all other components of intervention; an outcome of smoking cessation rate at least six months after the start of the intervention. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two assessors independently conducted data extraction on each paper, with disagreements resolved by consensus. Results were expressed as a relative risk (RR) for smoking cessation with 95% confidence intervals (CI). Where appropriate a pooled effect was estimated using a Mantel-Haenszel fixed effect method. MAIN RESULTS: We included eleven trials using a variety of biomedical tests. Two pairs of trials had sufficiently similar recruitment, setting and interventions to calculate a pooled effect; there was no evidence that CO measurement in primary care (RR 1.06, 95% CI 0.85 to 1.32) or spirometry in primary care (RR 1.18, 95% CI 0.77 to 1.81) increased cessation rates. We did not pool the other seven trials. One trial in primary care detected a significant benefit of lung age feedback after spirometry (RR 2.12; 95% CI 1.24 to 3.62). One trial that used ultrasonography of carotid and femoral arteries and photographs of plaques detected a benefit (RR 2.77; 95% CI 1.04 to 7.41) but enrolled a population of light smokers. Five trials failed to detect evidence of a significant effect. One of these tested CO feedback alone and CO + genetic susceptibility as two different intervention; none of the three possible comparisons detected significant effects. Three others used a combination of CO and spirometry feedback in different settings, and one tested for a genetic marker. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: There is little evidence about the effects of most types of biomedical tests for risk assessment. Spirometry combined with an interpretation of the results in terms of 'lung age' had a significant effect in a single good quality trial. Mixed quality evidence does not support the hypothesis that other types of biomedical risk assessment increase smoking cessation in comparison to standard treatment. Only two pairs of studies were similar enough in term of recruitment, setting, and intervention to allow meta-analysis.

Biomedical risk assessment as an aid for smoking cessation.

BACKGROUND: A possible strategy for increasing smoking cessation rates could be to provide smokers who have contact with healthcare systems with feedback on the biomedical or potential future effects of smoking, e.g. measurement of exhaled carbon monoxide (CO), lung function, or genetic susceptibility to lung cancer. We reviewed systematically data on smoking cessation rates from controlled trials that used biomedical risk assessment and feedback. OBJECTIVES: To determine the efficacy of biomedical risk assessment provided in addition to various levels of counselling, as a contributing aid to smoking cessation. SEARCH STRATEGY: We systematically searched he Cochrane Collaboration Tobacco Addiction Group Specialized Register, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE (1966 to 2004), and EMBASE (1980 to 2004). We combined methodological terms with terms related to smoking cessation counselling and biomedical measurements. SELECTION CRITERIA: Inclusion criteria were: a randomized controlled trial design; subjects participating in smoking cessation interventions; interventions based on a biomedical test to increase motivation to quit; control groups receiving all other components of intervention; an outcome of smoking cessation rate at least six months after the start of the intervention. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two assessors independently conducted data extraction on each paper, with disagreements resolved by consensus. MAIN RESULTS: From 4049 retrieved references, we selected 170 for full text assessment. We retained eight trials for data extraction and analysis. One of the eight used CO alone and CO + Genetic Susceptibility as two different intervention groups, giving rise to three possible comparisons. Three of the trials isolated the effect of exhaled CO on smoking cessation rates resulting in the following odds ratios (ORs) and 95% confidence intervals (95% CI): 0.73 (0.38 to 1.39), 0.93 (0.62 to 1.41), and 1.18 (0.84 to 1.64). Combining CO measurement with genetic susceptibility gave an OR of 0.58 (0.29 to 1.19). Exhaled CO measurement and spirometry were used together in three trials, resulting in the following ORs (95% CI): 0.6 (0.25 to 1.46), 2.45 (0.73 to 8.25), and 3.50 (0.88 to 13.92). Spirometry results alone were used in one other trial with an OR of 1.21 (0.60 to 2.42).Two trials used other motivational feedback measures, with an OR of 0.80 (0.39 to 1.65) for genetic susceptibility to lung cancer alone, and 3.15 (1.06 to 9.31) for ultrasonography of carotid and femoral arteries performed in light smokers (average 10 to 12 cigarettes a day). AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Due to the scarcity of evidence of sufficient quality, we can make no definitive statements about the effectiveness of biomedical risk assessment as an aid for smoking cessation. Current evidence of lower quality does not however support the hypothesis that biomedical risk assessment increases smoking cessation in comparison with standard treatment. Only two studies were similar enough in term of recruitment, setting, and intervention to allow pooling of data and meta-analysis.

Association between smoking and recurrence of venous thromboembolism and bleeding in elderly patients with past acute venous thromboembolism.

BACKGROUND: While the association between smoking and arterial cardiovascular events has been well established, the association between smoking and venous thromboembolism (VTE) remains controversial. OBJECTIVES: To assess the association between smoking and the risk of recurrent VTE and bleeding in patients who have experienced acute VTE. PATIENTS/METHODS: This study is part of a prospective Swiss multicenter cohort that included patients aged ≥65years with acute VTE. Three groups were defined according to smoking status: never, former and current smokers. The primary outcome was the time to a first symptomatic, objectively confirmed VTE recurrence. Secondary outcomes were the time to a first major and clinically relevant non-major bleeding. Associations between smoking status and outcomes were analysed using proportional hazard models for the subdistribution of a competing risk of death. RESULTS: Among 988 analysed patients, 509 (52%) had never smoked, 403 (41%) were former smokers, and 76 (8%) current smokers. After a median follow-up of 29.6months, we observed a VTE recurrence rate of 4.9 (95% confidence interval [CI] 3.7-6.4) per 100 patient-years for never smokers, 6.6 (95% CI 5.1-8.6) for former smokers, and 5.2 (95% CI 2.6-10.5) for current smokers. Compared to never smokers, we found no association between current smoking and VTE recurrence (adjusted sub-hazard ratio [SHR] 1.05, 95% CI 0.49-2.28), major bleeding (adjusted SHR 0.59, 95% CI 0.25-1.39), and clinically relevant non-major bleeding (adjusted SHR 1.21, 95% CI 0.73-2.02). CONCLUSIONS: In this multicentre prospective cohort study, we found no association between smoking status and VTE recurrence or bleeding in elderly patients with VTE.