2
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Smoking and home oxygen therapy: a review and consensus statement from a multidisciplinary Swedish taskforce

      review-article

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Background:

          Home oxygen therapy (HOT) improves survival in patients with hypoxaemic chronic respiratory disease. Most patients evaluated for HOT are former or active smokers. Oxygen accelerates combustion and smoking may increase the risk of burn injuries and fire hazards; therefore, it is considered a contraindication for HOT in many countries. However, there is variability in the practices and policies regarding this matter. This multidisciplinary Swedish taskforce aimed to review the potential benefits and risks of smoking in relation to HOT, including medical, practical, legal and ethical considerations.

          Methods:

          The taskforce of the Swedish Respiratory Society comprises 15 members across respiratory medicine, nursing, medical law and ethics. HOT effectiveness and adverse risks related to smoking, as well as practical, legal and ethical considerations, were reviewed, resulting in five general questions and four PICO (population–intervention–comparator–outcome) questions. The strength of each recommendation was rated according to the GRADE (grading of recommendation assessment, development and evaluation) methodology.

          Results:

          General questions about the practical, legal and ethical aspects of HOT were discussed and summarised in the document. The PICO questions resulted in recommendations about assessment, management and follow-up of smoking when considering HOT, if HOT should be offered to people that meet the eligibility criteria but who continue to smoke, if a specific length of time of smoking cessation should be considered before assessing eligibility for HOT, and identification of areas for further research.

          Conclusions:

          Multiple factors need to be considered in the benefit/risk evaluation of HOT in active smokers. A systematic approach is suggested to guide healthcare professionals in evaluating HOT in relation to smoking.

          Tweetable abstract

          Smoking in people who are otherwise eligible for home oxygen therapy poses a clinical challenge, where management should include a risk–benefit evaluation and medical, practical, legal and ethical considerations. https://bit.ly/3GDzXtm

          Related collections

          Most cited references53

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: not found
          • Article: not found

          GRADE: an emerging consensus on rating quality of evidence and strength of recommendations.

            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            An Official ATS/ERS/JRS/ALAT Clinical Practice Guideline: Treatment of Idiopathic Pulmonary Fibrosis. An Update of the 2011 Clinical Practice Guideline.

            This document updates the American Thoracic Society/European Respiratory Society/Japanese Respiratory Society/Latin American Thoracic Association guideline on idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis treatment.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              The effects of a smoking cessation intervention on 14.5-year mortality: a randomized clinical trial.

              Randomized clinical trials have not yet demonstrated the mortality benefit of smoking cessation. To assess the long-term effect on mortality of a randomly applied smoking cessation program. The Lung Health Study was a randomized clinical trial of smoking cessation. Special intervention participants received the smoking intervention program and were compared with usual care participants. Vital status was followed up to 14.5 years. 10 clinical centers in the United States and Canada. 5887 middle-aged volunteers with asymptomatic airway obstruction. All-cause mortality and mortality due to cardiovascular disease, lung cancer, and other respiratory disease. The intervention was a 10-week smoking cessation program that included a strong physician message and 12 group sessions using behavior modification and nicotine gum, plus either ipratropium or a placebo inhaler. At 5 years, 21.7% of special intervention participants had stopped smoking since study entry compared with 5.4% of usual care participants. After up to 14.5 years of follow-up, 731 patients died: 33% of lung cancer, 22% of cardiovascular disease, 7.8% of respiratory disease other than cancer, and 2.3% of unknown causes. All-cause mortality was significantly lower in the special intervention group than in the usual care group (8.83 per 1000 person-years vs. 10.38 per 1000 person-years; P = 0.03). The hazard ratio for mortality in the usual care group compared with the special intervention group was 1.18 (95% CI, 1.02 to 1.37). Differences in death rates for both lung cancer and cardiovascular disease were greater when death rates were analyzed by smoking habit. Results apply only to individuals with airway obstruction. Smoking cessation intervention programs can have a substantial effect on subsequent mortality, even when successful in a minority of participants.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Journal
                Eur Respir Rev
                Eur Respir Rev
                ERR
                errev
                European Respiratory Review
                European Respiratory Society
                0905-9180
                1600-0617
                31 January 2024
                31 January 2024
                : 33
                : 171
                : 230194
                Affiliations
                [1 ]Department of Clinical Sciences Lund, Respiratory Medicine, Allergology and Palliative Medicine, Lund University, Lund, Sweden
                [2 ]Centre for Research Ethics and Bioethics (CRB), Uppsala University, Uppsala, Sweden
                [3 ]Stockholm Centre for Healthcare Ethics (CHE), LIME, Karolinska Institute, Stockholm, Sweden
                [4 ]Department of Global Public Health, Karolinska Institute, Stockholm, Sweden
                [5 ]Stockholms Sjukhem, Palliative Home Care and Hospice Wards, Stockholm, Sweden
                [6 ]Department of Respiratory Medicine and Allergy, University Hospital of Umeå, Umeå, Sweden
                [7 ]Department of Respiratory Medicine and Allergy, Karolinska University Hospital, Stockholm, Sweden
                [8 ]Department of Medicine Solna, Respiratory Medicine Unit, Karolinska Institute, Stockholm, Sweden
                [9 ]Allergy and Lung Clinic, Elsinore, Denmark
                [10 ]Department of Medicine, Blekinge Hospital, Karlskrona, Sweden
                [11 ]Faculty of Health and Society, Malmö University, Malmö, Sweden
                Author notes
                Corresponding author: Zainab Ahmadi ( zai.ahmd@ 123456gmail.com )
                Author information
                https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1434-5715
                https://orcid.org/0000-0002-7227-5113
                Article
                ERR-0194-2023
                10.1183/16000617.0194-2023
                10828833
                38296345
                2c9800bb-78c9-4d4c-b3d6-b6d668ade10c
                Copyright ©The authors 2024

                This version is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Non-Commercial Licence 4.0. For commercial reproduction rights and permissions contact permissions@ 123456ersnet.org

                History
                : 28 September 2023
                : 02 December 2023
                Funding
                Funded by: Swedish Heart Lung Foundation
                Award ID: 20200023
                Funded by: Swedish Research Council
                Award ID: 2019-02081
                Funded by: Swedish Heart-Lung foundation
                Award ID: 20200295
                Categories
                Reviews
                1

                Comments

                Comment on this article