4.2 Review

Smoking, SARS-CoV-2 and COVID-19: A review of reviews considering implications for public health policy and practice

期刊

TOBACCO INDUCED DISEASES
卷 18, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

EUROPEAN PUBLISHING
DOI: 10.18332/tid/124788

关键词

smoking; public health; coronavirus; COVID-19; SARS-CoV-2

资金

  1. National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) through the Applied Research Collaboration (ARC) programme for North West London

向作者/读者索取更多资源

INTRODUCTION There has been significant speculation regarding the association between the Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) pathogen, coronavirus disease (COVID-19) and smoking. We provide an overview of the available literature regarding the association between smoking, risk of SARS-CoV-2 infection, and risk of severe COVID-19 and poor clinical outcomes, with the aim of informing public health policy and practice, particularly in England. METHODS Publications were identified utilising a systematic search approach on PUBMED and Google Scholar. Publications presenting a systematic review or meta-analysis considering the association between smoking and SARS-COV-2 infection or COVID-19 outcomes were included. RESULTS Eight studies were identified. One considered the relationship between smoking and the probability of SARS-CoV-2 infection, three considered the association between COVID-19 hospitalisation and smoking history, and six reviewed the association between smoking history and development of severe COVID-19. One study specifically investigated the risk of mortality. The studies considering risk of severe disease indicate that there is a significant association between COVID-19 and current or ever smoking. CONCLUSIONS This is a rapidly evolving topic. Current analysis remains limited due to the quality of primary data, although, early results indicate an association between smoking and COVID-19 severity. We highly recommend public health messaging to continue focusing on smoking cessation efforts.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.2
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据