Cigarette smoking and mortality risk in people with schizophrenia.

Maryland Psychiatric Research Center, University of Maryland School of Medicine, Baltimore, MD 21228, USA.
Schizophrenia Bulletin (Impact Factor: 8.61). 12/2009; 37(4):832-8. DOI: 10.1093/schbul/sbp152
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT This study examined effects of cigarette smoking on mortality risk in 1213 persons aged 19-69 years with schizophrenia-related psychotic disorders admitted to State of Maryland Hospitals between 1994 and 2000. Inpatient medical records from 7 hospitals were reviewed to obtain demographic information, diagnosis, medication use, as well as smoking and other substance use. Social Security Death Index data were used to identify deaths in the study group between 1994 and 2004. Death records were reviewed to obtain manner of death and underlying disorders. Of the 1213, 55% were smokers and 71% abused substances. There was an age × smoking interaction (χ(2) = 14.6, df = 1, P = .0001) for mortality, with estimated hazard ratios (HRs) for smokers vs nonsmokers of 2.1 among 35- to 54-year olds and HR of 0.7 among those aged 55-69 years. Five- and 10-year mortality rates for smokers aged 35-54 years were 7.0% and 14.2%, compared with 3.3% and 10.0% for nonsmokers, respectively (χ(2) = 5.53, df = 1, P = .019). Cardiac causes were identified in 43% of deaths in smokers but only 19% of deaths in nonsmokers (P < .006). For those aged 35-54 years, the odds of cardiac related death was increased by 12 fold in smokers relative to nonsmokers (HR = 12.4, χ(2) = 12.0, df = 1, P = .0005). Among people aged 35-54 years, those smoking greater than one pack daily have a significantly increased total mortality risk (HR = 2.7) vs nonsmokers. Cigarette smoking, particularly in people aged 35-54 years, contributes to an increased risk of death. Greater smoking severity significantly increases this risk. Smoking cessation in people with schizophrenia deserves significant attention.


Available from: Douglas Boggs, May 30, 2015
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Co-occurring substance use in psychotic patients causes many subsequences including increased illness severity, decreased medication compliance, higher relapse rates, more hospitalizations, and legal problems. We aim to investigate the prevalence, patterns, associated factors and severity of substance use risk among psychotic patients in southern Thailand. Psychotic out-patients were screened with the Alcohol, Smoking, Substance Involvement Screening Test (ASSIST) for their history of substance use in the past three months and categorized as None-to-Low Risk (NLR) or Moderate-to-High Risk (MHR) levels. Multivariate logistic regression was used to examine the associated factors of substance use risk-level. The associations between substance use risk-level and emotional and behavioural symptoms, functional status and family functional status were examined using multivariate linear regression analysis. Of 663 participants screened, 322 (48.6%) used at least one substance in the past three months. Tobacco was the most common substance used (47.2%). The factors associated with a higher risk of any substance use were male gender, young age group, low level of education, being employed and being diagnosed with schizophrenia. A higher number of emotional and behavioural symptoms was significantly associated with higher substance use risk-level. In conclusion, the prevalence of substance use in psychotic patients was high and associated with their emotional and behavioural symptoms. Recommendations for implementation of screening and early intervention programs of substance-related problems in psychotic patients are important for preventing unwanted outcomes.
    Asian Journal of Psychiatry 11/2014; 13. DOI:10.1016/j.ajp.2014.11.006
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: We conducted a trial of Brief intervention (BI) for substance use in psychosis.•BI supported by family reduces smoking involvement and smoking intensity.•BI supported by family increases change motivation and relational functioning.
    Journal of Substance Abuse Treatment 11/2014; 51. DOI:10.1016/j.jsat.2014.10.011 · 3.14 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Background Prevalence rates of smoking in people with mental illness are high and premature mortality attributed to tobacco related physical comorbidity is a major concern. We conducted a meta-analysis comparing rates of receipt of smoking cessation advice among people with and without mental illness. Method Major electronic databases were searched from inception till August 2014 for studies comparing rates of receipt of smoking cessation advice of people with and without a mental illness. Two independent authors completed methodological appraisal and extracted data. A random effects meta-analysis was utilized. Results Seven studies of satisfactory methodological quality (n mental illness = 68,811, n control = 652,847) were included. Overall there was no significant difference in smoking cessation advice rates between those with and without a mental illness (RR = 1.02, 95% CI: 0.94 – 1.11-, n = 721,658, Q = 1421, p < 0.001). Subgroup analyses demonstrated people with severe mental illness (SMI) received comparable rates of smoking cessation advice to those without SMI (RR = 1.09, 95% CI 0.98-1.2, n = 559,122). This remained true for people with schizophrenia (RR = 1.09, 95% CI 0.68-1.70) and bipolar disorder (RR = 1.14, 95% CI 0.85-1.5). People with non-severe mental illnesses were slightly more likely to receive smoking cessation advice (RR = 1.16, 95% CI = 1.04-1.30, Q = 1364, p < 0.001, n = 580,206). Conclusions People with SMI receive similar smoking cessation advice rates as people without mental illness, whilst those with non-severe mental illness are slightly more likely to receive smoking cessation advice. Whilst progress has been made, offering smoking cessation advice should receive a higher priority in everyday clinical practice for patients with a mental health diagnosis.
    General Hospital Psychiatry 12/2014; 37(1). DOI:10.1016/j.genhosppsych.2014.11.006 · 2.90 Impact Factor