Background/Objectives: Indoor air pollution is an increasingly recognized cause of lung cancer, yet evidence remains fragmented across exposure categories. This systematic review aimed to consolidate epidemiological findings on the relationship between household pollutants and lung cancer risk across diverse settings. Methods: A systematic search of PubMed, Web of Science, Scopus, and Cochrane was conducted to identify observational studies published between 2015 and 2025. Eligible articles evaluated indoor exposure in relation to primary lung cancer. Maximally adjusted effect estimates were extracted. Random effects models were used to calculate pooled odds ratios (ORs) and hazard ratios (HRs) when appropriate. Study quality was assessed using the Newcastle–Ottawa Scale. Results: Thirty-eight studies comprising 475,565 participants were included. Environmental tobacco smoke (ETS) was associated with lung cancer risk (pooled OR 1.97, 95% CI 1.63–2.37; pooled HR 1.44, 95% CI 1.19–1.74). Cooking oil fumes showed a pooled OR of 1.83 (95% CI 1.53–2.21). Solid fuel and biomass combustion were also associated with increased lung cancer risk, with pooled estimates indicating elevated odds and hazard ratios (pooled OR 2.26, 95% CI 1.36–3.77; pooled HR 1.66, 95% CI 1.37–2.02). Incense burning was evaluated in a single study (OR 3.05, 95% CI 1.06–8.84), with wide confidence intervals. Two studies explored gene–environment interactions, suggesting possible variability in susceptibility, although statistical robustness was limited. Conclusions: Across multiple exposure categories, indoor air pollution was consistently associated with lung cancer risk, although the effect magnitude and precision varied between studies. Given the observational nature of the evidence and methodological heterogeneity, further prospective research with standardized exposure assessment is needed to clarify the strength and consistency of these associations.

Background and Objectives: Severe asthma poses significant clinical and economic burdens, with adherence to monitoring and treatment remaining a challenge despite biologic therapies. This pilot study aimed to evaluate the feasibility of telemedicine-based home monitoring using the AioCare system in patients with severe asthma and to determine if weekly reminder messages improved adherence compared to standard monitoring. Materials and Methods: In this prospective, single-center randomized controlled pilot study, 30 adults with severe asthma were assigned to either a reminder group (weekly SMS or in-app messages) or a control group without reminders. All participants performed weekly home spirometry for 12 weeks using the AioCare system. Lung function parameters, Asthma Control Test (ACT) scores, adherence to monitoring, and patient satisfaction were assessed. Longitudinal data were analyzed using mixed-effects and generalized estimating equation models. Results: Adherence to home monitoring was significantly higher in the reminder group (11.47 ± 0.92 vs. 9.13 ± 3.16 sessions; p = 0.044). Overall, patient satisfaction was higher in the intervention group (p = 0.0044), with universal endorsement of the reminders and perceived educational benefit. No significant between-group differences were observed in lung function parameters. ACT scores showed a favorable trend in both groups, with a medium between-group effect size favoring the intervention (d = 0.42), although this did not reach statistical significance. Conclusions: Home monitoring with reminders is feasible, safe, and enhances adherence and satisfaction in severe asthma, although it did not significantly affect short-term changes in lung function or symptom control. Larger, longer-term studies are warranted to determine whether these engagement benefits translate into improved long-term clinical outcomes.