Little is known about the knowledge and attitudes towards tobacco use among medical students in Canada. Our objectives were to estimate the prevalence of tobacco use among medical students, assess their perceived level of education about tobacco addiction management and their preparedness to address tobacco use with their future patients.

Smoking is an undertreated risk factor for coronary artery disease (CAD) and is associated with adverse outcomes after myocardial infarction. Aims of our study were to determine if management of CAD by medical therapy (MT) alone or with coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) or percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) influence smoking status at one year following angiography and if a change in smoking status at one year influences long term survival. Prospective cohort study using the APPROACH registry. Two cohorts were examined: (1) 11,334 patients who returned a one year follow-up questionnaire; (2) 4,246 patients propensity-matched based on their post-angiography treatment - MT or revascularization (RV). Multivariate modeling and survival analysis were used. In the propensity-matched cohort, quit rates at one year were greater among CABG patients (68%) than PCI (37%) or MT patients (47%). Smokers in the RV group, who self-reported quitting at one year, had a significantly reduced mortality compared to those who continued to smoke. CABG patients were more likely to quit smoking than those treated with MT alone or PCI. Quitting smoking was associated with improved long-term survival; smoking remains a key risk factor for mortality in patients with CAD. These data underscore the importance of nicotine addiction management in patients with CAD and the need to emphasize cessation particularly in those patients undergoing MT or PCI.

OBJECTIVES: To summarize the efficacy of midodrine as an adjunctive therapy in critically ill patients. Safety of midodrine was assessed as a secondary outcome. DATA SOURCES: We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis using a peer-reviewed search strategy combining the themes of vasopressor-dependent shock, critical care, and midodrine and including MEDLINE, Ovid Embase, CINAHL, and Cochrane library databases until September 14, 2023. STUDY SELECTION: We included studies if they: 1) included patients with vasopressor-dependent shock, 2) were performed in the ICU, 3) evaluated oral midodrine therapy compared with placebo or usual care, and 4) evaluated one of the outcomes of interest. DATA EXTRACTION: We extracted data independently in duplicate using standardized data abstraction forms, which included the following specific variables: patient characteristics, age, sex, type of ICU, etiology of shock, number of patients, study inclusion and exclusion criteria, and geographical location. We also captured the type, dose, and duration of IV vasopressors, any cointervention used, and outcome data. DATA SYNTHESIS: We identified seven randomized controlled trials (six included in the pooled analysis) and ten observational studies (four included in the pooled analysis) that met eligibility criteria. Adjunctive midodrine may decrease ICU length of stay (LOS) and there is low certainty of effect on hospital LOS. Midodrine may decrease IV vasopressor support duration, ICU mortality, and hospital mortality. Pooled observational data was based on very low certainty data for all outcomes of interest. The trial sequential analysis-informed required sample size was not met for ICU LOS or IV vasopressor duration and this contributed to Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluations assessments of imprecision for both outcomes. CONCLUSIONS: Adjunctive midodrine may decrease ICU LOS, duration of IV vasopressor therapy, and mortality in critically ill patients. However, required sample sizes was not met to determine our outcomes of interest. Midodrine may increase risk of bradycardia. While midodrine may provide benefit for patient-centered outcomes, due to increased risk of adverse events, further large-scale studies are needed to inform and guide its routine use in the ICU.

Background: In 2008, the World Health Organization (WHO) introduced MPOWER-a package of evidence-based, high-impact policy measures to help countries reduce tobacco use. These measures align with selected articles within the World Health Organization’s Framework Convention on Tobacco Control (FCTC), a global public health treaty to prevent and reduce tobacco use. Methods: Observational longitudinal study involving 195 countries that submitted biannual national reports between 2008 and 2018. To report changes in MPOWER scores, countries were assessed using a validated checklist of the seven MPOWER indicators and a maximum possible unweighted composite score of 34 points. Covariate analysis was conducted among selected health, sociopolitical, and economic indicators. Results: 176 out of 195 countries improved their MPOWER scores between 2008 and 2018, with two achieving full implementation (Brazil and Turkey). Twenty-three (23) countries representing 11.2% of the global population recorded an MPOWER scoring increase of at least 10 points between 2008 and 2018. The overall mean 10-year scoring increase was 5.1 points or a relative improvement of 27.1%. In 2018, 20 countries representing 10.4% of the global population excelled in MPOWER implementation by receiving a total composite score of at least 30 of 34 possible points. The MPOWER elements with the highest degree of implementation in 2018 include Warn (package), Protect (smoking ban) and Enforce (ad ban). Several covariates were positively associated with higher levels of MPOWER implementation, including cigarette affordability, the existence of national tobacco control objectives, the human development index score, the national corruption index score, national literacy rates and the political regime index score. Conclusions: MPOWER implementation increased markedly between 2008 and 2018 in all seven WHO regions and countries representing all four World Bank income classifications. However, only two countries achieved full implementation by 2018. More work is needed to improve MPOWER implementation. Countries with low-income levels, compromised human development, reduced literacy rates, higher rates of corruption, and autocratic political regimes appear to struggle more with MPOWER implementation.