4.6 Article

COPD in Chinese nonsmokers

期刊

EUROPEAN RESPIRATORY JOURNAL
卷 33, 期 3, 页码 509-518

出版社

EUROPEAN RESPIRATORY SOC JOURNALS LTD
DOI: 10.1183/09031936.00084408

关键词

Biomass smoke; chronic obstructive pulmonary disease; environmental tobacco smoke; epidemiology; nonsmokers

资金

  1. Chinese Central Government [2001BA703B03]
  2. Guangdong Key Research Project (China) [B30301]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Little is known about chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) in Chinese nonsmokers. The present study aimed to investigate the profiles of COPD among nonsmokers based on the Chinese Epidemiological Survey of COPD (CESCOPD). In the CESCOPD, 20,245 subjects aged 40 yrs or older were interviewed with questionnaires and spirometry tests. Subjects with a post-bronchodilator forced expiratory volume in one second (FEV1)/forced vital capacity (FVC) ratio of <0.70 were identified as having COPD. Data of 12,471 nonsmokers and 1,024 smoking COPD patients were analysed in the current study. The overall prevalence of COPD among nonsmokers was 5.2% (95% confidence interval 4.8-5.6). Being male, of advanced age, lower body mass index (BMI) and lower educational level, having exposure to environmental tobacco smoke, coal and/or biomass smoke, poor ventilation in the kitchen, a family history of respiratory disease and recurrent childhood cough were all independently associated with a higher risk of having COPD among nonsmokers. Nonsmokers with respiratory symptoms without airflow limitation showed a somewhat different pattern of risk factors. Nonsmokers with COPD were less likely to present with chronic productive coughs and lower BMI, while more likely to have received a physician diagnosis of asthma and respiratory diseases in childhood, than smokers with COPD. Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease is prevalent among Chinese nonsmokers, and nonsmoking chronic obstructive pulmonary disease may have different profiles from smoking chronic obstructive pulmonary disease.

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

4.6
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