4.6 Review

Ambient air pollution: a cause of COPD?

期刊

EUROPEAN RESPIRATORY JOURNAL
卷 43, 期 1, 页码 250-263

出版社

EUROPEAN RESPIRATORY SOC JOURNALS LTD
DOI: 10.1183/09031936.00100112

关键词

-

资金

  1. European Community [211 250, 243 406]
  2. APHEKOM project (European Commission's Programme on Community Action in the Field of Public Health) [2007105]
  3. Swiss National Science Foundation [324730_133148]
  4. Medical Research Council [G0801056B, G0801056] Funding Source: researchfish
  5. MRC [G0801056] Funding Source: UKRI

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The role of ambient air pollution in the development of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) is considered to be uncertain. We review the evidence in the light of recent studies. Eight morbidity and six mortality studies were identified. These were heterogeneous in design, characterisation of exposure to air pollution and methods of outcome definition. Six morbidity studies with objectively defined COPD (forced expiratory volume in 1 s/forced vital capacity ratio) were cross-sectional analyses. One longitudinal study defined incidence of COPD as the first hospitalisation due to COPD. However, neither mortality nor hospitalisation studies can unambiguously distinguish acute from long-term effects on the development of the underlying pathophysiological changes. Most studies were based on within-community exposure contrasts, which mainly assess traffic-related air pollution. Overall, evidence of chronic effects of air pollution on the prevalence and incidence of COPD among adults was suggestive but not conclusive, despite plausible biological mechanisms and good evidence that air pollution affects lung development in childhood and triggers exacerbations in COPD patients. To fully integrate this evidence in the assessment, the life-time course of COPD should be better defined. Larger studies with longer follow-up periods, specific definitions of COPD phenotypes, and more refined and source-specific exposure assessments are needed.

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