4.5 Article

CRP is associated with lung function decline in men but not women: A prospective study

Journal

RESPIRATORY MEDICINE
Volume 107, Issue 1, Pages 91-97

Publisher

W B SAUNDERS CO LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.rmed.2012.09.020

Keywords

Lung function; FEV1; FVC; FEV1 decline; Gender difference; Systemic inflammation

Funding

  1. Icelandic Research Council [050405011]
  2. Landspitali-University Hospital Research Fund

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Systemic inflammation is associated with impaired lung function. Studies, most cross-sectional, report a stronger association between systemic inflammation and lung function impairment in men than women. The aim was to evaluate gender differences in the longitudinal association between systemic inflammation and lung function. We used data from randomly chosen residents of Reykjavik, born 1940-54, who were investigated in three stages: Baseline (1973-75; 1983-85) and follow-up (2001-03). The participants (n = 1049, 574 women) had a mean age of 28 +/- 6 years at baseline and mean follow-up time of 27 +/- 4 years. At each stage lung function (FEV1 and FVC) and C-reactive protein (CRP) were evaluated. Change in FEV1 (p = 0.04) and FVC (p = 0.01) was associated with baseline CRP in men but not in women. In the multiple variable analysis, CRP at baseline was associated with a decline in FEV1 (-3.1 mL/year, 95% CI: -5.1, -0.99) and FVC (-2.5 mL/year, 95% CI: -4.4, -0.65) in men but not in women. Similarly during follow-up, change in CRP, standardised to 1SD, was associated with a decline in FEV1 (-0.19 mL/year, 95% CI: -0.30, -0.07) and FVC (-0.11 mL/year, 95% CI: -0.22, -0.01)) in men but not in women. This prospective study confirms a stronger association between systemic inflammation and lung function decline in men than in women. This may indicate a gender difference in the mechanisms of lung function decline. (C) 2012 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.5
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available