4.3 Article

Long-Term Exposure to NO2 and Ozone and Hypertension Incidence in the Black Women's Health Study

Journal

AMERICAN JOURNAL OF HYPERTENSION
Volume 30, Issue 4, Pages 367-372

Publisher

OXFORD UNIV PRESS
DOI: 10.1093/ajh/hpw168

Keywords

African American; air pollution; blood pressure; hypertension; hypertension incidence; women

Funding

  1. National Institutes of Health (National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences) [ES019573]
  2. National Institutes of Health (National Cancer Institute) [UM1CA16497, CA058420]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

BACKGROUND Evidence shows that exposure to air pollutants can increase blood pressure in the short and long term. Some studies show higher levels of hypertension prevalence in areas of high pollution. Few data exist on the association of air pollution with hypertension incidence. The purpose of the present study was to prospectively assess the associations of the traffic-related nitrogen dioxide (NO2) and of ozone with the incidence of hypertension in the Black Women's Health Study (BWHS), a large cohort study of African American women. METHODS We used Cox proportional hazards models to calculate hazard ratios (HRs) and 95% confidence intervals (CI) for hypertension associated with exposure to NO2 and ozone among 33,771 BWHS participants. NO2 and ozone levels at participant residential locations were estimated with validated models. RESULTS From 1995 to 2011, 9,570 incident cases of hypertension occurred in a total of 348,154 person-years (median follow-up time, 11 years). The multivariable HRs per interquartile range of NO2 (9.7 ppb) and ozone (6.7 ppb) were 0.92 (95% CI = 0.86, 0.98) and 1.09 (95% CI = 1.00, 1.18). CONCLUSIONS In this large cohort of African American women, higher ozone levels were associated with an increase in hypertension incidence. Higher NO2 levels were not associated with greater hypertension incidence; indeed, incidence was lower at higher NO2 levels.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.3
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available