4.2 Article

Persistent light to moderate alcohol intake and lung function: A longitudinal study

Journal

ALCOHOL
Volume 67, Issue -, Pages 65-71

Publisher

ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1016/j.alcohol.2017.08.013

Keywords

Alcohol; Lung function; Restriction; Obstruction

Funding

  1. National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute [HL107188, HL095021]
  2. National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism, National Institutes of Health [R01 AA008769-24]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Alcohol intake has been inconsistently associated with lung function levels in cross-sectional studies. The goal of our study was to determine whether longitudinally assessed light-to-moderate alcohol intake is associated with levels and decline of lung function. We examined data from 1333 adult participants in the population-based Tucson Epidemiological Study of Airway Obstructive Disease. Alcohol intake was assessed with four surveys between 1972 and 1992. Subjects who completed at least two surveys were classified into longitudinal drinking categories (never, inconsistent, or persistent drinker). Spirometric lung function was measured in up to 11 surveys between 1972 and 1992. Random coefficient models were used to test for differences in lung function by drinking categories. After adjustment for sex, age, height, education, BMI categories, smoking status, and pack-years, as compared to never-drinkers, persistent drinkers had higher FVC (coefficient: 157 mL, p < 0.001), but lower FEV1/FVC ratio (-2.3%, p < 0.001). Differences were due to a slower decline of FVC among persistent than among never-drinkers (p = 0.003), and these trends were present independent of smoking status. Inconsistent drinking showed similar, but weaker associations. After adjustment for potential confounders, light-to-moderate alcohol consumption was associated with a significantly decreased rate of FVC decline over adult life. (C) 2017 Elsevier Inc. 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

4.2
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available