4.2 Article

Distribution of Clinical Phenotypes in Patients With Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease Caused by Biomass and Tobacco Smoke

Journal

ARCHIVOS DE BRONCONEUMOLOGIA
Volume 50, Issue 8, Pages 318-324

Publisher

ELSEVIER ESPANA SLU
DOI: 10.1016/j.arbres.2013.12.013

Keywords

Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease; Biomass; Tobacco; Phenotypes; Comorbidity

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Introduction: Exposure to biomass smoke is a risk factor for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). It is unknown whether COPD caused by biomass smoke has different characteristics to COPD caused by tobacco smoke. Objective: To determine clinical differences between these two types of the disease. Methods: Retrospective observational study of 499 patients with a diagnosis of COPD due to biomass or tobacco smoke. The clinical variables of both groups were compared. Results: There were 122 subjects (24.4%) in the biomass smoke group and 377 (75.5%) in the tobacco smoke group. In the tobacco group, the percentage of males was higher (91.2% vs 41.8%, P<.0001) and the age was lower (70.6 vs 76.2 years, P<.0001). Body mass index and FEV1 % values were higher in the biomass group (29.4 +/- 5.7 vs 28.0 +/- 5.1, P=.01, and 55.6 +/- 15.6 vs 47.1 +/- 17.1, P<.0001, respectively). The mixed COPD-asthma phenotype was more common in the biomass group (21.3% vs 5%, P<.0001), although this difference disappeared when corrected for gender. The emphysema phenotype was more common in the tobacco group (45.9% vs 31.9%, P=.009). The prevalence of the chronic bronchitis and exacerbator phenotypes, the comorbidity burden and the rate of hospital admissions were the same in both groups. Conclusion: Differences were observed between COPD caused by biomass and COPD caused by tobacco smoke, although these may be attributed in part to uneven gender distribution between the groups. (C) 2013 SEPAR. Published by Elsevier Espana, S.L. 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