4.3 Article

Association between Obesity and the Prevalence of Allergic Diseases, Atopy, and Bronchial Hyperresponsiveness in Korean Adolescents

期刊

出版社

KARGER
DOI: 10.1159/000319207

关键词

Adolescent; Asthma; Atopy; Bronchial; hyperresponsiveness; Inflammation; Overweight

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background: Although several mechanisms underlying the asthma-obesity connection have been proposed, debates still remain. This study was to determine whether overweight is associated with a higher prevalence of atopy, asthma symptoms, airway obstruction, bronchial hyperresponsiveness (BHR) or biomarkers of inflammation in a sample of Korean adolescents. Methods: We conducted a cross-sectional survey involving questionnaires, skin tests, spirometry and methacholine challenge tests among 717 adolescents from Seoul (South Korea). Overweight status was defined as a BMI greater than the local age-and gender-specific 85th percentile. Results: Overweight subjects more frequently reported ever having wheezing (24.6 vs. 14.0%, p = 0.001) and wheezing in the previous 12 months (11.5 vs. 6.3%, p = 0.02) than normal-weight subjects, especially in boys. Atopy was more common among overweight adolescents than among those of normal weight (61.5 vs. 49.2%, p = 0.002), especially in boys (65.0 vs. 52.8%, p = 0.005). Overweight subjects had higher total WBC counts and eosinophil counts, especially boys. The presence of BHR was more common only among overweight girls (32.8 vs. 18.0%, p = 0.028). Overweight status was a significant risk factor for the presence of atopy (odds ratio = 1.49; 95% CI 1.06-2.10), after adjusting for various confounders by logistic regression analysis. Conclusions: An association was found between overweight status and both atopy and an increased prevalence of wheezing in adolescent Korean boys. These findings suggest that being overweight in puberty may be one of several risk factors responsible for atopy, BHR, and asthma symptoms. Copyright (C) 2010 S. Karger AG, Basel

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

4.3
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