4.6 Article

Urban air pollution and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease-related emergency department visits

期刊

JOURNAL OF EPIDEMIOLOGY AND COMMUNITY HEALTH
卷 63, 期 10, 页码 777-783

出版社

BMJ PUBLISHING GROUP
DOI: 10.1136/jech.2008.078360

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background: Patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) can have recurrent disease exacerbations triggered by several factors, including air pollution. Visits to the emergency respiratory department can be a direct result of short-term exposure to air pollution. The aim of this study was to investigate the relationship between the daily number of COPD emergency department visits and the daily environmental air concentrations of PM10, SO2, NO2, CO and O-3 in the City of Sao Paulo, Brazil. Methods: The sample data were collected between 2001 and 2003 and are categorised by gender and age. Generalised linear Poisson regression models were adopted to control for both short-and long-term seasonal changes as well as for temperature and relative humidity. The non-linear dependencies were controlled using a natural cubic spline function. Third-degree polynomial distributed lag models were adopted to estimate both lag structures and the cumulative effects of air pollutants. Results: PM10 and SO2 readings showed both acute and lagged effects on COPD emergency department visits. Interquartile range increases in their concentration (28.3 mg/m(3) and 7.8 mg/m(3), respectively) were associated with a cumulative 6-day increase of 19% and 16% in COPD admissions, respectively. An effect on women was observed at lag 0, and among the elderly the lag period was noted to be longer. Increases in CO concentration showed impacts in the female and elderly groups. NO2 and O-3 presented mild effects on the elderly and in women, respectively. Conclusion: These results indicate that air pollution affects health in a gender-and age-specific manner and should be considered a relevant risk factor that exacerbates COPD in urban environments.

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

4.6
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