4.4 Article

Ambient Air Pollution Exposures and Risk of Rheumatoid Arthritis

期刊

ARTHRITIS CARE & RESEARCH
卷 65, 期 7, 页码 1190-1196

出版社

WILEY-BLACKWELL
DOI: 10.1002/acr.21975

关键词

-

资金

  1. NIH [R01-AR49880, CA87969, P60-AR047782, K24-AR0524-01, P01-CA87969, ES017017]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

ObjectiveEnvironmental factors may play a role in the development of rheumatoid arthritis (RA). We previously observed increased RA risk among women living closer to major roads (a source of air pollution). Herein, we examined whether long-term exposures to specific air pollutants were associated with RA risk among women in the Nurses' Health Study (NHS). MethodsThe NHS is a large US cohort of female nurses followed up prospectively every 2 years since 1976. We studied 111,425 NHS participants with information on air pollution exposures as well as data concerning other lifestyle and behavioral exposures and disease outcomes. Outdoor levels of different size fractions of particulate matter (PM10 and PM2.5) and gaseous pollutants (SO2 and NO2) were predicted for all available residential addresses using monitoring data from the US Environmental Protection Agency. We examined the association of time-varying exposures 6 and 10 years before each questionnaire cycle and cumulative average exposure with the risk of RA, seronegative (rheumatoid factor and anti-citrullinated peptide antibody negative) RA, and seropositive RA. ResultsOver the 3,019,424 person-years of followup, 858 incident RA cases were validated by medical record review by 2 board-certified rheumatologists. Overall, we found no evidence of increased risk of RA, seronegative RA, or seropositive RA with exposure to the different pollutants and little evidence of effect modification by socioeconomic status or smoking status, geographic region, or calendar period. ConclusionIn this group of socioeconomically advantaged middle-aged and elderly women, adult exposures to air pollution were not associated with an increased RA risk.

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

4.4
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