4.3 Article

Adult E-Cigarettes Use Associated with a Self-Reported Diagnosis of COPD

出版社

MDPI
DOI: 10.3390/ijerph16203938

关键词

E-cigarettes; COPD; Adults; PATH

资金

  1. NIH [R01CA207491]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The use of electronic cigarettes (e-cigarettes) has increased in the US, but little is known about the effects of these products on lung health. The main purpose of this study was to examine the association between e-cigarette use and a participant's report of being diagnosed with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) in a nationally representative sample of adults. Methods: The first wave of the Population Assessment of Tobacco and Health (PATH) survey adult data was used (N = 32,320). Potential confounders between e-cigarette users and non-users were balanced using propensity score matching. Odds ratios (OR) were calculated to examine the association between e-cigarette use and COPD in the propensity-matched sample, the entire sample, different age groups, and in nonsmokers. Replicate weights and balanced repeated replication methods were utilized to account for the complex survey design. Results: Of the 3642 participants who met the criteria for e-cigarette use, 2727 were propensity matched with 2727 non e-cigarette users. In the propensity-matched sample, e-cigarette users were more likely to report being diagnosed with COPD (OR 1.43, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.12-1.85) than non-e-cigarette users after adjusting for confounders. The result was similar in the entire sample and in the different age subgroups. Among nonsmokers, the odds of reporting a COPD diagnosis were even greater among e-cigarette users (OR 2.94, 95% CI 1.73-4.99) compared to non-e-cigarette users. Conclusion: Our findings demonstrate that e-cigarette use was associated with a reported diagnosis of COPD among adults in the US. Further research is necessary to characterize the nature of this association and on the long-term effects of using e-cigarettes.

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