4.7 Article

Alcohol intake, beverage type, and lung function: a multicohort study of Chinese adults

期刊

ANNALS OF THE NEW YORK ACADEMY OF SCIENCES
卷 1511, 期 1, 页码 164-172

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/nyas.14744

关键词

alcohol intake; beverage type; red wine; lung function

资金

  1. National Natural Science Foundation of China's Major Research Program [91843302]
  2. Key Project of the National Natural Science Foundation of China [91543207]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This study aimed to investigate the impact of alcohol intake on lung function levels and the potential effects of different beverage types. The findings showed that moderate alcohol intake, particularly red wine, was associated with improved lung function.
We aimed to investigate whether alcohol intake contributes to lung function levels and which beverage type may have an effect. We investigated 3742 participants from the Wuhai-Zhuhai Cohort and 12,526 participants from the Dongfeng-Tongji Cohort, and they were followed up for 3 and 5 years, respectively. Information on the type and daily amount of alcohol intake was collected through face-to-face interviews. Lung function was measured by trained physicians using electronic spirometers. Compared with nondrinkers, moderate alcohol intake was significantly associated with a 70.03 and 74.92 mL increase in FEV1 and FVC, respectively (P < 0.05), after adjusting for covariates. With regard to beverage type, red wine was associated with a 105.31 and 98.91 mL increase in FEV1 and FVC, respectively (P < 0.05). Moderate alcohol intake was also associated with a 53.37 and 66.17 mL increase in FEV1 and FVC for liquor, respectively, and a 106.90 and 103.62 mL increase for red wine (all Ps < 0.05). In the longitudinal analyses, moderate alcohol intake and red wine were associated with a 67.77 and 103.77 mL increase in FVC, respectively (P < 0.05). Moderate alcohol intake is associated with increased lung function, especially for red wine. Further studies are needed to investigate the potential mechanism.

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

4.7
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