4.6 Article

α1-Antitrypsin deficiency and lung disease:: risk modification by occupational and environmental inhalants

期刊

EUROPEAN RESPIRATORY JOURNAL
卷 26, 期 5, 页码 909-917

出版社

EUROPEAN RESPIRATORY SOC JOURNALS LTD
DOI: 10.1183/09031936.05.00021605

关键词

alpha(1)-antitrypsin; alpha(1)-antitrypsin deficiency; gene-environment interaction; occupational disorder; occupational exposure; passive smoking

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) is a prevalent and preventable disease associated with high morbidity and mortality. Severe and intermediate a(1)-antitrypsin (AAT) deficiency (serum levels < 11 and 11-20 mu mol center dot L-1, respectively) increase the risk of COPD in active smokers. However, little is known about the interaction of severe and intermediate AAT deficiency with modifiable COPD risk factors other than active smoking. In this study, a MEDLINE search was carried out for studies investigating the combined effect of environmental inhalants (occupation and passive smoking) and AAT deficiency in the lung. A total of 18 studies using established methods for the assessment of AAT deficiency were included in this review. Occupational exposures and passive smoking affected lung function decline or prevalence of respiratory symptoms in four out of five studies investigating subjects with severe AAT deficiency, and in eight out of 13 studies with a focus on intermediate AAT deficiency. While study designs mostly prohibited formal assessment of effect modification, an interaction between intermediate AAT deficiency and passive smoking was identified in two studies with children. Additional study limitations included small sample size, poor adjustment for confounding and misclassification of environmental exposure as well as AAT activity. In conclusion, population-based epidemiological studies with associated biobanks are needed to identify gene-environment interactions and population subgroups susceptible to alpha(1)-antitrypsin deficiency.

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