4.0 Article

Obesity is a risk factor for dyspnea but not for airflow obstruction

期刊

ARCHIVES OF INTERNAL MEDICINE
卷 162, 期 13, 页码 1477-1481

出版社

AMER MEDICAL ASSOC
DOI: 10.1001/archinte.162.13.1477

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background: Previous research suggests that obesity is an important risk factor for asthma. However, since obesity can cause dyspnea through mechanisms other than airflow obstruction, diagnostic misclassification of asthma could partially account for this association. Objective: To determine whether there is a relationship between obesity and airflow obstruction. Methods: A total of 16171 participants (17 years or older) from the Third National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES 111) were divided into 5 quintiles based on their body mass index (BMI) to determine the association between BMI quintile and risk of self-reported asthma, bronchodilator use, exercise performance, and airflow obstruction. Significant airflow obstruction was defined as a ratio less than 80% the predicted value of forced expiratory volume in I second to forced vital capacity adjusted for age, sex, and race. Results: The highest BMI quintile (ie, the most obese participants) had the greatest risk of self-reported asthma (odds ratio [OR], 1.50 95% confidence interval [01, 1.24-1.81), bronchodilator use (OR, 1.94; 95% CI, 1.38-2.72), and dyspnea with exertion (OR, 2.66; 95% CI, 2.35-3.00). Paradoxically, the highest BMI quintile had the lowest risk for significant airflow obstruction (P = .001). Conclusions: This study demonstrates that while obesity is a risk factor for self-reported asthma, obese participants are at a lower risk for (objective) airflow obstruction. Many more obese than nonobese participants were using bronchodilators despite a lack of objective evidence for airflow obstruction. These data suggest that mechanisms other than airflow obstruction are responsible for dyspnea genesis in obesity and that asthma might be over-diagnosed in the obese population.

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

4.0
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