4.6 Article

Relation of smoking status to a panel of inflammatory markers: The Framingham offspring

期刊

ATHEROSCLEROSIS
卷 201, 期 1, 页码 217-224

出版社

ELSEVIER IRELAND LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.atherosclerosis.2007.12.058

关键词

Smoking; Inflammation; Cardiovascular disease; Epidemiology

资金

  1. National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute's Framingham Heart [N01-HC 25195, RO1 HL076784, RO1 HL064753, RO1 AG028321]
  2. Flight Attendants Medical Research Institute's Young Clinical Scientist Award

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Aims: We sought to investigate the hypothesis that smoking is accompanied by systemic inflammation. Methods and results: We examined the relation of smoking to 11 systemic inflammatory markers in Framingham Study participants (n = 2944) mean age 60 years, 55% women, 12% ethnic minorities) examined from 1998-2001. The cohort was divided into never (n = 1149), former (n = 1424), and current smokers with last cigarette >6 h (n = 134) or <= 6 h (n = 237) prior to phlebotomy. In multivariable-adjusted models there were significant overall between-smoking group differences (defined as p < 0.0045 to account for multiple testing) for every inflammatory 9 C marker tested, except for serum CD40 ligand (CD40L), myeloperoxidase (MPO) and tumor necrosis factor receptor-2 (TNFR2). With multivariable-adjustment, pair-wise comparisons with never smokers revealed that former smokers had significantly lower concentrations of plasma CD40L (p < 0.0001) and higher concentrations of (CRP) C-reactive protein (p = 0.002). Conclusions: As opposed to never smokers, those with acute cigarette smoke exposure (<= 6h) had significantly higher concentrations of all markers p < 0.0001) except serum CD40L, MPO, and TNFR2; plasma CD40L were significantly lower. Compared with never smokers, cigarette snickers have significantly elevated concentrations of most circulating inflammatory markers, consistent with the hypothesis that smoking is associated with a systemic inflammatory state. (C) 2008 Elsevier Ireland Ltd. All rights reserved.

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