-
European Respiratory Review : An... Jun 2023COPD and adult-onset asthma (AOA) are the most common noncommunicable respiratory diseases. To improve early identification and prevention, an overview of risk factors... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
COPD and adult-onset asthma (AOA) are the most common noncommunicable respiratory diseases. To improve early identification and prevention, an overview of risk factors is needed. We therefore aimed to systematically summarise the nongenetic (exposome) risk factors for AOA and COPD. Additionally, we aimed to compare the risk factors for COPD and AOA.
METHODS
In this umbrella review, we searched PubMed for articles from inception until 1 February 2023 and screened the references of relevant articles. We included systematic reviews and meta-analyses of observational epidemiological studies in humans that assessed a minimum of one lifestyle or environmental risk factor for AOA or COPD.
RESULTS
In total, 75 reviews were included, of which 45 focused on risk factors for COPD, 28 on AOA and two examined both. For asthma, 43 different risk factors were identified while 45 were identified for COPD. For AOA, smoking, a high body mass index (BMI), wood dust exposure and residential chemical exposures, such as formaldehyde exposure or exposure to volatile organic compounds, were amongst the risk factors found. For COPD, smoking, ambient air pollution including nitrogen dioxide, a low BMI, indoor biomass burning, childhood asthma, occupational dust exposure and diet were amongst the risk factors found.
CONCLUSIONS
Many different factors for COPD and asthma have been found, highlighting the differences and similarities. The results of this systematic review can be used to target and identify people at high risk for COPD or AOA.
Topics: Adult; Humans; Child; Pulmonary Disease, Chronic Obstructive; Asthma; Risk Factors; Air Pollution; Dust; Environmental Exposure
PubMed: 37137510
DOI: 10.1183/16000617.0009-2023 -
Clinical and Experimental Allergy :... May 2022Severe asthma is a major cause of morbidity. Some patients may benefit from biological therapies. Most evaluations of these treatments are derived from randomized... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Severe asthma is a major cause of morbidity. Some patients may benefit from biological therapies. Most evaluations of these treatments are derived from randomized controlled trials (RCTs), but few patients are eligible for these trials. Studies involving more diverse groups of participants exist, but there is a lack of precise pooled estimates.
OBJECTIVE
This systematic review aims to evaluate the real-world efficacy of recently and nearly licensed biological therapies for severe asthma to assess the generalizability of the RCT data.
METHODS
Clinical outcomes including exacerbation rate, oral corticosteroid usage, forced expiratory volume in 1 second (FEV ) and fractional exhaled nitric oxide (FeNO) were examined. Studies were assessed for risk of bias using the Critical Appraisal Skills Programme checklist tool. The certainty of evidence was assessed using Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluations (GRADE).
RESULTS
A total of 21 studies examining biologicals in real-world settings were identified; they mostly focused on benralizumab and mepolizumab. The introduction of biologicals reduced the annualzsed exacerbation rate significantly by -3.79 (95% confidence interval [CI] -4.53, -3.04), -3.17 (95% CI -3.74, -2.59) and -6.72 (95% CI -8.47, -4.97) with benralizumab, mepolizumab and reslizumab, respectively. Likewise, improvements were observed in FEV (0.17 L 95% CI 0.11, 0.24) and FeNO (-14.23 ppb 95% CI -19.71, -8.75) following the treatment with mepolizumab. After treatment with benralizumab, there was an increase in FEV (0.21 L 95% CI 0.08, 0.34).
CONCLUSIONS
These data demonstrate that anti-IL5 biologicals may improve the clinical outcomes of patients with severe asthma in a clinic environment with similar effect sizes to RCTs. The data were mainly retrospective and unadjusted, so estimated effect sizes may not be reliable. More data are needed to acquire accurate effect estimates in different subpopulations of patients.
Topics: Anti-Asthmatic Agents; Antibodies, Monoclonal, Humanized; Asthma; Biological Products; Humans; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
PubMed: 35174566
DOI: 10.1111/cea.14112 -
Annals of Physical and Rehabilitation... Apr 2023The last systematic review about respiratory muscle training (RMT) in people with asthma was published almost 10 years ago. Since then, several works have been published. (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
The last systematic review about respiratory muscle training (RMT) in people with asthma was published almost 10 years ago. Since then, several works have been published.
OBJECTIVE
To review the effect of RMT in people with asthma.
METHODS
We conducted a systematic review of research included up to September 2021 in PubMed/MEDLINE, PEDro, Scopus, Web of Science, CINAHL, LILACS, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials and ClinicalTrials.gov. We included randomized controlled trials and quasi-experimental studies assessing the effect of RMT on respiratory muscle function, rescue medication, asthma-related symptoms, lung function, exercise capacity, healthcare use, health-related quality of life (HRQoL) and adverse effects in people with asthma. Risk of bias and methodological quality were assessed with the Cochrane Risk of Bias assessment tool and the PEDro scale. Meta-analysis was performed whenever possible; otherwise a qualitative approach was followed.
RESULTS
Eleven studies (270 participants) were included, 10 with only adults and were included in the meta-analysis. Inspiratory muscle training (IMT) had beneficial effects on maximal inspiratory pressure (PImax: mean difference [MD] 21.95 cmHO [95% confidence interval [CI] 15.05; 28.85]), with no changes in maximal expiratory pressure (MD 14.97 cmHO [95%CI -5.65; 35.59]), lung function (forced expiratory volume in 1 sec: MD 0.06 [95%CI -0.14; 0.26] L; force vital capacity: MD 0.39 [95%CI -0.24; 1.02] L) and exercise capacity (standard mean difference [SMD] 1.73 [95%CI -0.61; 4.08]). Subgroup analysis revealed that IMT load >50% PImax and duration >6 weeks were beneficial for exercise capacity. The qualitative analysis suggested that IMT may have benefits on respiratory muscle endurance, rescue medication and exertional dyspnoea, with no adverse effects.
CONCLUSIONS
This systematic review and meta-analysis showed a significant increase in PImax after IMT in adults with asthma and reinforced the relevance of the dose-response principle of training. More evidence is needed to clarify the effect of IMT in respiratory muscle endurance, rescue medication, exercise capacity, healthcare use and HRQoL.
TRIAL REGISTRATION
PROSPERO International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews CRD42020221939; https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?RecordID=221939.
Topics: Adult; Humans; Quality of Life; Breathing Exercises; Asthma; Respiratory Muscles
PubMed: 35843501
DOI: 10.1016/j.rehab.2022.101691 -
European Respiratory Review : An... Jun 2023Climate change's influence on extreme weather events poses a significant threat to the morbidity and mortality of asthma patients. The aim of this study was to examine... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Climate change's influence on extreme weather events poses a significant threat to the morbidity and mortality of asthma patients. The aim of this study was to examine associations between extreme weather events and asthma-related outcomes.
METHODS
A systematic literature search for relevant studies was performed using the PubMed, EMBASE, Web of Science and ProQuest databases. Fixed-effects and random-effects models were applied to estimate the effects of extreme weather events on asthma-related outcomes.
RESULTS
We observed that extreme weather events were associated with increasing risks of general asthma outcomes with relative risks of 1.18-fold for asthma events (95% CI 1.13-1.24), 1.10-fold for asthma symptoms (95% CI 1.03-1.18) and 1.09-fold for asthma diagnoses (95% CI 1.00-1.19). Extreme weather events were associated with increased risks of acute asthma exacerbation with risk ratios of asthma emergency department visits of 1.25-fold (95% CI 1.14-1.37), of asthma hospital admissions of 1.10-fold (95% CI 1.04-1.17), of asthma outpatient visits of 1.19-fold (95% CI 1.06-1.34) and of asthma mortality of 2.10-fold (95% CI 1.35-3.27). Additionally, an increase in extreme weather events increased risk ratios of asthma events by 1.19-fold in children and 1.29-fold in females (95% CI 1.08-1.32 and 95% CI 0.98-1.69, respectively). Thunderstorms increased the risk ratio of asthma events by 1.24-fold (95% CI 1.13-1.36).
CONCLUSIONS
Our study showed that extreme weather events more prominently increased the risk of asthma morbidity and mortality in children and females. Climate change is a critical concern for asthma control.
Topics: Child; Female; Humans; Extreme Weather; Asthma; Hospitalization; Emergency Service, Hospital
PubMed: 37286218
DOI: 10.1183/16000617.0019-2023 -
International Journal of Environmental... Jul 2022Air pollution affects health, but much of the focus to this point has been on outdoor air. Higher indoor pollution is anticipated due to increasingly energy-efficient... (Review)
Review
Indoor Air Pollution and the Health of Vulnerable Groups: A Systematic Review Focused on Particulate Matter (PM), Volatile Organic Compounds (VOCs) and Their Effects on Children and People with Pre-Existing Lung Disease.
Air pollution affects health, but much of the focus to this point has been on outdoor air. Higher indoor pollution is anticipated due to increasingly energy-efficient and less leaky buildings together with more indoor activities. Studies of indoor air pollution focusing on children and people with respiratory disease from the database Web of Science (1991-2021) were systemically reviewed according to the PRISMA guidelines, with 69 studies included in the final selection. Emissions from building materials affected indoor air quality, and ventilation also had an influence. The main indoor air pollutants are Volatile Organic Compounds (VOCs) and Particulate Matter (PM). PM sources included smoking, cooking, heating, candles, and insecticides, whereas sources of coarse particles were pets, housework and human movements. VOC sources included household products, cleaning agents, glue, personal care products, building materials and vehicle emissions. Formaldehyde levels were particularly high in new houses. Personal exposure related to both indoor and outdoor pollutant levels, highlighting home characteristics and air exchange rates as important factors. Temperature, humidity, educational level, air purifiers and time near sources were also related to personal exposure. There was an association between PM and Fractional exhaled Nitric Oxide (FeNO), lung function, oxygen saturation, childhood asthma and symptoms of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) patients. High VOCs were associated with upper airways and asthma symptoms and cancer. Effective interventional studies for PM in the future might focus on human behavior together with air purifiers and increased ventilation, whereas VOC interventions might center more on building materials and household products, alongside purification and ventilation.
Topics: Air Pollutants; Air Pollution, Indoor; Asthma; Child; Environmental Monitoring; Humans; Lung; Lung Diseases; Particulate Matter; Volatile Organic Compounds
PubMed: 35886604
DOI: 10.3390/ijerph19148752 -
The European Respiratory Journal Jul 2020To evaluate the effect of aerobic exercise training on asthma control, lung function and airway inflammation in adults with asthma. (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
OBJECTIVE
To evaluate the effect of aerobic exercise training on asthma control, lung function and airway inflammation in adults with asthma.
DESIGN
Systematic review and meta-analysis.
METHODS
Randomised controlled trials investigating the effect of ≥8 weeks of aerobic exercise training on outcomes for asthma control, lung function and airway inflammation in adults with asthma were eligible for study. MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, PEDro and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) were searched up to April 3, 2019. Risk of bias was assessed using the Cochrane Risk of Bias Tool.
RESULTS
We included 11 studies with a total of 543 adults with asthma. Participants' mean (range) age was 36.5 (22-54) years; 74.8% of participants were female and the mean (range) body mass index was 27.6 (23.2-38.1) kg·m. Interventions had a median (range) duration of 12 (8-12) weeks and included walking, jogging, spinning, treadmill running and other unspecified exercise training programmes. Exercise training improved asthma control with a standard mean difference (SMD) of -0.48 (-0.81--0.16). Lung function slightly increased with an SMD of -0.36 (-0.72-0.00) in favour of exercise training. Exercise training had no apparent effect on markers of airway inflammation (SMD -0.03 (-0.41-0.36)).
CONCLUSIONS
In adults with asthma, aerobic exercise training has potential to improve asthma control and lung function, but not airway inflammation.
Topics: Adult; Asthma; Body Mass Index; Exercise; Exercise Therapy; Female; Humans; Male; Middle Aged; Walking
PubMed: 32350100
DOI: 10.1183/13993003.00146-2020 -
The Journal of Allergy and Clinical... Mar 2023It is unclear how the efficacy of tezepelumab, approved for the treatment of type 2 high and low asthma, compares to the efficacy of other biologics for type 2-high... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
It is unclear how the efficacy of tezepelumab, approved for the treatment of type 2 high and low asthma, compares to the efficacy of other biologics for type 2-high asthma.
OBJECTIVES
We sought to conduct an indirect comparison of tezepelumab to dupilumab, benralizumab, and mepolizumab in the treatment of eosinophilic asthma.
METHODS
The investigators conducted a systematic review and Bayesian network meta-analyses. They identified randomized controlled trials indexed in PubMed, Embase, or Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) between January 1, 2000, and August 12, 2022. Outcomes included exacerbation rates, prebronchodilator FEV, and the Asthma Control Questionnaire.
RESULTS
Ten randomized controlled trials (n = 9201) met eligibility. Tezepelumab (relative risk: 0.63; 95% credible interval [CI]: 0.46-0.86) was associated with significantly lower exacerbation rates than benralizumab and larger improvements in FEV compared to mepolizumab (mean difference [MD]: 66; 95% CI: -33 to 170) and benralizumab (MD: 62; 95% CI: -22 to 150), though the 95% CI crossed the null value of 0. Mepolizumab improved the Asthma Control Questionnaire score the most, but this improvement was not significantly different from that of tezepelumab (tezepelumab vs mepolizumab; MD: 0.14; 95% CI: -0.10 to 0.38). For efficacy by clinically important thresholds, tezepelumab, mepolizumab, and dupilumab achieved a >99% probability of reducing exacerbation rates by ≥50% compared to placebo, but benralizumab had only a 66% probability of doing so. Tezepelumab and dupilumab had a probability of 1.00 of improving prebronchodilator FEV by ≥100 mL above placebo. Compared to mepolizumab, dupilumab had >90% chance for improving FEV by ≥50 mL, but none of the differences between biologics exceeded 100 mL.
CONCLUSIONS
In individuals with eosinophilic asthma, tezepelumab and dupilumab were associated with greater improvements (although below clinical thresholds) in exacerbation rates and lung function than benralizumab or mepolizumab.
Topics: Humans; Anti-Asthmatic Agents; Network Meta-Analysis; Bayes Theorem; Asthma; Pulmonary Eosinophilia; Biological Products
PubMed: 36538979
DOI: 10.1016/j.jaci.2022.11.021 -
JAMA Jun 2021The benefits and harms of adding long-acting muscarinic antagonists (LAMAs) to inhaled corticosteroids (ICS) and long-acting β2-agonists (LABAs) for moderate to severe... (Comparative Study)
Comparative Study Meta-Analysis
IMPORTANCE
The benefits and harms of adding long-acting muscarinic antagonists (LAMAs) to inhaled corticosteroids (ICS) and long-acting β2-agonists (LABAs) for moderate to severe asthma remain unclear.
OBJECTIVE
To systematically synthesize the outcomes and adverse events associated with triple therapy (ICS, LABA, and LAMA) vs dual therapy (ICS plus LABA) in children and adults with persistent uncontrolled asthma.
DATA SOURCES
MEDLINE, Embase, CENTRAL, ICTRP, FDA, and EMA databases from November 2017, to December 8, 2020, without language restriction.
STUDY SELECTION
Two investigators independently selected randomized clinical trials (RCTs) comparing triple vs dual therapy in patients with moderate to severe asthma.
DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS
Two reviewers independently extracted data and assessed risk of bias. Random-effects meta-analyses, including individual patient-level exacerbation data, were used. The GRADE (Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation) approach was used to assess certainty (quality) of the evidence.
MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES
Severe exacerbations, asthma control (measured using the Asthma Control Questionnaire [ACQ-7], a 7-item list with each item ranging from 0 [totally controlled] to 6 [severely uncontrolled]; minimal important difference, 0.5), quality of life (measured using the Asthma-related Quality of Life [AQLQ] tool; score range, 1 [severely impaired] to 7 [no impairment]; minimal important difference, 0.5), mortality, and adverse events.
RESULTS
Twenty RCTs using 3 LAMA types that enrolled 11 894 children and adults (mean age, 52 years [range, 9-71 years]; 57.7% female) were included. High-certainty evidence showed that triple therapy vs dual therapy was significantly associated with a reduction in severe exacerbation risk (9 trials [9932 patients]; 22.7% vs 27.4%; risk ratio, 0.83 [95% CI, 0.77 to 0.90]) and an improvement in asthma control (14 trials [11 230 patients]; standardized mean difference [SMD], -0.06 [95% CI, -0.10 to -0.02]; mean difference in ACQ-7 scale, -0.04 [95% CI, -0.07 to -0.01]). There were no significant differences in asthma-related quality of life (7 trials [5247 patients]; SMD, 0.05 [95% CI, -0.03 to 0.13]; mean difference in AQLQ score, 0.05 [95% CI, -0.03 to 0.13]; moderate-certainty evidence) or mortality (17 trials [11 595 patients]; 0.12% vs 0.12%; risk ratio, 0.96 [95% CI, 0.33 to 2.75]; high-certainty evidence) between dual and triple therapy. Triple therapy was significantly associated with increased dry mouth and dysphonia (10 trials [7395 patients]; 3.0% vs 1.8%; risk ratio, 1.65 [95% CI, 1.14 to 2.38]; high-certainty evidence), but treatment-related and serious adverse events were not significantly different between groups (moderate-certainty evidence).
CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE
Among children (aged 6 to 18 years) and adults with moderate to severe asthma, triple therapy, compared with dual therapy, was significantly associated with fewer severe asthma exacerbations and modest improvements in asthma control without significant differences in quality of life or mortality.
Topics: Administration, Inhalation; Adrenal Cortex Hormones; Adrenergic beta-2 Receptor Agonists; Adult; Anti-Asthmatic Agents; Asthma; Child; Drug Therapy, Combination; Forced Expiratory Volume; Humans; Muscarinic Antagonists; Nebulizers and Vaporizers; Quality of Life; Severity of Illness Index; Symptom Flare Up; Xerostomia
PubMed: 34009257
DOI: 10.1001/jama.2021.7872 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Mar 2020Breathing exercises have been widely used worldwide as a non-pharmacological therapy to treat people with asthma. Breathing exercises aim to control the symptoms of... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Breathing exercises have been widely used worldwide as a non-pharmacological therapy to treat people with asthma. Breathing exercises aim to control the symptoms of asthma and can be performed as the Papworth Method, the Buteyko breathing technique, yogic breathing, deep diaphragmatic breathing or any other similar intervention that manipulates the breathing pattern. The training of breathing usually focuses on tidal and minute volume and encourages relaxation, exercise at home, the modification of breathing pattern, nasal breathing, holding of breath, lower rib cage and abdominal breathing.
OBJECTIVES
To evaluate the evidence for the efficacy of breathing exercises in the management of people with asthma.
SEARCH METHODS
To identify relevant studies we searched The Cochrane Library, MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO, CINAHL and AMED and performed handsearching of respiratory journals and meeting abstracts. We also consulted trials registers and reference lists of included articles. The most recent literature search was on 4 April 2019.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We included randomised controlled trials of breathing exercises in adults with asthma compared with a control group receiving asthma education or, alternatively, with no active control group.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two review authors independently assessed study quality and extracted data. We used Review Manager 5 software for data analysis based on the random-effects model. We expressed continuous outcomes as mean differences (MDs) with confidence intervals (CIs) of 95%. We assessed heterogeneity by inspecting the forest plots. We applied the Chi test, with a P value of 0.10 indicating statistical significance, and the I statistic, with a value greater than 50% representing a substantial level of heterogeneity. The primary outcome was quality of life.
MAIN RESULTS
We included nine new studies (1910 participants) in this update, resulting in a total of 22 studies involving 2880 participants in the review. Fourteen studies used Yoga as the intervention, four studies involved breathing retraining, one the Buteyko method, one the Buteyko method and pranayama, one the Papworth method and one deep diaphragmatic breathing. The studies were different from one another in terms of type of breathing exercise performed, number of participants enrolled, number of sessions completed, period of follow-up, outcomes reported and statistical presentation of data. Asthma severity in participants from the included studies ranged from mild to moderate, and the samples consisted solely of outpatients. Twenty studies compared breathing exercise with inactive control, and two with asthma education control groups. Meta-analysis was possible for the primary outcome quality of life and the secondary outcomes asthma symptoms, hyperventilation symptoms, and some lung function variables. Assessment of risk of bias was impaired by incomplete reporting of methodological aspects of most of the included studies. We did not include adverse effects as an outcome in the review. Breathing exercises versus inactive control For quality of life, measured by the Asthma Quality of Life Questionnaire (AQLQ), meta-analysis showed improvement favouring the breathing exercises group at three months (MD 0.42, 95% CI 0.17 to 0.68; 4 studies, 974 participants; moderate-certainty evidence), and at six months the OR was 1.34 for the proportion of people with at least 0.5 unit improvement in AQLQ, (95% CI 0.97 to 1.86; 1 study, 655 participants). For asthma symptoms, measured by the Asthma Control Questionnaire (ACQ), meta-analysis at up to three months was inconclusive, MD of -0.15 units (95% CI -2.32 to 2.02; 1 study, 115 participants; low-certainty evidence), and was similar over six months (MD -0.08 units, 95% CI -0.22 to 0.07; 1 study, 449 participants). For hyperventilation symptoms, measured by the Nijmegen Questionnaire (from four to six months), meta-analysis showed less symptoms with breathing exercises (MD -3.22, 95% CI -6.31 to -0.13; 2 studies, 118 participants; moderate-certainty evidence), but this was not shown at six months (MD 0.63, 95% CI -0.90 to 2.17; 2 studies, 521 participants). Meta-analyses for forced expiratory volume in 1 second (FEV1) measured at up to three months was inconclusive, MD -0.10 L, (95% CI -0.32 to 0.12; 4 studies, 252 participants; very low-certainty evidence). However, for FEV % of predicted, an improvement was observed in favour of the breathing exercise group (MD 6.88%, 95% CI 5.03 to 8.73; five studies, 618 participants). Breathing exercises versus asthma education For quality of life, one study measuring AQLQ was inconclusive up to three months (MD 0.04, 95% CI -0.26 to 0.34; 1 study, 183 participants). When assessed from four to six months, the results favoured breathing exercises (MD 0.38, 95% CI 0.08 to 0.68; 1 study, 183 participants). Hyperventilation symptoms measured by the Nijmegen Questionnaire were inconclusive up to three months (MD -1.24, 95% CI -3.23 to 0.75; 1 study, 183 participants), but favoured breathing exercises from four to six months (MD -3.16, 95% CI -5.35 to -0.97; 1 study, 183 participants).
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
Breathing exercises may have some positive effects on quality of life, hyperventilation symptoms, and lung function. Due to some methodological differences among included studies and studies with poor methodology, the quality of evidence for the measured outcomes ranged from moderate to very low certainty according to GRADE criteria. In addition, further studies including full descriptions of treatment methods and outcome measurements are required.
Topics: Adult; Asthma; Breathing Exercises; Disease Progression; Health Education; Humans; Hyperventilation; Quality of Life; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Respiratory Function Tests; Yoga
PubMed: 32212422
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD001277.pub4 -
American Journal of Preventive Medicine Jun 2022Numerous studies have revealed the relationship between E-cigarettes and asthma but have shown inconsistent results. This study systematically evaluated the potential... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
INTRODUCTION
Numerous studies have revealed the relationship between E-cigarettes and asthma but have shown inconsistent results. This study systematically evaluated the potential association between E-cigarette use and asthma in adolescents.
METHODS
PubMed, Embase (Ovid), Cochrane Library, and the China Biological Medicine Database were searched for relevant articles published between database inception and February 28, 2021. The quality of included studies was evaluated using the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality assessment, and a quantitative meta-analysis was conducted to pool outcomes of ORs with 95% CIs.
RESULTS
A total of 10 cross-sectional studies incorporating a total of 483,948 participants were included. All the study participants were middle- and high-school students with a mean age of 15-16 years. The median prevalence of ever E-cigarette use was 11.2% (range=2.2%, 45%), and that of current use was 7.5% (range=2.7%, 25%). Overall, E-cigarette use was associated with significantly higher odds of having asthma (pooled OR=1.31, 95% CI=1.22, 1.42) than nonuse, and both current use (OR=1.36, 95% CI=1.26, 1.48) and ever use (OR=1.20, 95% CI=1.12, 1.28) showed similar associations.
DISCUSSION
This study shows that both current and ever E-cigarette use have significant associations with asthma in adolescents. This knowledge might provide potential evidence for developing primary prevention strategies and serve as a reference for public health policy.
Topics: Adolescent; Asthma; Cross-Sectional Studies; Electronic Nicotine Delivery Systems; Humans; Students; Vaping
PubMed: 35337694
DOI: 10.1016/j.amepre.2022.01.015