OBJECTIVE: To assess the association of airflow obstruction with self-reported use of solid fuels for cooking or heating.
METHODS: We analysed 18,554 adults from the BOLD study, who had provided acceptable post-bronchodilator spirometry measurements and information on use of solid fuels. The association of airflow obstruction with use of solid fuels for cooking or heating was assessed by sex, within each site, using regression analysis. Estimates were stratified by national income and meta-analysed. We carried out similar analyses for spirometric restriction, chronic cough and chronic phlegm.
MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: We found no association between airflow obstruction and use of solid fuels for cooking or heating (ORmen=1.20, 95%CI 0.94-1.53; ORwomen=0.88, 95%CI 0.67-1.15). This was true for low/middle and high income sites. Among never smokers there was also no evidence of an association of airflow obstruction with use of solid fuels (ORmen=1.00, 95%CI 0.57-1.76; ORwomen=1.00, 95%CI 0.76-1.32). Overall, we found no association of spirometric restriction, chronic cough or chronic phlegm with the use of solid fuels. However, we found that chronic phlegm was more likely to be reported among female never smokers and those who had been exposed for ≥20 years.
CONCLUSION: Airflow obstruction assessed from post-bronchodilator spirometry was not associated with use of solid fuels for cooking or heating.
METHODS: Using data from the Burden of Obstructive Lung Disease study (N = 21,594), we defined spirometric SAO as the mean forced expiratory flow rate between 25 and 75% of the FVC (FEF25-75) less than the lower limit of normal (LLN) or the forced expiratory volume in 3 s to FVC ratio (FEV3/FVC) less than the LLN. We analysed data on respiratory symptoms, cardiometabolic diseases, and QoL collected using standardised questionnaires. We assessed the associations with spirometric SAO using multivariable regression models, and pooled site estimates using random effects meta-analysis. We conducted identical analyses for isolated spirometric SAO (i.e. with FEV1/FVC ≥ LLN).
RESULTS: Almost a fifth of the participants had spirometric SAO (19% for FEF25-75; 17% for FEV3/FVC). Using FEF25-75, spirometric SAO was associated with dyspnoea (OR = 2.16, 95% CI 1.77-2.70), chronic cough (OR = 2.56, 95% CI 2.08-3.15), chronic phlegm (OR = 2.29, 95% CI 1.77-4.05), wheeze (OR = 2.87, 95% CI 2.50-3.40) and cardiovascular disease (OR = 1.30, 95% CI 1.11-1.52), but not hypertension or diabetes. Spirometric SAO was associated with worse physical and mental QoL. These associations were similar for FEV3/FVC. Isolated spirometric SAO (10% for FEF25-75; 6% for FEV3/FVC), was also associated with respiratory symptoms and cardiovascular disease.
CONCLUSION: Spirometric SAO is associated with respiratory symptoms, cardiovascular disease, and QoL. Consideration should be given to the measurement of FEF25-75 and FEV3/FVC, in addition to traditional spirometry parameters.
METHODS: We analysed cross-sectional data from 28 823 adults (≥40 years) in 34 countries. We considered 11 occupations and grouped them by likelihood of exposure to organic dusts, inorganic dusts and fumes. The association of chronic cough, chronic phlegm, wheeze, dyspnoea, forced vital capacity (FVC) and forced expiratory volume in 1 s (FEV1)/FVC with occupation was assessed, per study site, using multivariable regression. These estimates were then meta-analysed. Sensitivity analyses explored differences between sexes and gross national income.
RESULTS: Overall, working in settings with potentially high exposure to dusts or fumes was associated with respiratory symptoms but not lung function differences. The most common occupation was farming. Compared to people not working in any of the 11 considered occupations, those who were farmers for ≥20 years were more likely to have chronic cough (OR 1.52, 95% CI 1.19-1.94), wheeze (OR 1.37, 95% CI 1.16-1.63) and dyspnoea (OR 1.83, 95% CI 1.53-2.20), but not lower FVC (β=0.02 L, 95% CI -0.02-0.06 L) or lower FEV1/FVC (β=0.04%, 95% CI -0.49-0.58%). Some findings differed by sex and gross national income.
CONCLUSION: At a population level, the occupational exposures considered in this study do not appear to be major determinants of differences in lung function, although they are associated with more respiratory symptoms. Because not all work settings were included in this study, respiratory surveillance should still be encouraged among high-risk dusty and fume job workers, especially in low- and middle-income countries.