| Literature DB >> 25807578 |
Cavin K Ward-Caviness1, William E Kraus, Colette Blach, Carol S Haynes, Elaine Dowdy, Marie Lynn Miranda, Robert B Devlin, David Diaz-Sanchez, Wayne E Cascio, Shaibal Mukerjee, Casson Stallings, Luther A Smith, Simon G Gregory, Svati H Shah, Elizabeth R Hauser, Lucas M Neas.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The relationship between traffic-related air pollution (TRAP) and risk factors for cardiovascular disease needs to be better understood in order to address the adverse impact of air pollution on human health.Entities:
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2015 PMID: 25807578 PMCID: PMC4590740 DOI: 10.1289/ehp.1306980
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Environ Health Perspect ISSN: 0091-6765 Impact factor: 9.031
Figure 1CATHGEN participants in study area. The location of the study area in the state of North Carolina (top right), and the distribution of CATHGEN participants within the study area of Durham, Wake, and Orange counties. The participant locations are overlaid on a map of the primary and secondary roadway network, as well as the traffic exposure zones; the participant locations have been randomized on a small scale to protect confidential patient information while preserving the overall spatial distribution.
Demographic and clinical variables for the study cohort and race/sex stratified subcohorts used for analysis.
| Covariate | All | Male | Female | AA | EA |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2,124 | 1,274 | 850 | 625 | 1,499 | |
| Sex (% female) | 40.0 | 0.0 | 100.0 | 50.4 | 35.7 |
| Race (% EA) | 70.5 | 75.6 | 62.9 | 0.0 | 100.0 |
| Age (years) | 61.3 ± 12.2 | 60.7 ± 11.9 | 62.3 ± 12.6 | 57.4 ± 11.6 | 63.0 ± 12.0 |
| BMI (kg/m2) | 30.3 ± 7.36 | 29.9 ± 6.60 | 31.0 ± 8.33 | 32.6 ± 8.24 | 29.4 ± 6.75 |
| Ejection fraction (%) | 57.9 ± 12.8 | 56.4 ± 13.0 | 60.0 ± 12.3 | 56.3 ± 13.7 | 58.5 ± 12.4 |
| FPG (mg/dL) | 117 ± 48.1 | 119 ± 49.8 | 114 ± 45.3 | 124 ± 58.4 | 114 ± 42.7 |
| Total cholesterol (mg/dL) | 183 ± 47.5 | 179 ± 46.9 | 190 ± 47.8 | 185 ± 48.7 | 182 ± 47.0 |
| Triglycerides (mg/dL) | 166 ± 159 | 178 ± 187 | 146 ± 97.2 | 133 ± 85.8 | 180 ± 181 |
| LDL-C (mg/dL) | 104 ± 40.3 | 102 ± 38.7 | 107 ± 42.7 | 108 ± 41.8 | 102 ± 39.5 |
| HDL-C (mg/dL) | 47.5 ± 17.1 | 43.7 ± 14.7 | 53.6 ± 18.9 | 49.1 ± 17.5 | 46.7 ± 16.8 |
| Hyperlipidemia | 60.5 | 64.1 | 55.2 | 57.1 | 62.0 |
| Hypertension | 69.3 | 67.9 | 71.4 | 81.3 | 64.3 |
| CAD | 41.7 | 50.3 | 28.8 | 31.4 | 46.0 |
| Diabetes (HP) | 28.5 | 29.8 | 26.6 | 40.0 | 23.7 |
| Smoking status (% smokers) | 44.6 | 50.0 | 36.5 | 43.0 | 45.2 |
| HOMA-IR | 3.97 ± 5.84 | 3.93 ± 6.35 | 4.01 ± 5.08 | 5.13 ± 7.88 | 3.67 ± 4.34 |
| SES, median home value ($1,000s) | 179 ± 93.8 | 185 ± 94.2 | 171 ± 92.5 | 129 ± 68.6 | 200 ± 95.0 |
| Distance to roadways (m) | 898 ± 747 | 918 ± 759 | 868 ± 729 | 784 ± 663 | 946 ± 775 |
| Distance to roadways IQR (m) | 990 | 1,031 | 929 | 895 | 1,020 |
| TEZ 1 | 19.2 | 20.3 | 17.4 | 10.1 | 23.0 |
| TEZ 2 | 36.0 | 38.3 | 32.6 | 24.0 | 41.0 |
| TEZ 3 | 15.0 | 13.7 | 16.8 | 15.2 | 14.9 |
| TEZ 4 | 27.4 | 25.1 | 30.7 | 47.0 | 19.2 |
| TEZ 5 | 1.5 | 1.4 | 1.7 | 2.4 | 1.1 |
| TEZ 6 | 1.0 | 1.1 | 0.8 | 1.3 | 0.9 |
| Abbreviations: AA, African Americans; BMI, body mass index; CAD, coronary artery disease; EA, European Americans; FPG, fasting plasma glucose; HDL-C, high-density lipoprotein cholesterol; HOMA-IR, homeostatic model assessment method–insulin resistance; HP, health and physical examination; IQR, interquartile range; LDL-C, low-density lipoprotein cholesterol; SES, socioeconomic status; TEZ, traffic exposure zone. Values shown are mean ± SD for continuous variables and percentage for categorical variables. SES was assessed using the median home value at the census-block level. | |||||
Figure 2Association of glucose control and lipid metabolism outcomes with distance to roadways. Abbreviations: AA, African Americans; BMI, body mass index; EA, European Americans; FPG, fasting plasma glucose; HDL‑C, high-density lipoprotein cholesterol; HOMA‑IR, homeostatic model assessment method–insulin resistance; HP, health and physical examination; LDL‑C, low-density lipoprotein cholesterol. Forest plots of the association between distance to roadways and metabolic outcomes. Associations are presented as an effect estimate (Beta) for the continuous outcomes and as an OR for the binary outcomes. Associations were scaled so that a 1-unit change corresponds to the IQR (990 m); error bars indicate 95% CIs. Models were adjusted for race, sex, smoking status, socioeconomic status (median house value at census-block level), and BMI. Complete numeric data are provided in Supplemental Material, Table S2.
Figure 3Association of glucose control and lipid metabolism outcomes with traffic exposure zones. Abbreviations: BMI, body mass index; FPG, fasting plasma glucose; HDL‑C, high-density lipoprotein cholesterol; HOMA‑IR, homeostatic model assessment method–insulin resistance; HP, health and physical examination; LDL‑C, low-density lipoprotein cholesterol; TEZ, traffic exposure zone. Forest plots show the association between TEZ and metabolic outcomes. Associations are presented as an effect estimate (Beta) for the continuous outcomes and as an OR for the binary outcomes. Associations with individual TEZs are presented as compared with the baseline zone (TEZ 1). For the TEZ trend association, the TEZs were treated as a single ordinal variable. Error bars indicate 95% CIs. Models were adjusted for race, sex, smoking status, socioeconomic status (median home value at census-block level), and BMI. Complete numeric data are provided in Supplemental Material, Table S3.