| Literature DB >> 27847517 |
Gavin Sun1, Glen Hazlewood1, Sasha Bernatsky2, Gilaad G Kaplan3, Bertus Eksteen1, Cheryl Barnabe3.
Abstract
Objective. Environmental risk factors, such as air pollution, have been studied in relation to the risk of development of rheumatic diseases. We performed a systematic literature review to summarize the existing knowledge. Methods. MEDLINE (1946 to September 2016) and EMBASE (1980 to 2016, week 37) databases were searched using MeSH terms and keywords to identify cohort, case-control, and case cross-over studies reporting risk estimates for the development of select rheumatic diseases in relation to exposure of measured air pollutants (n = 8). We extracted information on the population sample and study period, method of case and exposure determination, and the estimate of association. Results. There was no consistent evidence of an increased risk for the development of rheumatoid arthritis (RA) with exposure to NO2, SO2, PM2.5, or PM10. Case-control studies in systemic autoimmune rheumatic diseases (SARDs) indicated higher odds of diagnosis with increasing PM2.5 exposure, as well as an increased relative risk for juvenile idiopathic arthritis (JIA) in American children <5.5 years of age. There was no association with SARDs and NO2 exposure. Conclusion. There is evidence for a possible association between air pollutant exposures and the development of SARDs and JIA, but relationships with other rheumatic diseases are less clear.Entities:
Year: 2016 PMID: 27847517 PMCID: PMC5099457 DOI: 10.1155/2016/5356307
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Int J Rheumatol ISSN: 1687-9260
Figure 1Study selection.
Description of studies included for synthesis.
| Disease studied | Author and year | Country or region | Type of study | Sample | Case definition for diagnosis of rheumatic disease | Years of study | Air pollutants studied | Method to determine exposure |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Rheumatoid arthritis | Chang et al., 2016 [ | Taiwan | Cohort | Population at risk | Administrative data, 1 ICD-9-CM code for RA | 2000–2010 | NO2, PM2.5 | Monitoring sites |
| De Roos et al., 2014 [ | British Columbia, Canada | Nested case-control | Controls, | Administrative data, 2 ICD-9 codes for RA with minimum 1 visit to physician specialist | 1994–2002 | NO2, SO2, PM2.5, PM10, CO, NO, black carbon, ozone | Land use regression method for black carbon, PM2.5, NO2, NO | |
| Hart et al., 2013 [ | Sweden | Case-control | Controls, | Rheumatologist history and exam | 1996–2008 | NO2, SO2, PM10 | Land use regression | |
| Hart et al., 2013 [ | USA | Cohort | Population at risk, | Self-report and medical chart review | 1986–2006 | NO2, SO2, PM2.5, PM10 | Land use regression | |
|
| ||||||||
| Systemic autoimmune rheumatic disease | Bernatsky et al., 2016 [ | Quebec and Alberta, Canada | Cohort | Quebec estimated population at risk, | Administrative data, 2 ICD-9 codes for SARD or 1 ICD-9 code for SARD by a rheumatologist or 1 instance of hospitalization | Quebec, 1996–2011 | PM2.5 | Satellite-derived data of exposure levels at location of residence at time of diagnosis |
| Bernatsky et al., 2015 [ | Calgary, Alberta, Canada | Cohort | Not provided | Administrative data, 2 ICD-9 codes for SARD or 1 ICD-9 code for SARD by a rheumatologist or 1 instance of hospitalization | 1993–2007 | PM2.5, NO2 | Land use regression | |
|
| ||||||||
| Juvenile idiopathic arthritis | Zeft et al., 2009 [ | USA | Cohort (case-crossover) | Cases, | Clinical registry | 1993–2006 | PM2.5 | Monitoring sites |
| Zeft et al., 2014 [ | USA and Canada | Cohort (case-crossover) | Not mentioned in abstract | Not specified | Not mentioned in abstract | PM2.5 | Selected exposure windows but no mention of extrapolation | |
Association between air pollutant exposure and the development of rheumatoid arthritis.
| Author | Study design | Association reported | Nitrogen dioxide (NO2) | Fine particulate matter < 2.5 microns (PM2.5) | Fine particulate matter < 10 microns (PM10) | Sulfur dioxide (SO2) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Chang et al., 2016 [ | Cohort | HR | Q2, 1.12 (95% CI: 0.83 to 1.52); | Q2, 1.22 (95% CI: 0.85 to 1.74); | Not reported | Not reported |
|
| ||||||
| De Roos et al., 2014 [ | Nested case-control | OR per IQR increase | 0.90 (95% CI: 0.85 to 0.96) | 0.92 (95% CI: 0.87 to 0.98) | 0.91 (95% CI: 0.86–0.96) | 0.88 (95% CI: 0.82–0.93) |
|
| ||||||
| Hart et al., 2013 [ | Case-control | OR per IQR increase over average exposure | 0.98 (95% CI: 0.90 to 1.07) | Not reported | 0.96 (95% CI: 0.88 to 1.04) | 1.01 (95% CI: 0.93 to 1.09) |
|
| ||||||
| Hart et al., 2013 [ | Cohort | HR per IQR range increase | 0.92 (95% CI: 0.85 to 1.00) | 0.94 (95% CI: 0.86 to 1.04) | 0.92 (95% CI: 0.85 to 0.99) | 0.99 (95% CI: 0.90 to 1.09) |
HR: hazard ratio; IQR: interquartile range; OR: odds ratio.
Adjusted for age, sex, urbanization level of residence, monthly income, and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease.
NO2: Quartile 1, <66,213 ppm (referent); Quartile 2, 66,213 to 86,908 ppm; Quartile 3, 86,099 to 99,882 ppm; Quartile 4, >99,992 ppm.
PM2.5: Quartile 1, <10,760 μm/m3 (referent); Quartile 2, 10,760 to 12,161 μm/m3; Quartile 3, 12,162 to 15,056 μm/m3; Quartile 4, >15,056 μm/m3.
Adjusted for age, sex, and neighborhood socioeconomic status.
Adjusted for age, sex, smoking status, and educational attainment.
Adjusted for age, race, smoking status and pack-years of smoking, age at menarche, parity, duration of lactation, menopause, hormone replacement therapy or oral contraceptive use, physical activity, body mass index, parental occupations, education, marital status, husband's education, family income, and house value.
Newcastle-Ottawa scale for quality of study assessment: case-control studies.
| Case-control studies | Manuscript type | Adequate case definition | Representativeness of cases | Selection of controls | Definition of controls | Comparability of cases and controls | Ascertainment of exposure | Consistency ascertainment | Nonresponse rate | Total |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| De Roos, Canada, 2014 (RA) | Full | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 2 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 9 |
| Hart, Sweden, 2013 (RA) | Full | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 2 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 9 |
| Bernatsky, Alberta and Quebec, 2016 (SARD) | Full | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 2 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 9 |
| Bernatsky, Calgary, 2015 (SARD) | Full | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 2 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 9 |
| Zeft, US, 2009 (JIA) | Full | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 7 |
| Zeft, US and Canada, 2014 (JIA) | Abstract | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 2 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 5 |
For case-control studies, quality was assessed for four domains of selection (case definition, representativeness of cases, selection of controls, and definition of controls), two domains of comparability (study controls for the most important factor and any additional important factor), and three domains of exposure (ascertainment of exposure, same method of ascertainment for cases and controls, and the nonresponse rate). Points are assigned based on specified levels of quality within each domain to a maximum of 9 points.
∗ denotes the rating system used in the NOS scale.
Newcastle-Ottawa scale for quality of study assessment: cohort studies.
| Cohort studies | Representativeness of exposed cohort | Selection of nonexposed cohort | Exposure ascertainment | Measured outcome not present at study onset | Comparability of cohorts | Outcome ascertainment | Sufficient Follow-up to allow outcome to occur | Adequacy of follow-up | Total |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Chang, Taiwan, 2016 (RA) | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 8 |
| Hart, USA, 2013 (RA) | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 2 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 9 |
For cohort studies, quality is assessed for four domains of selection (representativeness of exposed cohort, selection of the non-exposed cohort, ascertainment of exposure, and demonstration that the outcome of interest was not present at start of study), two domains of comparability (study controls for the most important factor and any additional important factor), and three domains of outcome (method of assessment of outcome, follow-up period, and adequacy of follow-up of cohorts). Points are assigned based on specified levels of quality within each domain to a maximum of 9 points.
∗ denotes the rating system used in the NOS scale.