Xiaoxing Cui1, Zhen Li2, Yanbo Teng3, Karoline K Barkjohn4, Christina L Norris4, Lin Fang5,6, Gina N Daniel1, Linchen He1, Lili Lin2, Qian Wang2, Drew B Day1, Xiaojian Zhou2, Jianguo Hong2, Jicheng Gong7, Feng Li8, Jinhan Mo5,6, Yinping Zhang5,6, James J Schauer9, Marilyn S Black10, Michael H Bergin4, Junfeng Zhang1,3,11. 1. Nicholas School of the Environment, Duke University, Durham, North Carolina. 2. Department of Pediatrics, Shanghai General Hospital, Shanghai Jiao Tong University, Shanghai, China. 3. Global Health Research Center, Duke Kunshan University, Kunshan, Jiangsu Province, China. 4. Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Duke University, Durham, North Carolina. 5. Department of Building Science, Tsinghua University, Beijing, China. 6. Beijing Key Laboratory of Indoor Air Quality Evaluation and Control, Beijing, China. 7. Beijing Innovation Center for Engineering Science and Advanced Technology and State Key Joint Laboratory of Environment Simulation and Pollution Control, College of Environmental Sciences and Engineering, Peking University, Beijing, China. 8. Department of Pulmonary Medicine, Shanghai Chest Hospital, Shanghai Jiao Tong University, Shanghai, China. 9. Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, College of Engineering, University of Wisconsin-Madison, Madison. 10. Underwriters Laboratories Inc, Marietta, Georgia. 11. Duke Global Health Institute, Durham, North Carolina.
Abstract
Importance: Fine particles (particulate matter2.5 μm [PM2.5]), a ubiquitous air pollutant, can deposit in the small airways that play a vital role in asthma. It appears to be unknown whether the use of a PM2.5 filtration device can improve small airway physiology and respiratory inflammation in children with asthma. Objective: To discover what pathophysiological changes in the small airways are associated with using a PM2.5-removing device in the bedrooms of children with asthma. Design, Setting, and Participants: Children with mild or moderate asthma were enrolled in this double-blind, crossover study. The participants used a true filtration device and a sham filtration device in their bedrooms in a random order for 2 weeks each with a 2-week washout interval. The study was conducted in a suburb of Shanghai, China, during a low-ozone season. Exposures: Ozone and PM2.5 were measured inside bedrooms and outside a window. Main Outcomes and Measures: Impulse oscillometry, spirometry, and fractional exhaled nitric oxide were measured at the beginning and the end of each intervention. Peak expiratory flow was measured twice daily at home. Results: Forty-three children (5-13 years old; 26 boys [60%]) participated. Outdoor 24-hour mean PM2.5 concentrations were moderately high, ranging from 28.6 to 69.8 μg/m3 (median, 53 μg/m3). During true filtration, bedroom PM2.5 concentrations were a mean (SD) of 63.4% (35.9%) lower than during sham filtration. Compared with sham filtration, true filtration was significantly associated with improved airway mechanics, reflected in a 24.4% (95% CI, 11.8%-37.1%) reduction in total airway resistance, a 43.5% (95% CI, 13.7%-73.3%) reduction in small airway resistance, a 22.2% (95% CI, 2.2%-42.2%) reduction in resonant frequency, and a 73.1% (95% CI, 0.3%-145.8%) increase in airway reactance. True filtration was also associated with significant improvements in fractional exhaled nitric oxide (a 27.6% [95% CI, 8.9%-42.4%] reduction) and peak expiratory flow (a 1.6% [95% CI, 0.8%-2.5%] increase). These improvements were significantly associated with bedroom PM2.5 reduction. Improvements in small airway function were nonsignificant (8.4% [95% CI, -1.4% to 18.3%]) in all participants but significant (13.2% [95% CI, 1.2%-25.1%]) in participants without eosinophilic airway inflammation at baseline. No improvements were observed for forced vital capacity, forced expiratory volume during the first second, and the ratio of these in all participants or subgroups. Conclusions and Relevance: Per these results, indoor PM2.5 filtration can be a practical method to improve air flow in an asthmatic lung through improved airway mechanics and function as well as reduced inflammation. This warrants a clinical trial to confirm. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03282864.
RCT Entities:
Importance: Fine particles (particulate matter 2.5 μm [PM2.5]), a ubiquitous air pollutant, can deposit in the small airways that play a vital role in asthma. It appears to be unknown whether the use of a PM2.5 filtration device can improve small airway physiology and respiratory inflammation in children with asthma. Objective: To discover what pathophysiological changes in the small airways are associated with using a PM2.5-removing device in the bedrooms of children with asthma. Design, Setting, and Participants: Children with mild or moderate asthma were enrolled in this double-blind, crossover study. The participants used a true filtration device and a sham filtration device in their bedrooms in a random order for 2 weeks each with a 2-week washout interval. The study was conducted in a suburb of Shanghai, China, during a low-ozone season. Exposures: Ozone and PM2.5 were measured inside bedrooms and outside a window. Main Outcomes and Measures: Impulse oscillometry, spirometry, and fractional exhaled nitric oxide were measured at the beginning and the end of each intervention. Peak expiratory flow was measured twice daily at home. Results: Forty-three children (5-13 years old; 26 boys [60%]) participated. Outdoor 24-hour mean PM2.5 concentrations were moderately high, ranging from 28.6 to 69.8 μg/m3 (median, 53 μg/m3). During true filtration, bedroom PM2.5 concentrations were a mean (SD) of 63.4% (35.9%) lower than during sham filtration. Compared with sham filtration, true filtration was significantly associated with improved airway mechanics, reflected in a 24.4% (95% CI, 11.8%-37.1%) reduction in total airway resistance, a 43.5% (95% CI, 13.7%-73.3%) reduction in small airway resistance, a 22.2% (95% CI, 2.2%-42.2%) reduction in resonant frequency, and a 73.1% (95% CI, 0.3%-145.8%) increase in airway reactance. True filtration was also associated with significant improvements in fractional exhaled nitric oxide (a 27.6% [95% CI, 8.9%-42.4%] reduction) and peak expiratory flow (a 1.6% [95% CI, 0.8%-2.5%] increase). These improvements were significantly associated with bedroom PM2.5 reduction. Improvements in small airway function were nonsignificant (8.4% [95% CI, -1.4% to 18.3%]) in all participants but significant (13.2% [95% CI, 1.2%-25.1%]) in participants without eosinophilic airway inflammation at baseline. No improvements were observed for forced vital capacity, forced expiratory volume during the first second, and the ratio of these in all participants or subgroups. Conclusions and Relevance: Per these results, indoor PM2.5 filtration can be a practical method to improve air flow in an asthmatic lung through improved airway mechanics and function as well as reduced inflammation. This warrants a clinical trial to confirm. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03282864.
Authors: H Francis; G Fletcher; C Anthony; C Pickering; L Oldham; E Hadley; A Custovic; R Niven Journal: Clin Exp Allergy Date: 2003-01 Impact factor: 5.018
Authors: Yixin Shi; Anna S Aledia; Ahramahzd V Tatavoosian; Shruthi Vijayalakshmi; Stanley P Galant; Steven C George Journal: J Allergy Clin Immunol Date: 2011-12-17 Impact factor: 10.793
Authors: Alex Marotta; Mary D Klinnert; Marcella R Price; Gary L Larsen; Andrew H Liu Journal: J Allergy Clin Immunol Date: 2003-08 Impact factor: 10.793
Authors: Nadia N Hansel; Nirupama Putcha; Han Woo; Roger Peng; Gregory B Diette; Ashraf Fawzy; Robert A Wise; Karina Romero; Meghan F Davis; Ana M Rule; Michelle N Eakin; Patrick N Breysse; Meredith C McCormack; Kirsten Koehler Journal: Am J Respir Crit Care Med Date: 2022-02-15 Impact factor: 30.528
Authors: Jonathan D Newman; Deepak L Bhatt; Sanjay Rajagopalan; John R Balmes; Michael Brauer; Patrick N Breysse; Alison G M Brown; Mercedes R Carnethon; Wayne E Cascio; Gwen W Collman; Lawrence J Fine; Nadia N Hansel; Adrian Hernandez; Judith S Hochman; Michael Jerrett; Bonnie R Joubert; Joel D Kaufman; Ali O Malik; George A Mensah; David E Newby; Jennifer L Peel; Jeffrey Siegel; David Siscovick; Betsy L Thompson; Junfeng Zhang; Robert D Brook Journal: J Am Coll Cardiol Date: 2020-12-15 Impact factor: 24.094
Authors: Gilliane Davison; Karoline K Barkjohn; Gayle S W Hagler; Amara L Holder; Sarah Coefield; Curtis Noonan; Beth Hassett-Sipple Journal: Front Public Health Date: 2021-02-15
Authors: Subhabrata Moitra; Ali Farshchi Tabrizi; Dina Fathy; Samineh Kamravaei; Noushin Miandashti; Linda Henderson; Fadi Khadour; Muhammad T Naseem; Nicola Murgia; Lyle Melenka; Paige Lacy Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health Date: 2021-11-10 Impact factor: 3.390
Authors: Takudzwa Mkorombindo; John R Balmes; Adnan Custovic; Mark T Dransfield Journal: Am J Respir Crit Care Med Date: 2022-02-15 Impact factor: 21.405
Authors: Joseph M Collaco; Brianna C Aoyama; Jessica L Rice; Sharon A McGrath-Morrow Journal: Expert Rev Respir Med Date: 2021-06-17 Impact factor: 3.772