Your browser doesn't support javascript.
Mostrar: 20 | 50 | 100
Resultados 1 - 7 de 7
Filtrar
1.
Nat Commun ; 14(1): 2916, 2023 05 24.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-20241764

RESUMO

The association between long-term exposure to ambient air pollutants and severe COVID-19 is uncertain. We followed 4,660,502 adults from the general population in 2020 in Catalonia, Spain. Cox proportional models were fit to evaluate the association between annual averages of PM2.5, NO2, BC, and O3 at each participant's residential address and severe COVID-19. Higher exposure to PM2.5, NO2, and BC was associated with an increased risk of COVID-19 hospitalization, ICU admission, death, and hospital length of stay. An increase of 3.2 µg/m3 of PM2.5 was associated with a 19% (95% CI, 16-21) increase in hospitalizations. An increase of 16.1 µg/m3 of NO2 was associated with a 42% (95% CI, 30-55) increase in ICU admissions. An increase of 0.7 µg/m3 of BC was associated with a 6% (95% CI, 0-13) increase in deaths. O3 was positively associated with severe outcomes when adjusted by NO2. Our study contributes robust evidence that long-term exposure to air pollutants is associated with severe COVID-19.


Assuntos
Poluentes Atmosféricos , Poluição do Ar , COVID-19 , Adulto , Humanos , Espanha/epidemiologia , Estudos de Coortes , Dióxido de Nitrogênio/toxicidade , COVID-19/epidemiologia , Poluição do Ar/efeitos adversos , Poluentes Atmosféricos/efeitos adversos , Material Particulado/efeitos adversos
3.
Environ Health Perspect ; 131(4): 47001, 2023 04.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-2266850

RESUMO

BACKGROUND: Ambient air pollution has been associated with COVID-19 disease severity and antibody response induced by infection. OBJECTIVES: We examined the association between long-term exposure to air pollution and vaccine-induced antibody response. METHODS: This study was nested in an ongoing population-based cohort, COVICAT, the GCAT-Genomes for Life cohort, in Catalonia, Spain, with multiple follow-ups. We drew blood samples in 2021 from 1,090 participants of 2,404 who provided samples in 2020, and we included 927 participants in this analysis. We measured immunoglobulin M (IgM), IgG, and IgA antibodies against five viral-target antigens, including receptor-binding domain (RBD), spike-protein (S), and segment spike-protein (S2) triggered by vaccines available in Spain. We estimated prepandemic (2018-2019) exposure to fine particulate matter [PM ≤2.5µm in aerodynamic diameter (PM2.5)], nitrogen dioxide (NO2), black carbon (BC), and ozone (O3) using Effects of Low-Level Air Pollution: A Study in Europe (ELAPSE) models. We adjusted estimates for individual- and area-level covariates, time since vaccination, and vaccine doses and type and stratified by infection status. We used generalized additive models to explore the relationship between air pollution and antibodies according to days since vaccination. RESULTS: Among vaccinated persons not infected by SARS-CoV-2 (n=632), higher prepandemic air pollution levels were associated with a lower vaccine antibody response for IgM (1 month post vaccination) and IgG. Percentage change in geometric mean IgG levels per interquartile range of PM2.5 (1.7 µg/m3) were -8.1 (95% CI: -15.9, 0.4) for RBD, -9.9 (-16.2, -3.1) for S, and -8.4 (-13.5, -3.0) for S2. We observed a similar pattern for NO2 and BC and an inverse pattern for O3. Differences in IgG levels by air pollution levels persisted with time since vaccination. We did not observe an association of air pollution with vaccine antibody response among participants with prior infection (n=295). DISCUSSION: Exposure to air pollution was associated with lower COVID-19 vaccine antibody response. The implications of this association on the risk of breakthrough infections require further investigation. https://doi.org/10.1289/EHP11989.


Assuntos
Poluentes Atmosféricos , Poluição do Ar , COVID-19 , Humanos , Poluentes Atmosféricos/análise , Vacinas contra COVID-19 , Espanha , Formação de Anticorpos , Exposição Ambiental/análise , SARS-CoV-2 , Poluição do Ar/análise , Material Particulado/análise , Dióxido de Nitrogênio/análise , Imunoglobulina G/análise
4.
PLoS Med ; 19(8): e1004079, 2022 08.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-2039246

RESUMO

BACKGROUND: The influence of urbanicity on hypertension prevalence remains poorly understood. We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to assess the difference in hypertension prevalence between urban and rural areas in low-income and middle-income countries (LMICs), where the most pronounced urbanisation is underway. METHODS AND FINDINGS: We searched PubMed, Web of Science, Scopus, and Embase, from 01/01/1990 to 10/03/2022. We included population-based studies with ≥400 participants 15 years and older, selected by using a valid sampling technique, from LMICs that reported the urban-rural difference in hypertension prevalence using similar blood pressure measurements. We excluded abstracts, reviews, non-English studies, and those with exclusively self-reported hypertension prevalence. Study selection, quality assessment, and data extraction were performed by 2 independent reviewers following a standardised protocol. Our primary outcome was the urban minus rural prevalence of hypertension. Hypertension was defined as systolic blood pressure ≥140 mm Hg and/or diastolic blood pressure as ≥90 mm Hg and could include use of antihypertensive medication, self-reported diagnosis, or both. We investigated heterogeneity using study-level and socioeconomic country-level indicators. We conducted meta-analysis and meta-regression using random-effects models. This systematic review and meta-analysis has been registered with PROSPERO (CRD42018091671). We included 299 surveys from 66 LMICs, including 19,770,946 participants (mean age 45.4 ± SD = 9 years, 53.0% females and 63.1% from rural areas). The pooled prevalence of hypertension was 30.5% (95% CI, 28.9, 32.0) in urban areas and 27.9% (95% CI, 26.3, 29.6) in rural areas, resulting in a pooled urban-rural difference of 2.45% (95% CI, 1.57, 3.33, I-square: 99.71%, tau-square: 0.00524, Pheterogeneity < 0.001). Hypertension prevalence increased over time and the rate of change was greater in rural compared to urban areas, resulting in a pooled urban-rural difference of 5.75% (95% CI, 4.02, 7.48) in the period 1990 to 2004 and 1.38% (95% CI, 0.40, 2.37) in the period 2005 to 2020, p < 0.001 for time period. We observed substantial heterogeneity in the urban-rural difference of hypertension, which was partially explained by urban-rural definition, probably high risk of bias in sampling, country income status, region, and socioeconomic indicators. The urban-rural difference was 5.67% (95% CI, 4.22, 7.13) in low, 2.74% (95% CI, 1.41, 4.07) in lower-middle and -1.22% (95% CI, -2.73, 0.28) in upper-middle-income countries in the period 1990 to 2020, p < 0.001 for country income. The urban-rural difference was highest for South Asia (7.50%, 95% CI, 5.73, 9.26), followed by sub-Saharan Africa (4.24%, 95% CI, 2.62, 5.86) and reversed for Europe and Central Asia (-6.04%, 95% CI, -9.06, -3.01), in the period 1990 to 2020, p < 0.001 for region. Finally, the urban-rural difference in hypertension prevalence decreased nonlinearly with improvements in Human Development Index and infant mortality rate. Limitations included lack of data available from all LMICs and variability in urban and rural definitions in the literature. CONCLUSIONS: The prevalence of hypertension in LMICs increased between 1990 and 2020 in both urban and rural areas, but with a stronger trend in rural areas. The urban minus rural hypertension difference decreased with time, and with country-level socioeconomic development. Focused action, particularly in rural areas, is needed to tackle the burden of hypertension in LMICs.


Assuntos
Países em Desenvolvimento , Hipertensão , Pressão Sanguínea , Feminino , Humanos , Hipertensão/tratamento farmacológico , Hipertensão/epidemiologia , Masculino , Pessoa de Meia-Idade , Prevalência , População Rural
5.
Environ Health Perspect ; 129(11): 117003, 2021 11.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1523382

RESUMO

BACKGROUND: Emerging evidence links ambient air pollution with coronavirus 2019 (COVID-19) disease, an association that is methodologically challenging to investigate. OBJECTIVES: We examined the association between long-term exposure to air pollution with SARS-CoV-2 infection measured through antibody response, level of antibody response among those infected, and COVID-19 disease. METHODS: We contacted 9,605 adult participants from a population-based cohort study in Catalonia between June and November 2020; most participants were between 40 and 65 years of age. We drew blood samples from 4,103 participants and measured immunoglobulin M (IgM), IgA, and IgG antibodies against five viral target antigens to establish infection to the virus and levels of antibody response among those infected. We defined COVID-19 disease using self-reported hospital admission, prior positive diagnostic test, or more than three self-reported COVID-19 symptoms after contact with a COVID-19 case. We estimated prepandemic (2018-2019) exposure to fine particulate matter [PM with an aerodynamic diameter of ≤2.5µm (PM2.5)], nitrogen dioxide (NO2), black carbon (BC), and ozone (O3) at the residential address using hybrid land-use regression models. We calculated log-binomial risk ratios (RRs), adjusting for individual- and area-level covariates. RESULTS: Among those tested for SARS-CoV-2 antibodies, 743 (18.1%) were seropositive. Air pollution levels were not statistically significantly associated with SARS-CoV-2 infection: Adjusted RRs per interquartile range were 1.07 (95% CI: 0.97, 1.18) for NO2, 1.04 (95% CI: 0.94, 1.14) for PM2.5, 1.00 (95% CI: 0.92, 1.09) for BC, and 0.97 (95% CI: 0.89, 1.06) for O3. Among infected participants, exposure to NO2 and PM2.5 were positively associated with IgG levels for all viral target antigens. Among all participants, 481 (5.0%) had COVID-19 disease. Air pollution levels were associated with COVID-19 disease: adjusted RRs=1.14 (95% CI: 1.00, 1.29) for NO2 and 1.17 (95% CI: 1.03, 1.32) for PM2.5. Exposure to O3 was associated with a slightly decreased risk (RR=0.92; 95% CI: 0.83, 1.03). Associations of air pollution with COVID-19 disease were more pronounced for severe COVID-19, with RRs=1.26 (95% CI: 0.89, 1.79) for NO2 and 1.51 (95% CI: 1.06, 2.16) for PM2.5. DISCUSSION: Exposure to air pollution was associated with a higher risk of COVID-19 disease and level of antibody response among infected but not with SARS-CoV-2 infection. https://doi.org/10.1289/EHP9726.


Assuntos
Poluentes Atmosféricos , Poluição do Ar , COVID-19 , Adulto , Idoso , Poluentes Atmosféricos/efeitos adversos , Poluentes Atmosféricos/análise , Poluição do Ar/análise , Formação de Anticorpos , Estudos de Coortes , Exposição Ambiental/análise , Humanos , Pessoa de Meia-Idade , Dióxido de Nitrogênio/análise , Material Particulado/efeitos adversos , Material Particulado/análise , SARS-CoV-2 , Espanha/epidemiologia
6.
Environ Int ; 146: 106272, 2021 01.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-943095

RESUMO

The outbreak of COVID-19 raised numerous questions on the interactions between the occurrence of new infections, the environment, climate and health. The European Union requested the H2020 HERA project which aims at setting priorities in research on environment, climate and health, to identify relevant research needs regarding Covid-19. The emergence and spread of SARS-CoV-2 appears to be related to urbanization, habitat destruction, live animal trade, intensive livestock farming and global travel. The contribution of climate and air pollution requires additional studies. Importantly, the severity of COVID-19 depends on the interactions between the viral infection, ageing and chronic diseases such as metabolic, respiratory and cardiovascular diseases and obesity which are themselves influenced by environmental stressors. The mechanisms of these interactions deserve additional scrutiny. Both the pandemic and the social response to the disease have elicited an array of behavioural and societal changes that may remain long after the pandemic and that may have long term health effects including on mental health. Recovery plans are currently being discussed or implemented and the environmental and health impacts of those plans are not clearly foreseen. Clearly, COVID-19 will have a long-lasting impact on the environmental health field and will open new research perspectives and policy needs.


Assuntos
Poluição do Ar , COVID-19 , Animais , Clima , Humanos , Pandemias , SARS-CoV-2
7.
SELEÇÃO DE REFERÊNCIAS
DETALHE DA PESQUISA