The Prevalence of Asthma and Respiratory Symptoms among Cross-Country Skiers in Early Adolescence.

Objective: To determine the prevalence of asthma and respiratory symptoms among Swedish cross-country skiers in early adolescence in comparison to a population-based reference group of similar ages. Methods: A postal questionnaire on asthma, asthma medication, allergy, respiratory symptoms, and physical activity was distributed to Swedish competitive cross-country skiers aged 12-15 years (n = 331) and a population-based reference group (n = 1000). The level of asthma control was measured by the Asthma Control Test. Results: The response rate was 27% (n = 87) among skiers and 29% (n = 292) in the reference group. The prevalence of self-reported asthma (physician-diagnosed asthma and use of asthma medication in the last 12 months) and the prevalence of reported wheezing during the last 12 months were 23% and 25%, respectively, among skiers, which were significantly higher than the values reported in the reference group (12% and 14%). Skiers exercised more hours/week than the reference group. Among adolescents with self-reported asthma, neither the usage of asthma medications nor the level of asthma control according to the Asthma Control Test differed between skiers and the reference group. Conclusions: Adolescent competitive cross-country skiers have an increased prevalence of respiratory symptoms and asthma compared to nonskiers.

Prevalence, age at onset, and risk factors of self-reported asthma among Swedish adolescent elite cross-country skiers.

The objective of the study was to compare the prevalence of self-reported physician-diagnosed asthma and age at asthma onset between Swedish adolescent elite skiers and a reference group and to assess risk factors associated with asthma. Postal questionnaires were sent to 253 pupils at the Swedish National Elite Sport Schools for cross-country skiing, biathlon, and ski-orienteering ("skiers") and a random sample of 500 adolescents aged 16-20, matched for sport school municipalities ("reference"). The response rate was 96% among the skiers and 48% in the reference group. The proportion of participants with self-reported physician-diagnosed asthma was higher among skiers than in the reference group (27 vs 19%, P=.046). Female skiers reported a higher prevalence of physician-diagnosed asthma compared to male skiers (34 vs 20%, P=.021). The median age at asthma onset was higher among skiers (12.0 vs 8.0 years; P<.001). Female sex, family history of asthma, nasal allergy, and being a skier were risk factors associated with self-reported physician-diagnosed asthma. Swedish adolescent elite cross-country skiers have a higher asthma prevalence and later age at asthma onset compared to a reference population. Being an adolescent, elite skier is an independent risk factor associated with asthma.

Ozone exposure enhances mast-cell inflammation in asthmatic airways despite inhaled corticosteroid therapy.

Asthmatics are recognised to be more susceptible than healthy individuals to adverse health effects caused by exposure to the common air pollutant ozone. Ozone has been reported to induce airway neutrophilia in mild asthmatics, but little is known about how it affects the airways of asthmatic subjects on inhaled corticosteroids. We hypothesised that ozone exposure would exacerbate the pre-existent asthmatic airway inflammation despite regular inhaled corticosteroid treatment. Therefore, we exposed subjects with persistent asthma on inhaled corticosteroid therapy to 0.2 ppm ozone or filtered air for 2 h, on 2 separate occasions. Lung function was evaluated before and immediately after exposure, while bronchoscopy was performed 18 h post exposure. Compared to filtered air, ozone exposure increased airway resistance. Ozone significantly enhanced neutrophil numbers and myeloperoxidase levels in airway lavages, and induced a fourfold increase in bronchial mucosal mast cell numbers. The present findings indicate that ozone worsened asthmatic airway inflammation and offer a possible biological explanation for the epidemiological findings of increased need for rescue medication and hospitalisation in asthmatic people following exposure to ambient ozone.

Airway antioxidant and inflammatory responses to diesel exhaust exposure in healthy humans.

Pulmonary cells exposed to diesel exhaust (DE) particles in vitro respond in a hierarchical fashion with protective antioxidant responses predominating at low doses and inflammation and injury only occurring at higher concentrations. In the present study, the authors examined whether similar responses occurred in vivo, specifically whether antioxidants were upregulated following a low-dose DE challenge and investigated how these responses related to the development of airway inflammation at different levels of the respiratory tract where particle dose varies markedly. A total of 15 volunteers were exposed to DE (100 microg x m(-3) airborne particulate matter with a diameter of <10 microm for 2 h) and air in a double-blinded, randomised fashion. At 18 h post-exposure, bronchoscopy was performed with lavage and mucosal biopsies taken to assess airway redox and inflammatory status. Following DE exposure, the current authors observed an increase in bronchial mucosa neutrophil and mast cell numbers, as well as increased neutrophil numbers, interleukin-8 and myeloperoxidase concentrations in bronchial lavage. No inflammatory responses were seen in the alveolar compartment, but both reduced glutathione and urate concentrations were increased following diesel exposure. In conclusion, the lung inflammatory response to diesel exhaust is compartmentalised, related to differing antioxidant responses in the conducting airway and alveolar regions.

Different airway inflammatory responses in asthmatic and healthy humans exposed to diesel.

Particulate matter (PM) pollution adversely affects the airways, with asthmatic subjects thought to be especially sensitive. The authors hypothesised that exposure to diesel exhaust (DE), a major source of PM, would induce airway neutrophilia in healthy subjects, and that either these responses would be exaggerated in subjects with mild allergic asthma, or DE would exacerbate pre-existent allergic airways. Healthy and mild asthmatic subjects were exposed for 2 h to ambient levels of DE (particles with a 50% cut-off aerodynamic diameter of 10 microm (PM10) 108 microg x m(-3)) and lung function and airway inflammation were assessed. Both groups showed an increase in airway resistance of similar magnitude after DE exposure. Healthy subjects developed airway inflammation 6 h after DE exposure, with airways neutrophilia and lymphocytosis together with an increase in interleukin-8 (IL-8) protein in lavage fluid, increased IL-8 messenger ribonucleic acid expression in the bronchial mucosa and upregulation of the endothelial adhesion molecules. In asthmatic subjects, DE exposure did not induce a neutrophilic response or exacerbate their pre-existing eosinophilic airway inflammation. Epithelial staining for the cytokine IL-10 was increased after DE in the asthmatic group. Differential effects on the airways of healthy subjects and asthmatics of particles with a 50% cut-off aerodynamic diameter of 10 microm at concentrations below current World Health Organisation air quality standards have been observed in this study. Further work is required to elucidate the significance of these differential responses.

Ozone-induced bronchial epithelial cytokine expression differs between healthy and asthmatic subjects.

BACKGROUND: Ozone (O3) is a common air pollutant associated with adverse health effects. Asthmatics have been suggested to be a particularly sensitive group. OBJECTIVE: This study evaluated whether bronchial epithelial cytokine expression would differ between healthy and allergic asthmatics after ozone exposure, representing an explanatory model for differences in susceptibility. METHODS: Healthy and mild allergic asthmatic subjects (using only inhaled beta2-agonists prn) were exposed for 2 h in blinded and randomized sequence to 0.2 ppm of O3 and filtered air. Bronchoscopy with bronchial mucosal biopsies was performed 6 h after exposure. Biopsies were embedded in GMA and stained with mAbs for epithelial expression of IL-4, IL-5, IL-6, IL-8, IL-10, TNF-alpha, GRO-alpha, granulocyte-macrophage colony-stimulating factor (GM-CSF), fractalkine and ENA-78. RESULTS: When comparing the two groups at baseline, the asthmatic subjects showed a significantly higher expression of IL-4 and IL-5. After O3 exposure the epithelial expression of IL-5, GM-CSF, ENA-78 and IL-8 increased significantly in asthmatics, as compared to healthy subjects. CONCLUSION: The present study confirms a difference in epithelial cytokine expression between mild atopic asthmatics and healthy controls, as well as a differential epithelial cytokine response to O3. This O3-induced upregulation of T helper type 2 (Th2)-related cytokines and neutrophil chemoattractants shown in the asthmatic group may contribute to a subsequent worsening of the airway inflammation, and help to explain their differential sensitivity to O3 pollution episodes.

Effect of ozone on bronchial mucosal inflammation in asthmatic and healthy subjects.

Epidemiological studies suggestthat asthmatics are more affected by ozone than healthy people. This study tested three hypotheses (1) that short-term exposure to ozone induces inflammatory cell increases and up-regulation of vascular adhesion molecules in airway lavages and bronchial tissue 6 h after ozone exposure in healthy subjects; (2) these responses are exaggerated in subjects with mild allergic asthma; (3) ozone exacerbates pre-existent allergic airways inflammation. We exposed 15 mild asthmatic and 15 healthy subjects to 0.2 ppm of ozone or filtered air for 2 h on two separate occasions. Airway lavages and bronchial biopsies were obtained 6 h post-challenge. We found that ozone induced similar increases in bronchial wash neutrophils in both groups, although the neutrophil increase in the asthmatic group was on top of an elevated baseline. In healthy subjects, ozone exposure increased the expression of the vascular endothelial adhesion molecules P-selectin and ICAM- 1, as well as increasing tissue neutrophil and mast cell numbers. The asthmatics showed allergic airways inflammation at baseline but ozone did not aggravate this at the investigated time point. At 6 h post-ozone-exposure, we found no evidence that mild asthmatics were more responsive than healthy to ozone in terms of exaggerated neutrophil recruitment or exacerbation of pre-existing allergic inflammation. Further work is needed to assess the possibility of a difference in time kinetics between healthy and asthmatic subjects in their response to ozone.

Differences in basal airway antioxidant concentrations are not predictive of individual responsiveness to ozone: a comparison of healthy and mild asthmatic subjects.

The air pollutant ozone induces both airway inflammation and restrictions in lung function. These responses have been proposed to arise as a consequence of the oxidizing nature of ozone, depleting endogenous antioxidant defenses with ensuing tissue injury. In this study we examined the impact of an environmentally relevant ozone challenge on the antioxidant defenses present at the surface of the lung in two groups known to have profound differences in their antioxidant defense network: healthy control (HC) and mild asthmatic (MA) subjects. We hypothesized that baseline differences in antioxidant concentrations within the respiratory tract lining fluid (RTLF), as well as induced responses, would predict the magnitude of individual responsiveness. We observed a significant loss of ascorbate (ASC) from proximal (-45.1%, p <.01) and distal RTLFs (-11.7%, p <.05) in healthy subjects 6 h after the end of the ozone challenge. This was associated (Rs, -0.71, p <.01) with increased glutathione disulphide (GSSG) in these compartments (p =.01 and p <.05). Corresponding responses were not seen in asthmatics, where basal ASC concentrations were significantly lower (p <.01) and associated with elevated concentrations of GSSG (p <.05). In neither group was any evidence of lipid oxidation seen following ozone. Despite differences in antioxidant levels and response, the magnitude of ozone-induced neutrophilia (+20.6%, p <.01 [HC] vs. +15.2%, p =.01 [MA]) and decrements in FEV(1) (-8.0%, p <.01 [HC] vs. -3.2%, p <.05 [MA]) did not differ between the two groups. These data demonstrate significant differences between the interaction of ozone with RTLF antioxidants in MA and HC subjects. These responses and variations in basal antioxidant defense were not, however, useful predictive markers of group or individual responsiveness to ozone.

Nitric oxide (NO) in exhaled air after experimental ozone exposure in humans.

We hypothesized that ozone, a common air pollutant, potent in producing airway inflammation, would increase the production of exhaled nitric oxide (NO). If so, measurement of exhaled NO could potentially be a valuable tool in population studies of air pollution effects. Eleven healthy non-smoking volunteers were exposed to 0.2 ppm ozone (O3) and filtered air for 2h on two separate occasions. Exhaled NO and nasal NO were measured before and on five occasions following the exposures. Changes in exhaled and nasal NO after ozone exposure were adjusted for changes after air exposure. There was a slight decrease in exhaled NO (-0.6; -3.1-1.2 ppb) (median and 95% confidence interval) and of nasal NO (-57; -173-75 ppb) directly after the ozone exposure. No significant changes in exhaled or nasal NO were however found 6 or 24 h after the exposure. Within the examined group, an O3 exposure level proven to induce an airway inflammation caused no significant changes in exhaled or nasal NO levels. Hence, the current study did not yield support for exhaled NO as a useful marker of ozone-induced oxidative stress and airway inflammation after a single exposure. This contrasts with data for workers exposed to repeated high peaks of ozone. The potential for exhaled NO as a marker of oxidative stress therefore deserves to be further elucidated.

Health effects of diesel exhaust emissions.

Epidemiological studies have demonstrated an association between different levels of air pollution and various health outcomes including mortality, exacerbation of asthma, chronic bronchitis, respiratory tract infections, ischaemic heart disease and stroke. Of the motor vehicle generated air pollutants, diesel exhaust particles account for a highly significant percentage of the particles emitted in many towns and cities. This review is therefore focused on the health effects of diesel exhaust, and especially the particular matter components. Acute effects of diesel exhaust exposure include irritation of the nose and eyes, lung function changes, respiratory changes, headache, fatigue and nausea. Chronic exposures are associated with cough, sputum production and lung function decrements. In addition to symptoms, exposure studies in healthy humans have documented a number of profound inflammatory changes in the airways, notably, before changes in pulmonary function can be detected. It is likely that such effects may be even more detrimental in asthmatics and other subjects with compromised pulmonary function. There are also observations supporting the hypothesis that diesel exhaust is one important factor contributing to the allergy pandemic. For example, in many experimental systems, diesel exhaust particles can be shown to act as adjuvants to allergen and hence increase the sensitization response. Much of the research on adverse effects of diesel exhaust, both in vivo and in vitro, has however been conducted in animals. Questions remain concerning the relevance of exposure levels and whether findings in such models can be extrapolated into humans. It is therefore imperative to further assess acute and chronic effects of diesel exhaust in mechanistic studies with careful consideration of exposure levels. Whenever possible and ethically justified, studies should be carried out in humans.