Particulate Matter Exposures, Mortality, and Cardiovascular Disease in the Health Professionals Follow-up Study

Puett, Robin; Hart, Jaime E.; Suh, Helen; Mittleman, Murray A.; Laden, Francine

doi:10.1289/ehp.1002921

Cited by 125 publications

(115 citation statements)

References 39 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

100

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…For the Nurses' Health Study, Puett et al (2009) showed independent associations of PM 2.5 and coarse particles (though weaker) with total mortality. However, no association was observed using similar approaches in men for either PM 2.5 or coarse particles (Puett et al, 2011).…”

Section: Rationalementioning

confidence: 81%

“…In the first study (Puett et al, 2009), coarse PM was not associated with mortality or coronary heart disease incidence among women in two-pollutant models. In the second one (Puett et al, 2011), there was limited evidence of coarse PM having an effect on cardiovascular health among men, mainly on the incidence of ischaemic stroke.…”

Section: Epidemiological Studiesmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Specifically, the effects of long-term exposure on mortality have been reported for several new cohorts (Filleul et al, 2005;Miller et al, 2007;Beelen et al, 2008a;Puett et al, 2009;Ostro et al, 2010;Lipsett et al, 2011;Crouse et al, 2012). Some cohort studies have found no associations between PM 2.5 or particulate matter with an aerodynamic diameter smaller than 10 µm (PM 10 ) and mortality (Puett et al, 2011;Ueda et al, 2012), but these do not materially affect the overall assessment and conclusions. Regarding the European studies, the mortality risk estimated in the Dutch mortality cohort study for PM 2.5 was 6% per 10 µg/m 3 for natural-cause mortality (Beelen et al, 2008a), identical to the estimate from the American Cancer Society study (Pope et al, 2002).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

A rapid assessment of the impact of hazard reduction burning around Sydney, May 2016

Broome¹,

Johnston

Horsley

et al. 2016

Medical Journal of Australia

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This document presents answers to 24 questions relevant to reviewing European policies on air pollution and to addressing health aspects of these policies. The answers were developed by a large group of scientists engaged in the WHO project "Review of evidence on health aspects of air pollution -REVIHAAP". The experts reviewed and discussed the newly accumulated scientific evidence on the adverse effects on health of air pollution, formulating science-based answers to the 24 questions. Extensive rationales for the answers, including the list of key references, are provided. The review concludes that a considerable amount of new scientific information on the adverse effects on health of particulate matter, ozone and nitrogen dioxide, observed at levels commonly present in Europe, has been published in recent years. This new evidence supports the scientific conclusions of the WHO air quality guidelines, last updated in 2005, and indicates that the effects in some cases occur at air pollution concentrations lower than those serving to establish these guidelines. It also provides scientific arguments for taking decisive actions to improve air quality and reduce the burden of disease associated with air pollution in Europe.This publication arises from the project REVIHAAP and has been co-funded by the European Union. Keywords AIR POLLUTANTS AIR POLLUTION -ADVERSE EFFECTS ENVIRONMENT AND PUBLIC HEALTH EVIDENCE BASED PRACTICE GUIDELINES HEALTH POLICYAddress requests about publications of the WHO Regional Office for Europe to: Publications WHO Regional Office for Europe Scherfigsvej 8 DK-2100 Copenhagen Ø, Denmark Alternatively, complete an online request form for documentation, health information, or for permission to quote or translate, on the Regional Office web site (http://www.euro.who.int/pubrequest). © World Health Organization 2013All rights reserved. The Regional Office for Europe of the World Health Organization welcomes requests for permission to reproduce or translate its publications, in part or in full.The designations employed and the presentation of the material in this publication do not imply the expression of any opinion whatsoever on the part of the World Health Organization concerning the legal status of any country, territory, city or area or of its authorities, or concerning the delimitation of its frontiers or boundaries. Dotted lines on maps represent approximate borderlines for which there may not yet be full agreement.The mention of specific companies or of certain manufacturers products does not imply that they are endorsed or recommended by the World Health Organization in preference to others of a similar nature that are not mentioned. Errors and omissions excepted, the names of proprietary products are distinguished by initial capital letters.All reasonable precautions have been taken by the World Health Organization to verify the information contained in this publication. However, the published material is being distributed without warranty of any kind, either express or implied. ...

show abstract

Section: Rationalementioning

confidence: 81%

Section: Epidemiological Studiesmentioning

confidence: 99%

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

A rapid assessment of the impact of hazard reduction burning around Sydney, May 2016

Broome¹,

Johnston

Horsley

et al. 2016

Medical Journal of Australia

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…We included 20 publications on stroke and long-term PM exposure in our meta-analysis. [18][19][20][21][22][23][24][25][26][27][28][29][30][31][32][33][34][35][36][37] They are listed by region and then chronologically in Table 1. Fourteen studies were cohort studies and included covariates at an individual level; the other 6 made use of registered-based entries of stroke mortality or hospital admission and provided covariates on an ecological scale.…”

Section: Selection and Characteristics Of Studiesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Long-Term Exposure to Particulate Matter Air Pollution Is a Risk Factor for Stroke

Scheers

Jacobs

Casas

et al. 2015

Stroke

153

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background and Purpose— Epidemiological studies suggest an association between stroke incidence and stroke mortality and long-term exposure to particulate matter (PM) air pollution. However, the magnitude of the association is still unclear. Methods— We searched the Pubmed citation database for epidemiological studies and reviews on stroke and PM exposure. Then, we carried out a meta-analysis to quantify the pooled association between stroke incidence and mortality and long-term exposure to PM. Meta-analyses were performed for stroke events and stroke mortality and for PM 10 and PM 2.5 separately and jointly. Results— We identified 20 studies, including a total of >10 million people, on long-term PM exposure and stroke event or stroke mortality. For exposure to PM 10 (including estimated exposure to PM 10 from studies using PM 2.5 ), the pooled hazard ratio for each 10-μg/m 3 increment in PM 10 was 1.061 (95% confidence interval, 1.018–1.105) and 1.080 (0.992–1.177) for overall stroke events and stroke mortality, respectively. A stratified analysis by continent revealed that the association between stroke and long-term PM 10 exposure was positive in North America (1.062 [1.015–1.110]) and Europe (1.057 [0.973–1.148]), but studies in Asia (1.010 [0.885–1.153]) showed a high degree of heterogeneity. Considering exposure to PM 2.5 (Europe and North America combined), the hazard ratios for a 5-μg/m 3 increment were 1.064 (1.021–1.109) and 1.125 (1.007–1.256) for stroke events and mortality, respectively. Conclusions— The scientific evidence of the past decade identifies long-term exposure to PM, and PM 2.5 in particular, as a risk factor for stroke. However, we found some currently unexplained geographical variability in this association.

show abstract

“…Though many studies of the chronic health effects associated with long-term exposure to air pollution (often from large, well-known cohorts) examine the use of an alternative exposure metric in an epidemiologic study (Adar et al 2013;Brauer et al 2002;Jerrett et al 2008;Puett et al 2011;Young et al 2014;Zmirou et al 2004), only the seven studies found by the authors and described below examine multiple approaches to exposure assessment, and include comparison of the epidemiologic results obtained when using each exposure metric. However, many manuscripts lacked definitive conclusions about which exposure metric was most beneficial, and the wide range of health outcomes, exposure metrics, and exposure durations of interest used make it difficult to draw larger conclusions from these studies.…”

Section: Studies Of Chronic Health Effects Associated With Long-term mentioning

confidence: 99%

The importance of the exposure metric in air pollution epidemiology studies: When does it matter, and why?

Dionisio

Baxter

Burke

et al. 2015

Air Qual Atmos Health

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Exposure error in ambient air pollution epidemiologic studies may introduce bias and/or attenuation of the health risk estimate, reduce statistical significance, and lower statistical power. Alternative exposure metrics are increasingly being used in place of central-site measurements, with the intent of reducing exposure error. Dependent on the study design, health outcome, and pollutant of interest, these metrics may provide a means of reducing error (leading to less bias and uncertainty in health risk estimates) if they capture variability in exposure which is not represented when central-site measurements are used. We examine the current evidence for answering the question of when the choice of exposure metric matters and why, focusing on studies which examined multiple exposure metrics in the same epidemiologic study. We conclude that for timeseries and case-crossover studies, central-site measurements may be sufficient, especially for homogeneous pollutants, and in cohort and panel studies, approaches that increase spatial resolution of the exposure metrics do impact the health effect estimates. We note that while the current literature is widely dispersed across exposure metrics and health outcomes, the largest collective, common body of literature is focused on birth/pregnancy outcomes and traffic-related pollution. Also additional discussion and agreement is needed on how to classify metrics as Bdifferent^and Bbetter.^Primary recommendations are to provide context for the reasons behind selection of exposure metrics and to encourage collaboration between exposure scientists and epidemiologists when designing and implementing a study, as results can have important implications for the development of policies and regulations.

show abstract

Particulate Matter Exposures, Mortality, and Cardiovascular Disease in the Health Professionals Follow-up Study

Cited by 125 publications

References 39 publications

A rapid assessment of the impact of hazard reduction burning around Sydney, May 2016

A rapid assessment of the impact of hazard reduction burning around Sydney, May 2016

Long-Term Exposure to Particulate Matter Air Pollution Is a Risk Factor for Stroke

The importance of the exposure metric in air pollution epidemiology studies: When does it matter, and why?

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About