|
|
||||||||
Guest Access | Sign In via User Name/Password |
|||||||||
* From the Division of Pulmonary and Critical Care Medicine (Drs. Sippel and Osborne), Portland Veterans Administration Medical Center, Portland, OR; Kaiser Permanente Center for Health Research (Ms. Pedula and Dr. Vollmer), Portland, OR; and the Department of Medicine and the Division of Pulmonary and Critical Care Medicine (Dr. Buist), Oregon Health Sciences University, Portland, OR.
| Abstract |
|---|
|
|
|---|
Study design: We report baseline cross-sectional data on 619 subjects with asthma, including direct or ETS exposure and QOL, and prospective longitudinal data on HBC using administrative databases for 30 months following baseline evaluation.
Setting and patients: Participants were health maintenance organization members with physician-diagnosed asthma involved in a longitudinal study of risk factors for hospital-based asthma care.
Measurements: Demographic characteristics and QOL were assessed with administered questionnaires, including the Marks Asthma Quality-of-Life (AQLQ) and SF-36 questionnaires. HBC was defined as episodes per person-year of hospital-based asthma care, which included emergency department and urgency care visits, and hospitalizations for asthma.
Results: Current smokers reported significantly worse QOL than never-smokers in two of five domains of the AQLQ (p < 0.05). Subjects with ETS exposure also reported significantly worse QOL than those without ETS exposure in two domains (p < 0.05). On the SF-36, current smokers reported significantly worse QOL than never-smokers in five of nine domains (p < 0.05). Subjects with ETS exposure reported significantly worse QOL than those without ETS exposure in three domains (p < 0.05). Current smokers used significantly more hospital-based asthma care than never-smokers (adjusted relative risk [RR], 1.40; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.01 to 1.95) while ex-smokers did not exhibit increased risk compared with nonsmokers (adjusted RR, 0.94; 95% CI, 0.7 to 1.3). Also, subjects with ETS exposure used significantly more hospital-based asthma care than those without ETS exposure (RR, 2.34; 95% CI, 1.80 to 3.05).
Conclusions: Direct or environmental tobacco exposure prospectively predicted increased health-care utilization for asthma and reduced QOL in patients with asthma. These findings add to our existing knowledge of the detrimental effects of tobacco smoke and are of relevance specifically to patients with asthma.
Key Words: asthma health-care utilization quality of life smoking
| Introduction |
|---|
|
|
|---|
To investigate the relationship between tobacco exposure and both HCU and QOL among subjects with asthma, we studied 619 participants in a longitudinal study of risk factors for hospital-based asthma care. We compared current cigarette smokers with both ex-smokers and never-smokers with respect to HCU and QOL. We also compared subjects with and without environmental tobacco smoke (ETS) exposure with respect to these outcomes.
| Materials and Methods |
|---|
|
|
|---|
Study Design
We report baseline cross-sectional data and prospective
longitudinal data collected as part of a longitudinal study to
characterize risk factors for episodes of hospital-based asthma care
within an HMO.13
The baseline assessment included a
questionnaire and spirometry using standardized methods and equipment
that met or exceeded American Thoracic Society
requirements.14
,15
Longitudinal HCU data were collected
prospectively for 30 months following study entry.
Questionnaires
Relevant sections of the American Thoracic Society-DLD 1978
respiratory symptoms questionnaire,16
International Union
Against Tuberculosis and Lung Disease bronchial symptoms
questionnaire,17
and National Asthma Education Program
Expert Panel Guidelines18
were incorporated into a
questionnaire focusing on respiratory symptoms, characteristics of
asthma, demographic factors, tobacco use, allergen exposures, and
medication use. The questionnaire was administered to subjects by a
trained technician, and took approximately 20 min. COPD was defined as
self-reported chronic bronchitis, emphysema, or COPD. Nonasthma
medication use was assessed by having participants bring all of their
medications to the clinic, where they were then coded for analysis into
the following classes: GI, hormonal, nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory,
cardiovascular, ß-receptor antagonist, psychotropic, diabetic, and
thyroid medications. ETS exposure was defined as self-reported regular
exposure (yes or no) to other people's tobacco smoke either at home or
at work.
The questionnaire also included both generic and disease-specific measures of health status: the SF-36 health status questionnaire19 and the Asthma Quality-of-Life Questionnaire (AQLQ) developed by Marks and colleagues.20 Scores from these questionnaires have been shown to significantly correlate with severity of asthma21 ,22 and have a high internal reliability.
Asthma Severity
To provide a rough stratification for severity, we
classified participants on a three-point spirometry scale
(FEV1
80%, 60 to 80%, < 60%) and a four-point
oral steroid use scale (never, occasional burst use, frequent burst
use, daily use). We then classified patients as having "less
severe" conditions if the sum of these two indexes was 0 to 2 and as
"more severe" if this sum was 3 to 5. This crude "severity"
score has been shown to correlate with self-assessed severity and
separates subjects into "more" and "less" severe
groups.23
HCU: Hospital-Based Asthma Care
HCU data were obtained from administrative databases for
the 30-month period following baseline evaluation. Using these data, we
defined an episode of hospital-based asthma care as one or more
emergency department visits, urgency care visits, or hospitalizations
for asthma that were clustered in time, with no two adjoining contacts
separated by > 2 days.24
Adjoining contacts that were
separated by > 2 days were counted as belonging to separate episodes
of care. As there were only 21 hospitalizations during the study
period, hospital-based asthma care represents predominantly emergency
department and urgency care clinic visits.
Participant Follow-up
Person-years of observation were calculated as the number of
months of health plan membership during the 30-month follow-up period.
On average, participants were followed up for 27.2 months, and 85% had
at least 2 years of follow-up. Subjects with < 2 years of follow-up
did not differ significantly in terms of age, gender, and severity of
asthma when compared to those with
2 years of follow-up. Similarly,
person-years of follow-up did not differ significantly by smoking
status or by ETS exposure. We excluded 12 persons from analysis who had
no eligibility during the follow-up period.
Statistical Methods
All analyses were performed using statistical software (SAS;
Cary, NC). We used standard methods for analyzing contingency tables,
with p values based on the Pearson
2 statistic and, for
tests of trend, on the Mantel-Haenszel
2
statistic.25
We computed rates of hospital-based care as
the total number of episodes of hospital-based care for any given
subgroup divided by the total number of person-years of follow-up for
that group. This was then multiplied by 100 and expressed as the number
of episodes per 100 person-years of observation. We used Poisson
regression analysis26
to compare rates of hospital-based
episodes of care and multiple linear regression to examine the joint
effects of multiple variables on the QOL scores. Poisson regression
allowed us to distinguish not only between users and nonusers of health
care, but also to detect associations of various factors with frequency
of utilization. Poisson regression is the preferred analytic approach
for the episode data because it is able to account for both the
differential amount of follow-up among participants (via the
person-years method) and also the recurrent nature of the outcome (many
individuals had more than one episode of hospital-based asthma care).
Adjustment variables used in these analyses were age, gender, nonasthma medication use, self-reported COPD, severity of asthma, and self-reported income. For QOL analyses, we used analysis of variance and Fisher's LSD method of multiple comparisons for post hoc analysis. Unless otherwise stated, all p values are two sided and a p value of < 0.05 is significant.
| Results |
|---|
|
|
|---|
|
|
|
Hospital-Based Care: Longitudinal Analysis
Current cigarette smokers had a greater rate of hospital-based
episodes of asthma care than either never-smokers or ex-smokers (Table 4 ).
Similarly, subjects who reported ETS exposure had more frequent
episodes of hospital-based asthma care than those who reported no ETS
exposure. These differences persisted even after adjusting for age,
gender, disease severity, diagnosis of COPD, and nonasthma medication
use. Based on the Poisson model, the relative risk (RR) for current
smokers vs never-smokers was 1.40 (95% confidence interval [CI],
1.01 to 1.95), and the adjusted RR associated with ETS exposure was
2.34 (95% CI, 1.80 to 3.05).
|
| Discussion |
|---|
|
|
|---|
Although it is likely that the increased hospital-based care and lower QOL seen in this study are due to the negative health effects of smoke on patients with asthma, cause and effect cannot be established. Variables such as age, gender, nonasthma medication use, self-reported COPD, and severity of asthma also influence HCU and QOL and could be important confounders.21 ,24 ,26 ,27 ,28 ,29 Nevertheless, direct smoke exposure and ETS exposure remained independent predictors of HCU and QOL even after adjusting for these variables.
It is important to note that the diagnosis of asthma was made in these patients via their medication use (at least two dispensings of antiasthma medications) or previous hospitalization for asthma, as well as all participants reporting physician-diagnosed asthma prior to being enrolled in the study. Furthermore, on chart review of a subsample of participants for validation of our severity score (n = 193), no one was found not to have asthma.23
There are statistical limitations to our QOL and hospital-based asthma care analyses worth noting. For QOL, we used analysis of variance and Fisher's LSD method of multiple comparisons for post hoc analysis, and did not adjust further for the various domains within each QOL instrument. Accordingly, conclusions that are not consistent across all domains need to be interpreted with caution. For HCU, our outcome variable was hospital-based asthma care, defined as the sum of three specific components of HCU. Emergency department visits, urgency care clinic visits, and hospitalizations have important similarities in that they are largely unplanned and potentially preventable health care encounters. For this reason, combining them for analysis provides valuable information about modifiable components of HCU. However, individual analysis may not have had the statistical power necessary to reach certain conclusions. For example, there were only 21 hospitalizations during the study period, which was too infrequent to warrant separate analysis.
The finding of lower QOL among smokers with asthma complements our existing knowledge of the detrimental effects of smoking on QOL that have been observed in nonasthmatic populations. Elderly patients who smoke report worse QOL than never-smokers.3 Patients who have suffered myocardial infarction and continue smoking also report worse QOL than ex-smokers or never-smokers.1 Plausible mechanisms exist through which smoking could affect QOL. Cigarette use has been associated with wheezing,30 ,31 increased sensitization to certain allergens,6 chronic bronchitis,7 increased bronchial hyperresponsiveness,8 and resistance to inhaled corticosteroids.32
Interpreting QOL data depends on the validity of the instruments used for a given disease state. The asthma QOL questionnaire used in this study is disease specific and has been used to characterize patients with asthma and occupational disabilities due to asthma.20 ,33 ,34 One limitation of the Marks AQLQ is the fact that a "minimal clinically significant change" has not been determined, as it has for certain other asthma-specific instruments such as the Juniper AQLQ.35 Therefore, it is difficult to know the clinical relevance of the differences we observed. The SF-36 instrument was developed as a general health status questionnaire and is well studied, has high internal reliability, and has been shown to have good discriminating properties across a wide range of disease states.36 It has also been used extensively in populations with asthma.21 ,28 ,29 At the same time, it has been argued that the SF-36 is not a particularly good discriminator for asthma, because people with asthma have scores relatively close to those of normal subjects.36 For example, the never-smokers reported in this study had QOL scores that equaled or exceeded those of 638 healthy adult patients in six of seven categories when compared with data published by McHorney and colleagues.36 The issue of whether the SF-36 discriminates among risk subgroups within asthmatics, for example current smokers vs nonsmokers, is less well studied. Again comparing with published normal populations, current smokers in this study reported worse QOL in six of seven categories.36
The finding of increased hospital-based care among smokers with asthma also complements our existing knowledge about the detrimental effects of smoke on HCU that have been observed in nonasthmatic populations. For example, among the general Swiss population, smokers have been shown to use outpatient and inpatient services more frequently than nonsmokers.5 Also, patients who have had successful coronary angioplasty but continue to smoke are twice as likely to suffer myocardial infarction and death as nonsmokers.37 Cigarette use in patients with asthma has also been strongly correlated with the need for subsequent hospitalization.38 Finally, it has also been shown that increased use of health-care resources among smokers ceases within 4 years of quitting.39 This is consistent with our finding that hospital-based care was similar for ex-smokers and never-smokers.
In conclusion, this study found that exposure to direct smoke or ETS prospectively predicted increased HCU for asthma, and cross sectionally was associated with reduced QOL patients with asthma. These findings add to our existing knowledge of the detrimental effects of tobacco smoke, and are of relevance specifically to patients with asthma.
| Footnotes |
|---|
Correspondence to: Molly Osborne, MD, PhD, FCCP, P3 PULM Pulmonary/Critical Care, Veterans Administration Medical Center, 3710 SW US Veterans Hospital Rd, Portland, OR 97207; e-mail: osbornem@ohsu.edu
Abbreviations: AQLQ = Asthma Quality-of-Life Questionnaire; CI = confidence interval; ETS = environmental tobacco smoke; HCU = health-care utilization; HMO = health maintenance organization; LSD = least significant differences; QOL = quality of life; RR = relative risk
Received for publication March 18, 1998. Accepted for publication October 26, 1998.
| References |
|---|
|
|
|---|
This article has been cited by other articles:
![]() |
M. D. Eisner Banning smoking in public places: time to clear the air. JAMA, October 11, 2006; 296(14): 1778 - 1779. [Full Text] [PDF] |
||||
![]() |
R. Chaudhuri, E. Livingston, A. D. McMahon, J. Lafferty, I. Fraser, M. Spears, C. P. McSharry, and N. C. Thomson Effects of Smoking Cessation on Lung Function and Airway Inflammation in Smokers with Asthma Am. J. Respir. Crit. Care Med., July 15, 2006; 174(2): 127 - 133. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] |
||||
![]() |
L.-P. Boulet, C. Lemiere, F. Archambault, G. Carrier, M. C. Descary, and F. Deschesnes Smoking and Asthma: Clinical and Radiologic Features, Lung Function, and Airway Inflammation Chest, March 1, 2006; 129(3): 661 - 668. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] |
||||
![]() |
M D Eisner, J Klein, S K Hammond, G Koren, G Lactao, and C Iribarren Directly measured second hand smoke exposure and asthma health outcomes Thorax, October 1, 2005; 60(10): 814 - 821. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] |
||||
![]() |
Y. I. Garces, P. Yang, J. Parkinson, X. Zhao, J. A. Wampfler, J. O. Ebbert, and J. A. Sloan The Relationship Between Cigarette Smoking and Quality of Life After Lung Cancer Diagnosis Chest, December 1, 2004; 126(6): 1733 - 1741. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] |
||||
![]() |
N.C. Thomson, R. Chaudhuri, and E. Livingston Asthma and cigarette smoking Eur. Respir. J., November 1, 2004; 24(5): 822 - 833. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] |
||||
![]() |
R. Chaudhuri, E. Livingston, A. D. McMahon, L. Thomson, W. Borland, and N. C. Thomson Cigarette Smoking Impairs the Therapeutic Response to Oral Corticosteroids in Chronic Asthma Am. J. Respir. Crit. Care Med., December 1, 2003; 168(11): 1308 - 1311. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] |
||||
![]() |
M D Eisner and P D Blanc Gas stove use and respiratory health among adults with asthma in NHANES III Occup. Environ. Med., October 1, 2003; 60(10): 759 - 764. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] |
||||
![]() |
M. Simoni, M.S. Jaakkola, L. Carrozzi, S. Baldacci, F. Di Pede, and G. Viegi Indoor air pollution and respiratory health in the elderly Eur. Respir. J., May 1, 2003; 21(40_suppl): 15S - 20s. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] |
||||
![]() |
M D Eisner, E H Yelin, P P Katz, G Earnest, and P D Blanc Exposure to indoor combustion and adult asthma outcomes: environmental tobacco smoke, gas stoves, and woodsmoke Thorax, November 1, 2002; 57(11): 973 - 978. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] |
||||
![]() |
M. D. Eisner and P. D. Blanc Environmental Tobacco Smoke Exposure During Travel Among Adults With Asthma* Chest, September 1, 2002; 122(3): 826 - 828. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] |
||||
![]() |
G W Chalmers, K J Macleod, S A Little, L J Thomson, C P McSharry, and N C Thomson Influence of cigarette smoking on inhaled corticosteroid treatment in mild asthma Thorax, March 1, 2002; 57(3): 226 - 230. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] |
||||
![]() |
M.S. Jaakkola Environmental tobacco smoke and health in the elderly Eur. Respir. J., January 1, 2002; 19(1): 172 - 181. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] |
||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| HOME | HELP | FEEDBACK | SUBSCRIPTIONS | ARCHIVE | SEARCH | TABLE OF CONTENTS |