Published in

BMJ Publishing Group, Thorax, p. thoraxjnl-2021-217652, 2021

DOI: 10.1136/thoraxjnl-2021-217652

Links

Tools

Export citation

Search in Google Scholar

Relative environmental and social disadvantage in patients with idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis

This paper was not found in any repository, but could be made available legally by the author.
This paper was not found in any repository, but could be made available legally by the author.

Full text: Unavailable

Green circle
Preprint: archiving allowed
Green circle
Postprint: archiving allowed
Red circle
Published version: archiving forbidden
Data provided by SHERPA/RoMEO

Abstract

BackgroundAir pollution exposure is associated with disease severity, progression and mortality in patients with idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis (IPF). Combined impacts of environmental and socioeconomic factors on outcomes in patients with IPF are unknown. The objectives of this study were to characterise the relationships between relative environmental and social disadvantage with clinical outcomes in patients with IPF.MethodsPatients with IPF were identified from a longitudinal database at University of California, San Francisco. Residential addresses were geocoded and linked to the CalEnviroScreen 3.0 (CES), a tool that quantifies environmental burden in California communities, combining population, environmental and pollution vulnerability into individual and composite scores (higher scores indicating greater disadvantage). Unadjusted and adjusted linear and logistic regression and Fine and Gray proportional hazards models were used.Results603 patients were included. Higher CES was associated with lower baseline forced vital capacity (β=−0.073, 95% CI −0.13 to −0.02; p=0.006) and diffusion capacity of the lung for carbon monoxide (β=−0.11, 95% CI −0.16 to −0.06; p<0.001). Patients in the highest population vulnerability quartile were less likely to be on antifibrotic therapy (OR=0.33; 95% CI 0.18 to 0.60; p=0.001) at time of enrolment, compared with those in the lowest quartile. An association between CES and mortality was suggested, but sensitivity analyses demonstrated inconsistent results. Relative disadvantage of the study cohort appeared lower compared with the general population.ConclusionsHigher environmental exposures and vulnerability were associated with lower baseline lung function and lower antifibrotic use, suggesting that relative socioenvironmental disadvantage has meaningful impacts on patients with IPF.

Beta version