HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS		QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced] Author: Keyword(s): Year:  Vol:  Page:

This Article Abstract Full Text (PDF) Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Citation Map Services Email this article to a friend Similar articles in this journal Similar articles in ISI Web of Science Similar articles in PubMed Alert me to new issues of the journal Download to citation manager Citing Articles Citing Articles via HighWire Citing Articles via ISI Web of Science (41) Citing Articles via Google Scholar Google Scholar Articles by Mortimer, K.M. Articles by Tager, I.B. Search for Related Content PubMed PubMed Citation Articles by Mortimer, K.M. Articles by Tager, I.B.

The effect of air pollution on inner-city children with asthma

¹ Dept of Epidemiology, Harvard School of Public Health, Boston, MA, ² Epidemiology and Biomarkers Branch, US Environmental Protection Agency/National Health and Environmental Effects Research Laboratory, Human Studies Division, Chapel Hill, NC, ³ Dept of Epidemiology and Environmental Health, Harvard School of Public Health, Boston, MA, ⁴ Dept of Pediatrics, Case Western Reserve University, Rainbow Babies & Children's Hospital, Cleveland, OH and ⁵ Dept of Public Health Biology and Epidemiology, University of California, Berkeley, CA, USA

CORRESPONDENCE: K.M. Mortimer, School of Public Health, 1918 University Ave, University of California, Berkeley, CA 94720-7370, USA. Fax: 15 106430239. E-mail: kmort@uclink4.berkeley.edu

Keywords: air pollution, asthma, generalized estimating equations, inner-city, mixed linear models

Received: July 9, 2001
Accepted December 16, 2001

The NCICAS research was supported by grants U01 AI-30751, AI-30752, AI-30756, AI-30772, AI-30773, AI-30777, AI-30779, AI30780, and AI-15105 from NIAID, NIH.

	Abstract

TOP Abstract Design and methods Results Discussion Acknowledgements References

 
The effect of daily ambient air pollution was examined within a cohort of 846 asthmatic children residing in eight urban areas of the USA, using data from the National Cooperative Inner-City Asthma Study.

Daily air pollution concentrations were extracted from the Aerometric Information Retrieval System database from the Environment Protection Agency in the USA. Mixed linear models and generalized estimating equation models were used to evaluate the effects of several air pollutants (ozone, sulphur dioxide (SO₂), nitrogen dioxide (NO₂) and particles with a 50% cut-off aerodynamic diameter of 10 µm (PM₁₀) on peak expiratory flow rate (PEFR) and symptoms in 846 children with a history of asthma (ages 4–9 yrs).

None of the pollutants were associated with evening PEFR or symptom reports. Only ozone was associated with declines in morning % PEFR (0.59% decline (95% confidence interval (CI) 0.13–1.05%) per interquartile range (IQR) increase in 5-day average ozone). In single pollutant models, each pollutant was associated with an increased incidence of morning symptoms: (odds ratio (OR)=1.16 (95% CI 1.02–1.30) per IQR increase in 4-day average ozone, OR=1.32 (95% CI 1.03–1.70) per IQR increase in 2-day average SO₂, OR=1.48 (95% CI 1.02–2.16) per IQR increase in 6-day average NO₂ and OR=1.26 (95% CI 1.0–1.59) per IQR increase in 2-day average PM₁₀.

This longitudinal analysis supports previous time-series findings that at levels below current USA air-quality standards, summer-air pollution is significantly related to symptoms and decreased pulmonary function among children with asthma.

Much of the evidence for the effect of air pollution on respiratory health 1–8 is based on time-series analyses of repeated measurements in closed cohorts, which create a daily summary of responses across all study individuals. Fluctuations in this summary measure are evaluated relative to daily fluctuations in air pollution. Therefore, these approaches are not well suited to investigations of individual-level factors related to heterogeneity of response. Time-series analyses require that the distribution of individual-level factors in the study population remain stable over time 9 or that data on changes in these characteristics are included in the model. This limits their usefulness in studying populations which do not remain fixed during the study period.

Longitudinal analysis techniques such as mixed linear models and generalized estimating equations provide a more statistically powerful alternative by incorporating individual level outcomes and covariates. They permit estimation of individual mean effects and individual change over time as well as population mean effects over the entire study period. These methods require no assumptions about stability of population characteristics over time and subjects with incomplete data can be included in the analysis 10. Therefore these methods are well-suited for epidemiological studies.

These methods were used to evaluate air pollution-related health effects in a large cohort of inner-city children with asthma. Individual-level risk factors that modified the response to ozone in this cohort have been reported previously 11. In particular, it was found that asthmatic children born prematurely (<37 weeks) or with a low birth weight (<2.5 kg) had a significantly greater response to increases in ozone. This study compares these results to time-series and other analyses and presents multipollutant models.

	Design and methods

TOP Abstract Design and methods Results Discussion Acknowledgements References

 
Cohort identification
The cohort was obtained from the National Cooperative Inner-City Asthma Study (NCICAS), a multicentre study of asthmatic children in eight urban areas in the USA. Although NCICAS examined a wide range of risk factors for asthma morbidity, including access to healthcare, psychosocial problems, and the home environment, this report is limited to the association with urban air pollution. The design and methods have been reported previously 12. Briefly, children and their parents were recruited from emergency departments and primary care clinics in eight urban areas: Bronx and East Harlem, NY; Baltimore, MD; Washington, DC; Detroit, MI; Cleveland, OH; Chicago, IL; and St. Louis, MO. Children were 4–9 yrs old and resided in inner-city neighbourhoods in which the income of 30% of residents was below the federal poverty level. Study children had either: 1) parental report of physician-diagnosed asthma and symptoms in the past 12 months or 2) respiratory symptoms consistent with asthma, such as cough, wheezing or shortness of breath, that lasted >6 weeks during the previous year, together with increased symptoms with exercise or cold air exposure or a family history of asthma. The protocol included an in-person baseline interview, a home survey, three brief telephone follow-up interviews at three-month intervals, and two-week peak expiratory flow rate (PEFR) and symptom diaries after the baseline interview and prior to each follow-up interview. To reduce confounding by temperature and seasonal infectious disease, this analysis is restricted to those children who returned at least one diary during June–August of 1993.

Exposure measures
Air pollutant concentrations were obtained from the Aerometric Information Retrieval System of the Environmental Protection Agency in the USA. Daily pollutant metrics were calculated by averaging hourly readings for selected periods, based on peak occurrences, which are noted in the section on each pollutant. Multiday metrics were calculated by averaging these daily metrics. Children within the same urban area were assigned common daily and multiday values for each pollutant, calculated by averaging the pollutant concentrations from all monitors in the corresponding county. Single and multipollutant models are presented. Pollutants are often highly correlated, and consequently this report focuses on ozone as a good marker for summer air pollution in the NCICAS cities. Weather data were obtained from local airports.

Outcome measures
Children were trained in the use of a mini-Wright peak flow meter (Clement Clarke, Columbus, OH, USA). PEFR and symptoms (cough, chest tightness, wheeze) were reported in the morning upon rising, and before bedtime, prior to use of any inhaled medications. The maximum of three manoeuvres, performed while standing, was recorded. NCICAS was not an intervention and parents were not instructed on the interpretation of PEFR. Values <70 or >450 L·min^–1 (0.4% and 2.5% of readings, respectively) were considered to be implausible (e.g. errors in transcription) and were deleted.

Three outcome measures were evaluated separately for morning and evening: 1) daily per cent change from the diary-specific median PEFR; 2) the incidence of 10% decline from the diary-specific median PEFR; 3) the incidence of any symptom. Changes in PEFR (rather than mean levels) and incidence (rather than prevalence) were evaluated to focus on the impact of air-pollution level on changes in morbidity.

Statistical methods
The per cent change in PEFR was analysed using linear mixed effect models (SAS Proc Mixed 13), while the incidence of symptoms and incidence of a 10% decline in median PEFR were modelled with generalized estimating equations, using a logistic link. Change-in-estimate criteria and likelihood ratio tests were used to determine the choice of covariates, with an alpha level of 0.05. Akaike's Information Criteria (AIC) was used to evaluate the best correlation structure and to determine if a covariate should be entered as a fixed or random effect. Models with the AIC closest to zero were considered to best fit the data. Standard errors were insensitive to the use of several covariance structures, therefore results from models assuming the most simple structure (independence) were reported.

Lagged air pollution effects were evaluated using moving averages, unrestricted distributed lags, and polynomial distributed lags. Within-model lag-specific estimates were combined to create a cumulative effect over a specified interval and estimates were then compared across models.

	Results

TOP Abstract Design and methods Results Discussion Acknowledgements References

 
Approximately 60% of the children returned a diary for each of the four visits. From June–August of 1993, 846 children returned at least one diary, for a total of 910 diaries. Their characteristics were similar to the entire NCICAS cohort (n=1528), although children who reported 2 asthma medications in the previous three months (an indicator of asthma severity) were more likely to have returned diaries (table 1). Each diary contributed up to 14 days of readings (11,622 child days). Completeness of diary readings was unrelated to pollution levels during the diary period.

View larger version (22K): [in this window] [in a new window]   Fig. 1.— Pollutants shown by urban area a) ozone, b) nitrogen dioxide, c) sulphur dioxide and d) particles with a 50% cut-off aerodynamic diameter of 10 µm. Boxes extend from the 25th to 75th percentile (Interquartile range (IQR)). The lines extend to lower and upper adjacent values, defined as three halves of the IQR. Circles represent days more extreme than the adjacent values. BR: Bronx; EH: East Harlem; BA: Baltimore; WA: Washington; DE: Detroit; CL: Cleveland; CH: Chicago; SL: St Louis; ppb: parts per billion.

No association was seen between single or multiday ozone metrics and any evening outcome measure (table 2). The effect of ozone on morning outcomes increased over several days and the strongest association was seen for multiday moving averages. A 15 ppb increase in 5-day moving average ozone was associated with a 0.59% decline in morning PEFR (95% CI 0.13–1.05) and with the incidence of a 10% decline in morning PEFR (OR=1.14, 95% CI 1.02–1.27). The incidence of morning symptoms was most strongly associated with a 4-day moving average (OR=1.16, 95% CI 1.02–1.30.) The effect of the corresponding multiday lags on each evening outcome is presented for comparison purposes (i.e. average of lag 0–4 for evening measures can be compared to the average of lag 1–5 for morning measures).

For morning PEFR, cumulative effects from unrestricted lag, second degree polynomial distributed lag, and moving average models were nearly identical (cumulative declines=0.54%, 0.51%, and 0.59%). Unrestricted lag models suggested that the ozone exposures from 3–5 days prior have a greater impact on morning %PEFR than more immediate exposures. The 5-day average (lags 1–5) showed a slightly greater effect than a 3-day average (lags 3–5) or 4-day average (lags 2–5) (data not shown), despite the fact that the estimates from models using lags 1 and 2 suggested little increased risk. For morning symptoms, unrestricted lag, polynomial distributed lag, and moving average models yielded similar cumulative estimates (OR=1.13, 1.14, 1.14, respectively).

Excluding days when ozone was >80 ppb (proposed US Federal Standard) provided estimates which were nearly identical findings to those obtained using all of the days (0.70% decline in PEFR (95% CI 0.12–1.29%), OR=1.15 (95% CI 0.99–1.33) for a 10% decline in morning PEFR, OR=1.17 (95% CI 1.01–1.35) for the incidence of morning symptoms).

The consistency of urban area-specific estimates was evaluated by adding an "ozone by urban area" interaction term to each model. Interaction terms were null. In fact, with the exception of the Baltimore centre, the estimates for morning %PEFR were strikingly similar across urban areas (table 3). In all areas except St. Louis, the increase in ozone was associated with an increase in the incidence of morning symptoms.

Co-pollutants
Sulphur dioxide (SO₂), nitrogen dioxide (NO₂), and particles with a 50% cut-off aerodynamic diameter of 10 µm (PM₁₀) were evaluated using models similar to the ozone models described earlier. Estimates for evening effects were null (data not shown). Only morning %PEFR and symptom incidence findings are presented (table 4).

Daily NO₂ was available in seven urban areas (nearly 10,000 child days), with an average intradiary range of 32 ppb. The correlation between 8-h mean ozone and 4-h NO₂ (06:00–10:00 h) was 0.27. NO₂ was not associated with declines in %PEFR and the greatest effect on morning symptoms was for a 6-day moving average. Joint modelling of NO₂ and ozone slightly reduced the estimates for each pollutant.

Daily PM₁₀ was measured only in Chicago, Cleveland and Detroit (>3,000 child days,) with an average intradiary range of 53 µg·m^–3. The correlation between 24-h average PM₁₀ and 8-h average ozone was 0.51. Although there were no statistically significant effects of PM₁₀ on morning %PEFR, estimates were negative and of similar magnitude to those found for ozone (0.89% decline per 25 µg·m^–3 increase in 6-day moving average, 95% CI –0.54–2.31% decline). Significant effects on evening %PEFR were found only at much greater lags (8 days). None of the lags of PM₁₀ were associated with the incidence of evening symptoms. In a single-pollutant model, the strongest association with morning symptoms was seen for a 2-day average. Entering PM₁₀ and ozone in the model simultaneously resulted in a slight reduction in the PM₁₀ estimate, but a larger reduction in the ozone estimate and wider confidence intervals (table 4).

Each individual pollutant was associated significantly with an increase in the incidence of morning symptoms. Multiday lags with the strongest associations in each of the single-pollutant models were simultaneously entered into a model. When restricted to the seven urban areas with complete data for ozone, SO₂ and NO₂, only SO₂ remained significantly associated with morning symptoms. Models with all four pollutants were restricted to the three urban areas with complete data. Estimates for most pollutants were positive, however the confidence intervals were wide due to the substantially smaller sample size and colinearity among pollutants.

	Discussion

TOP Abstract Design and methods Results Discussion Acknowledgements References

 
This study provides evidence of measurable negative respiratory health effects in children from eight inner-city communities in northeastern and midwestern USA. Direct comparisons to estimates reported in other studies are difficult, due to variations in outcome measures, analytical techniques and exposure definitions. A time-series analysis of 61 asthmatic children 8 in the Netherlands reported results corresponding to a 0.4% decline in PEFR and OR=1.03 per 15 ppb of ozone. Similarly, a summer camp study of asthmatic children in Connecticut 16 observed effects comparable to a 0.5% decline in PEFR per 15 ppb increase in ozone, despite much higher average ozone concentrations. Smaller effects were found among a group of 71 asthmatic children in Mexico City 3, with no effect on PEFR and OR=1.03 for symptoms per 15 ppb increase in ozone. In each of these studies, effects were found over shorter intervals (0–2 day lags) than in the NCICAS population (4–5 day moving average). In contrast to other findings 1, 3, 17, current day effects were not found in the NCICAS cohort. Instead, the strongest associations were seen with multiday moving averages. Other studies have also reported larger estimates from moving day average exposures than those based on single-day exposures 18, 19, 20. The Pollution Effects on Asthmatic Children in Europe (PEACE) study 21 did not see an effect of winter pollutants and presented data based on shorter lags. These differences, as well as possible differences in population characteristics that modify the response to pollution may account for the contradictory results 10. Findings in these USA inner-city asthmatic children are comparable to findings reported elsewhere, suggesting the magnitude of the air pollution-related effect on asthma morbidity is not substantially greater in this population in relation to more socioeconomically diverse groups of asthmatic children. The baseline risk for asthma morbidity may be higher in these communities and, therefore air pollution may contribute substantially to the burden of asthma morbidity.

Small declines in PEFR may be of questionable clinical significance. There were, however, significant associations with the incidence of 10% declines in PEFR and symptoms that clearly have clinical importance to asthma morbidity 22. The consistency of these effects suggests that despite known limitations 23, the peak flow data effectively captured important decrements in pulmonary function. Nondifferential misclassification of outcome and exposure data may have contributed to an underestimate of the effects. Also, a report published previously 10 has identified subgroups with more clinically important responses to air pollution. Future analyses of the health effects of air pollution would benefit from the inclusion of individual-level risk factors, which can greatly modify the size of the health effect.

The effects on PEFR and symptoms were limited primarily to morning measures. Morning values are better indicators of asthmatics who are susceptible to airway narrowing 24, and, therefore, focusing on morning measures may identify children at greater risk for adverse health outcomes. The most severe bronchoconstriction occurs in the morning, when measurable differences between and within individuals may be greatest. Alternatively, the lack of association with evening measures may be due to the use of asthma medication during the day, which may attenuate the association with air pollution and daily peak flow and symptom reports 1, 25. The lack of evening effects may reflect misclassification due to an inability to adjust for time the child spent outdoors or exercising, both of which affect respiratory dose 26. Controlling for these factors may improve the estimates 4.

Only three of the urban areas had daily PM₁₀ monitors, making the sample size too small to allow for unambiguous assessment of multipollutant models. In these three cities, however, a stronger association was seen for PM₁₀ than ozone, and, as others have reported PM₁₀ was more strongly associated with asthma symptoms rather than PEFR 3. Delfino et al. 1 reported that 8-h maximum PM₁₀ was more highly associated with morbidity than the 24-h PM₁₀ measurements. It was not possible to test that hypothesis with existing monitoring data.

Biological mechanisms for delayed effects on pulmonary function include increased bronchial reactivity secondary to airway inflammation associated with irritant exposures. Animal and chamber studies suggest that exposure to air pollution may augment airway cellular infiltration and cellular activation, enhance release of cytotoxic inflammatory mediators, alter membrane permeability, and alter mucociliary clearance 27–29. Given the lengthy lag times for ozone, PM₁₀ and NO₂ effects, ambient pollutants may not only be acting as a direct trigger of asthma attacks, but may also act indirectly as a primer for a subsequent antigen exposure 30, 31. While ozone was most influential on PEFR, NO₂ had the strongest effect on symptoms. NO₂ may be a better marker for the summer-pollutant mix in these cities, largely east of the Mississippi, in that it is related to the photochemistry of ozone and the emissions of hydrocarbons that accompany particle pollutants released from automobiles.

These findings are not likely to be confounded by asthma risk factors such as allergen sensitization and housing characteristics since they do not vary within the two-week monitoring interval. Medication or air conditioner use and exposure to tobacco smoke may vary daily, however, those data were not available. The similarity of the quantitative group mean estimates to those from time-series analyses discussed earlier, however, suggests that confounding does not explain the results.

In conclusion, summer-time air pollution is associated with increased asthma morbidity and decreased pulmonary function among inner-city children with asthma in the USA. These findings from generalized estimating equations and mixed models support previously published reports from time-series analysis, and those reported from less urban populations. The impact of pollution was not immediate, but developed over several days, with the largest effects seen on morning outcomes. Nitrogen dioxide, sulphur dioxide, and particles with a 50% cut-off aerodynamic diameter of 10 µm were associated with increases in symptoms, with nitrogen dioxide exhibiting the strongest influence. Ozone was most influential on peak expiratory flow rate. Adverse respiratory effects were observed in all cities, at levels below proposed USA air quality standards.

	Acknowledgements

TOP Abstract Design and methods Results Discussion Acknowledgements References

 
The authors would like to thank the NCICAS staff and participants, whose hard-work and cooperation made this study possible, L. Ngo for his expert statistical advice and M. Aggarwal for geocoding the addresses and providing the monitor selection data.

The contents of this report are solely the responsibility of the authors and do not necessarily represent the official views of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). The research described in this article has been subject to EPA's peer and administrative review and it has been approved for publication.

	References

TOP Abstract Design and methods Results Discussion Acknowledgements References

 

1. Delfino FJ, Zeiger RS, Seltzer JM, Street DH. Symptoms in pediatric asthmatics and air pollution: differences in effects by symptom severity, anti-inflammatory medication use and particulate averaging time. Environ Health Perspect 1998;106:751–761.[ISI][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
2. White MC, Etzel RA, Wilcox WD, Lloyd C. Exacerbations of childhood asthma and ozone in pollution in Atlanta. Environ Res 1994;65:56–68.[Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
3. Romieu I, Meneses F, Ruiz S, et al. Effects of air pollution on the respiratory health of asthmatic children living in Mexico City. Am J Respir Crit Care Med 1996;154:300–307.[Abstract]
4. Neas LM, Dockery DW, Burge H, Koutrakis P, Speizer F. The association of ambient air pollution with twice daily peak expiratory flow rate measurements in children. Am J Epidemiol 1995;141:111–122.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
5. Ostro B, Lipsett M, Wiener M, Pham D, Selner J. Asthmatic responses to airborne acid aerosols. Am J Public Health 1991;81:694–702.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
6. Avol EL, Navidi WC, Rappaport EB, Peters JM. Acute effects of ambient ozone on asthmatic, wheezy and healthy children. Research Report Number 82Cambridge, MA, Health Effects Institute, 1998.
7. Scanell C, Chen L, Aris RM, et al. Greater ozone-induced inflammatory responses in subjects with asthma. Am J Respir Crit Care Med 1996;154:24–29.[Abstract]
8. Gielen MH, van der Zee SC, van Wijnen JH, van Steen CL, Brunekreef B. Acute effects of summer air pollution on respiratory health of asthmatic children. Am J Respir Crit Care Med 1997;155:2105–2108.[Abstract]
9. Chatfield C. The analysis of time series. 5th EdnLondon/New York, Chapman and Hall, 1996.
10. Diggle PJ, Liang KY, Zeger ST. Analysis of longitudinal dataNew York, Oxford University Press Inc, 1994.
11. Mortimer KM, Tager I, Dockery D, Neas L, Redline S. The Effect of ozone on inner-city children with asthma: identification of susceptible subgroups. Am J Respir Crit Care Med 2000;162:1838–1845.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
12. Mitchell HE, Senturia Y, Gergen P, et al. Design and methods of the National Cooperative Inner-City Asthma Study. Pediatric Pulmonology 1997;24:237–252.[CrossRef][ISI][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
13. Littell RC, Milliken GA, Stroup WW, Wolfinger RD. SAS System for Mixed ModelsCary NC, SAS Institute Inc., 1996.
14. Federal Register 1997. National Ambient Air Quality Standards for Ozone: Final Rule. Fed Reg 62: 1-37 40 CFR Part 50, 1997.
15. Kinney PL, Aggarwal M, Nikiforov SV, Nadas A. Methods development for epidemiologic investigations of the health effects of prolonged ozone exposures, Part III. An approach to retrospective estimation of lifetime ozone exposures using a questionnaire and ambient monitoring data (US Sites). Research report number 81Cambridge, MA, Health Effects Institute, 1998.
16. Thurston GD, Lippman M, Scott MB, Fine JM. Summertime haze air pollution and children with asthma. Am J Respir Crit Care Med 1997;155:654–660.[Abstract]
17. Kinney PK, Thurston GD, Raizenne M. The effects of ambient ozone on lung function in children: a reanalysis of six summer camp studies. Environ Health Perspect 1996;104:170–174.[ISI][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
18. Gold D, Damokosh AI, Pope CA, et al. Particulate and ozone pollutant effects on the respiratory function of children in southwest Mexico City. Epidemiology 1999;10:8–16.[CrossRef][ISI][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
19. Spektor DM, Thurston GD, Mao J, He D, Hayes C, Lippmann M. Effects of single- and multi-day ozone exposures on respiratory function in active normal children. Environ Res 1991;55:107–122.[Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
20. Schwartz J, Dockery DW, Neas LM, et al. Acute effects of summer air pollution on respiratory symptom reporting in children. Am J Respir Crit Care Med 1994;150:1234–1242.[Abstract]
21. Roemer W, Hoek G, Brunekreef B. Pollution effects on asthmatic children in Europe, the PEACE study. Clin Exp Allergy 2000;30:1067–1075.[CrossRef][ISI][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
22. Hoek G, Dockery DW, Pope A, Neas L, Roemer W, Brunekreef B. Association between PM₁₀ and decrements in peak expiratory flow rates in children: reanalysis of data from five panel studies. Eur Respir J 1998;11:1307–1311.[Abstract]
23. Redline S, Wright E, Kattan M, Kercsmar C, Weiss K. Short-term compliance with peak flow monitoring: results from a study of inner city children with asthma. Pediatr Pulmonol 1996;21:203–210.[CrossRef][ISI][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
24. National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute. National asthma education and prevention program, expert panel report 2: Guidelines for the diagnosis and management of asthma. National Institutes of Health pub No 97-4051cBethesda, MD, National Institutes of Health, 1997.
25. Peters A, Dockery DW, Heinrich J, Wichmann HE. Medication use modifies the health effects of particulate sulfate air pollution in children with asthma. Environ Health Perspect 1993;105:430–435.
26. Tager IB, Kunzili N, Lurmann F, Ngo L, Segal M, Balmes J. Methods development for epidemiologic investigations of the health effects of prolonged ozone exposure. Part II: An approach to retrospective estimation of lifetime ozone exposure using a questionnaire and ambient monitoring data (California sites). Research Report Number 81Cambridge, MA, Health Effects Institute, 1998.
27. Scanell C, Chen L, Aris RM, et al. Greater ozone-induced inflammatory responses in subjects with asthma. Am J Respir Crit Care Med 1996;154:24–29.[Abstract]
28. Balmes JR. The role of ozone exposure in the epidemiology of asthma. Environ Health Perspect 1993;101:Suppl. 4, 219–224.
29. Frisher TM, Kuehr J, Pullwitt A, et al. Ambient ozone causes upper airways inflammation in children. Am Rev Respir Dis 1993;148:961–964.[ISI][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
30. Health effects of outdoor air pollution Committee of the Environmental and Occupational Health Assembly of the American Thoracic Society. Am J Respir Crit Care Med 1996;153:3–50.[Abstract]
31. Kimber I. Allergy, asthma and the environment: an introduction. Toxicol Lett 1998;102–103:301–306.

This article has been cited by other articles:

				Z J Andersen, S Loft, M Ketzel, M Stage, T Scheike, M N Hermansen, and H Bisgaard Ambient air pollution triggers wheezing symptoms in infants Thorax, August 1, 2008; 63(8): 710 - 716. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				F. Forastiere and A. Faustini Are we understanding the respiratory effects of traffic related airborne particles? Thorax, July 1, 2008; 63(7): 574 - 576. [Full Text] [PDF]

				J. S. Schildcrout and P. J. Heagerty On outcome-dependent sampling designs for longitudinal binary response data with time-varying covariates Biostat., March 27, 2008; (2008) kxn006v1. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				J. S. Schildcrout, L. Sheppard, T. Lumley, J. C. Slaughter, J. Q. Koenig, and G. G. Shapiro Ambient Air Pollution and Asthma Exacerbations in Children: An Eight-City Analysis Am. J. Epidemiol., September 15, 2006; 164(6): 505 - 517. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				F. D. Martinez Toward Asthma Prevention -- Does All That Really Matters Happen before We Learn to Read? N. Engl. J. Med., October 9, 2003; 349(15): 1473 - 1475. [Full Text] [PDF]

This Article Abstract Full Text (PDF) Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Citation Map Services Email this article to a friend Similar articles in this journal Similar articles in ISI Web of Science Similar articles in PubMed Alert me to new issues of the journal Download to citation manager Citing Articles Citing Articles via HighWire Citing Articles via ISI Web of Science (41) Citing Articles via Google Scholar Google Scholar Articles by Mortimer, K.M. Articles by Tager, I.B. Search for Related Content PubMed PubMed Citation Articles by Mortimer, K.M. Articles by Tager, I.B.