Posted on 05/18/2006 6:55:49 PM PDT by Moonman62
CINCINNATI—University of Cincinnati (UC) epidemiologists say it’s environmental tobacco smoke—not the suspected visible mold—that drastically increases an infant’s risk for developing allergic rhinitis by age 1.
Commonly known as hay fever, allergic rhinitis occurs when a person’s immune system mistakenly reacts to allergens (aggravating particles) in the air. The body then releases substances to protect itself, causing the allergy sufferer to experience persistent sneezing and a runny, blocked nose.
This is the first study to show a relationship between environmental tobacco smoke exposure and allergic rhinitis in year-old infants, the UC team reports in the June issue of Pediatric Allergy and Immunology and an early online edition May 17.
“Previous studies have addressed risk factors for allergic rhinitis, but they failed to examine multiple environmental exposures, and some yielded contradictory results,” says Jocelyn Biagini, lead author and an epidemiologist in UC’s environmental health department.
The study evaluated the effects of numerous indoor exposures to such things as environmental tobacco smoke, visible mold, pets, siblings and the day-care environment on 633 infants under age one.
“We found that infants who were exposed to 20 or more cigarettes a day were three times more likely to develop allergic rhinitis by their first birthday than those who were not exposed,” says Biagini.
These findings, she says, suggest that for the health of their children, it’s important for parents to eliminate tobacco smoke from their homes.
“An infant’s lungs and immune system are still developing in the first year of life,” says Grace LeMasters, PhD, coauthor and principal investigator of the Cincinnati Childhood Allergy and Air Pollution Study (CCAAPS). “Environmental tobacco smoke puts harmful particulates in the air that—when inhaled regularly at such an early age—could lead to serious allergic conditions like asthma.”
CCAAPS, funded by the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences, is a five-year study examining the effects of environmental particulates on childhood respiratory health and allergy development.
About 43 percent of children, says Dr. LeMasters, are exposed to home environmental tobacco smoke. According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, about 21 percent of all American adults smoke cigarettes. Of them, 12 percent report smoking 25 or more cigarettes daily.
While household mold, long thought to be a major cause, did not contribute to allergic rhinitis development, Biagini says, it did increase the infant’s risk for ear infections.
Infants exposed to a mold patch about the size of a shoebox were five times more likely to contract ear infections requiring antibiotics than those living in mold-free homes, she explains.
The UC study also suggests that infants with older siblings are less likely to have allergic rhinitis.
“Research has shown that exposure to certain infections early in life may decrease your risk for allergic diseases,” explains James Lockey, MD, professor of environmental health and pulmonary medicine. “We found a ‘sibling protective effect’ for allergic rhinitis—this may mean the more siblings infants have, the more infections they are exposed to. As a result, the infant’s body may be better equipped to fight off allergic diseases later in life.”
Collaborators in the study were David Bernstein, MD, Gurjit Khurana Hershey, MD, PhD, Patrick Ryan, Linda Levin, PhD, Tiina Reponen, PhD, Jeff Burkle and Manuel Villareal, MD.
According to the Asthma and Allergy Foundation of America, more than 50 million Americans suffer from allergies, many of which are can be triggered by airborne environmental pollutants.
"The study evaluated the effects of numerous indoor exposures to such things as environmental tobacco smoke, visible mold, pets, siblings and the day-care environment on 633 infants under age one.
“We found that infants who were exposed to 20 or more cigarettes a day were three times more likely to develop allergic rhinitis by their first birthday than those who were not exposed,” says Biagini."
Well okay, they got their informed consent, right?
Then I have to wonder ....why is it that when I was a kid, in the 70's, and ALL OF US were exposed to large amounts of cigarette smoke, NONE OF US had allergies?
Ping!
Wow. I should easily be dead by now based on this BS. I don't remember a weekend and many a week night as a child when I wasn't surrounded by unfiltered Camel & Lucky Strike smoke, and falling asleep under the card table while the parents smoked and played cards all night.
Are my days numbered? I mean, I'm 45 now. Should I only plan to live to 46? ;)
How are your parents doing?
hmmm, when my kids were infants the peds told me
kids that young just couldnt have allergies. they
couldnt develop allergies till later on. they've
obviously inherited their dads genes and have all
had allergies of some sort...w/ and w/o exposure
to smoke.
"How are your parents doing?"
Just fine. And thanks for asking! :)
Both will be 69 this coming fall and winter. No cancer, no nothing. Everyone in their age group is still alive and doing fine, aside from the normal old age aches and pains.
In fact, the only family member we've lost in over 15 years was my Aunt Jean, just two weeks ago, to Pancreatic Cancer. She wasn't a smoker, and she didn't hang out with us at the weekly Card Parties. Her husband of 54 years didn't smoke, either.
As usual, these "studies" you like to post have no bearing on anyone's "real life."
But keep it up. The Smoke Gnatzies need you. :)
The only reason I post these stories is to take abuse from the tobacco addicts. All of these studies are a plot against you.
There is no protein in tobacco smoke.
I call "bovine excrement".
My stay at home mother was a smoker. She died at the young age of 42. I spent a lot of my summer outdoors. I developed cabin fever during the winter months and had to get outdoors.
I don't think my dear mother's smoking affected my health, but her death from breast cancer affected me in other ways.
You be your own judge.
Nanny State Ping..............
You are correct! I was raised in a family of smokers. I never complained. It was a part of life.
I was never sick with asthma and all this stuff the anti's claim that second hand smoke is doing to our kids today.
My daughter grew up in a house of two smokers and lots of smoking friends would come and visit. She never once had asthma or was EVER sickly like the kids of today.
Very suspicious, isn't it!
We're in this together, girlfriend!!!! LOL!
I don't smoke.
But I am a great defender of adults and their right to do as they please with a legal, taxed product. Same for business owners that want to allow smoking in their bars, taverns and restaurants. :)
It's the luck of the draw, Buddy.
I just lost my best friend to lung & liver cancer at age 47. She didn't smoke and I can count on one hand the glasses of wine she's had in 25 years. It was genetic. Her Mom died of brain cancer and her father of liver cancer. She also lost a sister to liver cancer.
Her two remaining siblings are pretty much counting their blessings and their days.
We should all live that way. :)
When I was a kid in the 60s and 70s, everyone in my family smoked; mom, dad, aunts, uncles, grandparents. I had pretty terrible allergies and also developed asthma by the time I was 10 years old that lasted into my 20s.
I have no idea if any of that was because of the smoke. No way to tell.
Obviously you did not inherit the allergy gene. That has to be present for the rest of it to happen.
You may not believe tobacco smoke is harmful, because some people have genetic protection. Most of the rest of us believe otherwise. You're side is losing and that's the way it should be :)
Immune System Cells May Be Cause of Asthma
WEDNESDAY, March 15 (HealthDay News) -- As medical technologies improve, researchers are rooting out more information about possible causes of common diseases, such as asthma.
One new finding, reported in the March 16 issue of the New England Journal of Medicine, is that immune system cells long thought to cause asthma may not be the primary culprit behind the disease.
"We found that asthma is caused not by T-helper 2 cells as has been previously thought, but by a novel class of cells called natural killer T cells," said one of the study's authors, Dr. Dale Umetsu, a professor of pediatrics at Harvard Medical School and Children's Hospital Boston, and a visiting professor at Stanford University in California.
"The majority of T cells in people with asthma aren't what we thought they were," he added.
According to Umetsu, natural killer T cells were only recently discovered because the technology to differentiate these cells from others hasn't been around long.
T cells are a part of the body's immune defenses and normally help rid the body of foreign invaders, such as viruses or bacteria. In asthma, however, the immune cells don't work as they should and instead produce inflammation in the lungs.
More than 20 million Americans have been diagnosed with asthma, according to the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, and about 4,200 people die from the disease each year.
Asthma symptoms include wheezing, coughing, breathing difficulties and a feeling of tightness in the chest. While the exact cause of the disease is unknown, doctors do know that asthma can be exacerbated by exposure to certain triggers, such as dust mites, pollen, pets and even exercise or cold air. There is no cure for asthma, only treatments aimed at managing it.
Because studies in mice uncovered the presence of natural killer T cells only in rodents with asthma, the researchers behind the new study compared samples from 14 people with asthma to samples from six healthy "controls" and five people with another inflammatory lung disorder called sarcoidosis, which is unrelated to asthma.
About 60 percent of the T cells in the asthma group were natural killer T cells, not the expected helper T cells. No natural killer T cells were evident in samples from the healthy control group or the people with sarcoidosis.
"These were very surprising findings -- a turn of events that no one suspected in the past," said Umetsu. "Part of the reason they escaped notice is they have many features that are similar to T helper 2 cells. Now, we need to know more about the biology of natural killer T cells to develop more specific therapies for asthma."
"None of the current [asthma] therapies are focused on targeting natural killer T cells. Perhaps as we develop therapies that can eliminate them from the lungs, we could have more effective and possibly curative therapies for asthma," he said.
The first step, however, is to confirm these findings in a larger group of people, and in a more diverse population of people with asthma, because there are different types of asthma. Some people have asthma that's triggered by allergens, while for others exercise or cold air can induce airway spasms.
Also, Umetsu said that researchers have to learn more about how these cells work and what causes them to go to the lungs initially. Natural killer T cells appear to respond to different things than helper T cells.
Any potential therapy would have to specifically target the lungs because natural killer T cells do have some protective effects in the rest of the body, he added.
Dr. Jonathan Field, director of the allergy and asthma clinic at New York University Medical Center/Bellevue in New York City, said, "This may be a new paradigm of how people develop asthma."
But, he cautioned that more needs to be learned about these cells, such as whether they are the actual cause of disease or if they simply appear in response to the disease.
"You have to wonder which [immune cells] actually are causing the most pathology," Field said. "Are natural killer T cells causing the changes? Which cell is the conductor and which is the actual locomotive?"
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.