"The analysis revealed that patients who lived in areas where air pollution was above maximum levels recommended by the World Health Organization (WHO) were 10 percent more likely to die than those in areas with lower levels of pollution. But this increased risk of death was not seen among patients who took a class of antibiotics called macrolides, which include azithromycin (Zithromax) and clarithromycin (Biaxin), according to the study presented Tuesday at a meeting of the European Respiratory Society in Amsterdam."
"If air pollution were reduced to below the level recommended by the WHO, Ruttens said, "there would be a 9.9 percent reduction in deaths among lung transplant patients who were not taking macrolides, and 6.4 percent reduction among all patients, regardless of whether or not they were taking macrolides.""
What is the main point of the article, and how is it supported?
The main point of the article is to highlight an unfamiliar implication of air pollution, on people with already harmed respiratory and immune systems.
To protect against rejection, transplant patients take immunosuppressants. These sometimes don't work enough to prevent the body from reacting but always lower the ability of the immune system. They are therefore more defenseless to pollutants, in this case, that are in the air.
The study showed that the cases from areas with air pollution levels above WHO standards had 6.4% more of a chance of death than those in WHO compliant regions.
The article also emphasizes the impact of antibiotics on failing transplant cases.
Over 54% of lung transplant patients (in this study of over 5,700) and did not take macrolides died.
30% of lung transplant patients took macrolides and died
Macrolides are not a guarantee to prevent rejection, but they increase the odds of a less negative reaction to the transplant.
The argument is supported by the statistics proposed. However, these results were not published, just presented at a conference; therefore, these findings are not as reliable as they could be.
The data is not from Philadelphia but was of interest to Philly.com.
What actors (individuals or organizations) are referred to? (Provide names and short descriptions.)
David Ruttens
specialization: respiratory medicine at the University of Leuven in Belgium
contributes to European Lung Foundation news.
What kind of causation or responsibility is argued or implied in the article?
The causation implied for increase in death in lung transplant patients was the ambient air they are exposed to. Specifically, the article mentions "living near busy roads"
How (if at all) are health disparities or other equity issues addressed in the article or report?
The disparities addressed are the levels of air pollution in the living area of people in need of a lung transplant.
Residents of areas not meeting WHO standards in need of lung transplants have a 10% higher chance of rejecting the lung transplant and dying.
In addition, the availability of the macrolides, antibiotics used when negative reaction to the transplant begins, is an inequity
No information about disparity between the patients about the medical reason for receiving a lung transplant.
What three points, details or references from the article did you follow up on to advance your understanding of the issued and actors described in the article?
I looked into some information about lung transplant surgeries.
bacteriostatic against many strains of streptococci, staphylococci, clostridia, corynebacteria, listeria, haemophilus sp., moxicella, and Neisseria meningitidis
I checked out the source for this data, The European Lung Foundation
Robert Preidt, "Smog Linked to Organ Rejection Deaths in Lung Transplant Patients," Philly.com, September 19, 2015, http://www.philly.com/philly/health/topics/HealthDay703655_20150929_Smog_Linked_to_Organ_Rejection__Deaths_in_Lung_Transplant_Patients.html.
What two (or more) quotes capture the message of the article?
- "The analysis revealed that patients who lived in areas where air pollution was above maximum levels recommended by the World Health Organization (WHO) were 10 percent more likely to die than those in areas with lower levels of pollution. But this increased risk of death was not seen among patients who took a class of antibiotics called macrolides, which include azithromycin (Zithromax) and clarithromycin (Biaxin), according to the study presented Tuesday at a meeting of the European Respiratory Society in Amsterdam."
- "If air pollution were reduced to below the level recommended by the WHO, Ruttens said, "there would be a 9.9 percent reduction in deaths among lung transplant patients who were not taking macrolides, and 6.4 percent reduction among all patients, regardless of whether or not they were taking macrolides.""
What is the main point of the article, and how is it supported?- The main point of the article is to highlight an unfamiliar implication of air pollution, on people with already harmed respiratory and immune systems.
- To protect against rejection, transplant patients take immunosuppressants. These sometimes don't work enough to prevent the body from reacting but always lower the ability of the immune system. They are therefore more defenseless to pollutants, in this case, that are in the air.
- The study showed that the cases from areas with air pollution levels above WHO standards had 6.4% more of a chance of death than those in WHO compliant regions.
- The article also emphasizes the impact of antibiotics on failing transplant cases.
- Over 54% of lung transplant patients (in this study of over 5,700) and did not take macrolides died.
- 30% of lung transplant patients took macrolides and died
- Macrolides are not a guarantee to prevent rejection, but they increase the odds of a less negative reaction to the transplant.
- The argument is supported by the statistics proposed. However, these results were not published, just presented at a conference; therefore, these findings are not as reliable as they could be.
- The data is not from Philadelphia but was of interest to Philly.com.
What actors (individuals or organizations) are referred to? (Provide names and short descriptions.)- David Ruttens
- specialization: respiratory medicine at the University of Leuven in Belgium
- contributes to European Lung Foundation news.
What kind of causation or responsibility is argued or implied in the article?- The causation implied for increase in death in lung transplant patients was the ambient air they are exposed to. Specifically, the article mentions "living near busy roads"
How (if at all) are health disparities or other equity issues addressed in the article or report?- The disparities addressed are the levels of air pollution in the living area of people in need of a lung transplant.
- Residents of areas not meeting WHO standards in need of lung transplants have a 10% higher chance of rejecting the lung transplant and dying.
- In addition, the availability of the macrolides, antibiotics used when negative reaction to the transplant begins, is an inequity
- No information about disparity between the patients about the medical reason for receiving a lung transplant.
What three points, details or references from the article did you follow up on to advance your understanding of the issued and actors described in the article?