Associations of Antibiotics, Hormonal Therapies, Oral Contraceptives, and Long-Term NSAIDS With Inflammatory Bowel Disease: Results From the Prospective Urban Rural Epidemiology (PURE) Study.

BACKGROUND & AIMS: Several medications have been suspected to contribute to the etiology of inflammatory bowel disease (IBD). This study assessed the association between medication use and the risk of developing IBD using the Prospective Urban Rural Epidemiology cohort. METHODS: This was a prospective cohort study of 133,137 individuals between the ages of 20 and 80 from 24 countries. Country-specific validated questionnaires documented baseline and follow-up medication use. Participants were followed up prospectively at least every 3 years. The main outcome was the development of IBD, including Crohn's disease (CD) and ulcerative colitis (UC). Short-term (baseline but not follow-up use) and long-term use (baseline and subsequent follow-up use) were evaluated. Results are presented as adjusted odds ratios (aORs) with 95% CIs. RESULTS: During a median follow-up period of 11.0 years (interquartile range, 9.2-12.2 y), there were 571 incident IBD cases (143 CD and 428 UC). Incident IBD was associated significantly with baseline antibiotic (aOR, 2.81; 95% CI, 1.67-4.73; P = .0001) and hormonal medication use (aOR, 4.43; 95% CI, 1.78-11.01; P = .001). Among females, previous or current oral contraceptive use also was associated with IBD development (aOR, 2.17; 95% CI, 1.70-2.77; P < .001). Nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drug users also were observed to have increased odds of IBD (aOR, 1.80; 95% CI, 1.23-2.64; P = .002), which was driven by long-term use (aOR, 5.58; 95% CI, 2.26-13.80; P < .001). All significant results were consistent in direction for CD and UC with low heterogeneity. CONCLUSIONS: Antibiotics, hormonal medications, oral contraceptives, and long-term nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drug use were associated with increased odds of incident IBD after adjustment for covariates.

Adverse health impacts of cooking with kerosene: A multi-country analysis within the Prospective Urban and Rural Epidemiology Study.

BACKGROUND: Kerosene, which was until recently considered a relatively clean household fuel, is still widely used in low- and middle-income countries for cooking and lighting. However, there is little data on its health effects. We examined cardiorespiratory effects and mortality in households using kerosene as their primary cooking fuel within the Prospective Urban Rural Epidemiology (PURE) study. METHODS: We analyzed baseline and follow-up data on 31,490 individuals from 154 communities in China, India, South Africa, and Tanzania where there was at least 10% kerosene use for cooking at baseline. Baseline comorbidities and health outcomes during follow-up (median 9.4 years) were compared between households with kerosene versus clean (gas or electricity) or solid fuel (biomass and coal) use for cooking. Multi-level marginal regression models adjusted for individual, household, and community level covariates. RESULTS: Higher rates of prevalent respiratory symptoms (e.g. 34% [95% CI:15-57%] more dyspnea with usual activity, 44% [95% CI: 21-72%] more chronic cough or sputum) and lower lung function (differences in FEV1: -46.3 ml (95% CI: -80.5; -12.1) and FVC: -54.7 ml (95% CI: -93.6; -15.8)) were observed at baseline for kerosene compared to clean fuel users. The odds of hypertension was slightly elevated but no associations were observed for blood pressure. Prospectively, kerosene was associated with elevated risks of all-cause (HR: 1.32 (95% CI: 1.14-1.53)) and cardiovascular (HR: 1.34 (95% CI: 1.00-1.80)) mortality, as well as major fatal and incident non-fatal cardiovascular (HR: 1.34 (95% CI: 1.08-1.66)) and respiratory (HR: 1.55 (95% CI: 0.98-2.43)) diseases, compared to clean fuel use. Further, compared to solid fuel users, those using kerosene had 20-47% higher risks for the above outcomes. CONCLUSIONS: Kerosene use for cooking was associated with higher rates of baseline respiratory morbidity and increased risk of mortality and cardiorespiratory outcomes during follow-up when compared to either clean or solid fuels. Replacing kerosene with cleaner-burning fuels for cooking is recommended.