Evidence Hub

Characterisation of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) in never-smokers and ever-smokers from a population-based cohort

Pernilla Sönnerfors, P. Jacobson, Anders Andersson, L. Bjermer, A. Blomberg, Heléne Blomqvist, J. Erjefält, I. Kolosenko et al.

BMJ Open Respiratory Research, 2026

281 participants · 1 citation

Abstract

Background Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) in never-smokers may have other clinical characteristics than tobacco smoking-related COPD. Research question What are the risk factors, biomarkers, respiratory symptoms and health status in never-smoking individuals with COPD? Study design and methods We investigated never-smokers with COPD (n=154, mean age 60 years) from the population-based Swedish CArdioPulmonary bioImage Study (SCAPIS), and compared them with four control groups: never-smokers with normal lung function (n=281), current smokers with normal lung function (n=97), ex-smokers with COPD (n=103) and current smokers with COPD (n=55). COPD was defined as forced expiratory volume in 1 s (FEV1)/forced vital capacity (FVC) less than the lower limit of normal (LNN) after bronchodilation. We examined fractional exhaled nitric oxide (FeNO), blood biomarkers, respiratory symptoms, health status, medical history and living conditions. Results The never-smoker COPD group reported more respiratory symptoms and worse health status than never-smokers with normal lung function, but fewer symptoms, milder airflow limitation and better health status compared with ex-smokers and smokers with COPD. Never-smokers with COPD had more self-reported asthma. Moreover, never-smokers with COPD had higher Immunoglobulin E sensitisations to a mix of aeroallergens, higher geometrical mean FeNO levels and blood eosinophil counts than never-smokers with normal lung function. When…

How strong is the evidence?

Evidence Hub reads this as a cohort study, done in people. Its evidence level is 3 of 5 (Moderate · trial / cohort / secondary analysis). Trials without a large randomized design, cohorts and secondary analyses give moderate evidence. Reported size: 281 participants or records.

How the five levels of evidence work. The level is assigned automatically from the abstract and can be wrong, so check the paper.

Read the paper

Related studies

Go deeper in Evidence Hub

Evidence Hub adds a study data sheet (design, sample size, evidence level, key numbers), an AI summary and a chat grounded in the paper's text.

Open this study Sign up free