Choices of morbidity outcomes and concentration-response functions for health risk assessment of long-term exposure to air pollution.

Background: Air pollution health risk assessment (HRA) has been typically conducted for all causes and cause-specific mortality based on concentration-response functions (CRFs) from meta-analyses that synthesize the evidence on air pollution health effects. There is a need for a similar systematic approach for HRA for morbidity outcomes, which have often been omitted from HRA of air pollution, thus underestimating the full air pollution burden. We aimed to compile from the existing systematic reviews and meta-analyses CRFs for the incidence of several diseases that could be applied in HRA. To achieve this goal, we have developed a comprehensive strategy for the appraisal of the systematic reviews and meta-analyses that examine the relationship between long-term exposure to particulate matter with an aerodynamic diameter smaller than 2.5 µm (PM_2.5), nitrogen dioxide (NO₂), or ozone (O₃) and incidence of various diseases.

Methods: To establish the basis for our evaluation, we considered the causality determinations provided by the US Environmental Protection Agency Integrated Science Assessment for PM_2.5, NO₂, and O₃. We developed a list of pollutant/outcome pairs based on these assessments and the evidence of a causal relationship between air pollutants and specific health outcomes. We conducted a comprehensive literature search using two databases and identified 75 relevant systematic reviews and meta-analyses for PM_2.5 and NO₂. We found no relevant reviews for long-term exposure to ozone. We evaluated the reliability of these studies using an adaptation of the AMSTAR 2 tool, which assesses various characteristics of the reviews, such as literature search, data extraction, statistical analysis, and bias evaluation. The tool's adaptation focused on issues relevant to studies on the health effects of air pollution. Based on our assessment, we selected reviews that could be credible sources of CRF for HRA. We also assessed the confidence in the findings of the selected systematic reviews and meta-analyses as the sources of CRF for HRA. We developed specific criteria for the evaluation, considering factors such as the number of included studies, their geographical distribution, heterogeneity of study results, the statistical significance and precision of the pooled risk estimate in the meta-analysis, and consistency with more recent studies. Based on our assessment, we classified the outcomes into three lists: list A (a reliable quantification of health effects is possible in an HRA), list B+ (HRA is possible, but there is greater uncertainty around the reliability of the CRF compared to those included on list A), and list B- (HRA is not recommended because of the substantial uncertainty of the CRF).

Results: In our final evaluation, list A includes six CRFs for PM_2.5 (asthma in children, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, ischemic heart disease events, stroke, hypertension, and lung cancer) and three outcomes for NO₂ (asthma in children and in adults, and acute lower respiratory infections in children). Three additional outcomes (diabetes, dementia, and autism spectrum disorders) for PM_2.5 were included in list B+. Recommended CRFs are related to the incidence (onset) of the diseases. The International Classification of Diseases, 10th revision codes, age ranges, and suggested concentration ranges are also specified to ensure consistency and applicability in an HRA. No specific suggestions were given for ozone because of the lack of relevant systematic reviews.

Conclusion: The suggestions formulated in this study, including CRFs selected from the available systematic reviews, can assist in conducting reliable HRAs and contribute to evidence-based decision-making in public health and environmental policy. Future research should continue to update and refine these suggestions as new evidence becomes available and methodologies evolve.