Abstract
Background Numerous epidemiological studies have documented the adverse health impact of long-term exposure to fine particulate matter (PM2.5) on mortality even at relatively low levels. However, methodological challenges remain to consider potential regulatory intervention’s complexity and provide actionable evidence on the predicted benefits of interventions. We propose the parametric g-computation as an alternative analytical approach to such challenges.
Method We applied the parametric g-computation to estimate the cumulative risks of non-accidental death under different hypothetical intervention strategies targeting long-term exposure to PM2.5 in the Canadian Community Health Survey cohort from 2005 to 2015. On both relative and absolute scales, we explored benefits of hypothetical intervention strategies compared to the natural course that 1) set the simulated exposure value at each follow-up year to a threshold value if exposure was above the threshold (8.8 µg/m3, 7.04 µg/m3, 5 µg/m3, and 4 µg/m3); and 2) reduce the simulated exposure value by a percentage (5% and 10%) at each follow-up year. We used the three-year average PM2.5 concentration with one-year lag at the postal code of respondents’ annual mailing addresses as their long-term exposure to PM2.5. We considered baseline and time-varying confounders including demographics, behavior characteristics, income level, and neighborhood socioeconomic status. We also included the R syntax for reproducibility and replication.
Results All hypothetical intervention strategies explored led to lower 11-year cumulative mortality risks than the estimated value under natural course without intervention, with the smallest reduction of 0.20 per 1000 participants (95% CI: 0.06 to 0.34) under the threshold of 8.8 µg/m3, and the largest reduction of 3.40 per 1000 participants (95% CI: -0.23 to 7.03) under the relative reduction of 10% per interval. The reductions in cumulative risk, or numbers of deaths that would have been prevented if the intervention was employed instead of maintaining status quo, increased over time but flattened towards the end of follow-up. Estimates among those ≥65 years were greater with a similar pattern. Our estimates were robust to different model specifications.
Discussion We found evidence that any intervention further reducing the long-term exposure to PM2.5 would reduce the cumulative mortality risk, with greater benefits in the older population, even in a population already exposed to low levels of ambient PM2.5. The parametric g-computation used in this study provides flexibilities in simulating real world interventions, accommodates time-varying exposure and confounders, and estimates adjusted survival curves with clearer interpretation and more information than a single hazard ratio, making it a valuable analytical alternative in air pollution epidemiological research.
Competing Interest Statement
The authors have declared no competing interest.
Funding Statement
This study was funded by Health Canada (#810630). The funder supported the study design, data collection and analysis in this study.
Author Declarations
I confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.
Yes
The details of the IRB/oversight body that provided approval or exemption for the research described are given below:
Research Ethics Board of Health Canada-Public Health Agency of Canada gave ethical approval for this work.
I confirm that all necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived, and that any patient/participant/sample identifiers included were not known to anyone (e.g., hospital staff, patients or participants themselves) outside the research group so cannot be used to identify individuals.
Yes
I understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as ClinicalTrials.gov. I confirm that any such study reported in the manuscript has been registered and the trial registration ID is provided (note: if posting a prospective study registered retrospectively, please provide a statement in the trial ID field explaining why the study was not registered in advance).
Yes
I have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines and uploaded the relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material as supplementary files, if applicable.
Yes
Footnotes
↵* Co-senior authors
Conflicts of interest: The authors declare they have nothing to disclose.
Funding: This study was funded by Health Canada (#810630). The funder supported the study design, data collection and analysis in this study.
The Chan Zuckerberg Initiative, Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory, the Sergey Brin Family Foundation, California Institute of Technology, Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique, Fred Hutchinson Cancer Center, Imperial College London, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Stanford University, University of Washington, and Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam.