PT  - JOURNAL ARTICLE
AU  - Adibi, Amin
AU  - Barn, Prabjit
AU  - Shellington, Erin M.
AU  - Harvard, Stephanie
AU  - Johnson, Kate M.
AU  - Carlsten, Christopher
TI  - HEPA Air Filters for Preventing Wildfire-Related Asthma Complications, a Cost-effectiveness Study
AID  - 10.1101/2023.04.17.23288697
DP  - 2023 Jan 01
TA  - medRxiv
PG  - 2023.04.17.23288697
4099  - http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2023/07/16/2023.04.17.23288697.short
4100  - http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2023/07/16/2023.04.17.23288697.full
AB  - Rationale Air pollution caused by wildfire smoke is linked to adverse health outcomes, especially for people with asthma. We studied whether government rebates for high-efficiency particulate air (HEPA) filters, which reduce smoke particles indoors, are cost-effective in managing asthma and preventing exacerbations in British Columbia (BC), Canada.Methods A Markov model analyzed health states for asthma control, exacerbation severity, and death over a retrospective time-horizon of 5 years (2018-2022). Wildfire smoke-derived particulate matter (PM2.5) from the CanOSSEM model and relevant literature informed the model. Costs and quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) resulting from varying rebates were computed for each Health Service Delivery Area (HSDA).Results In the base case analysis, HEPA filter use resulted in increased costs of $82.48 (SE=1.07) and increased QALYs of 0.0012 (SE=0.0001) per person. Average ICER among BC HSDAs was $73,291/QALY (SE=3,487), with ICERs ranging from $39,446/QALY to $87,721/QALY in HSDAs. Across the province, the intervention was projected to prevent 4,758 exacerbations requiring systemic corticosteroids, 549 emergency department visits, and 473 hospitalizations during the 5-year time horizon. A full rebate was cost-effective in one of the 16 HSDAs across BC. The probability of cost-effectiveness ranged from 0.5% to 79.6% across HSDAs. A $100 rebate was cost-effective in all HSDAs except Northwest.Conclusions Our results indicate variable cost-effectiveness of HEPA filters in managing wildfire smoke-related asthma issues. The effectiveness of government rebates varies by region, but rebates up to two-thirds of the filter cost generally appear cost-effective. This model can be applied to other interventions in diverse settings.Lay Summary Wildfire smoke can increase flare up of symptoms among people living with asthma. These flare ups may require a visit to the emergency department or hospital admission. Research shows that portable HEPA air filters can significantly reduce concentrations of fine particles (PM2.5, an important component of wildfire smoke) in homes and other buildings. Using air filters during smoke events is a common public health recommendation. However, air filters are not accessible to everyone, with units costing anywhere between $150 to a few hundred dollars. Does it make sense for the government of BC to offer a rebate on the cost of purchasing air filters for every person living with asthma in BC? In this study, we used historical data on wildfire smoke concentrations between 2018 to 2022, computer simulations, and health economics methods to answer this question. Our results suggest that it is likely cost-effective for the government to pay for a portion of the costs of air filters, particularly in the interior and northern interior parts of BC. We also looked at other scenarios, such as filter use only when outdoor pollution exceeds certain thresholds that typically trigger an air quality advisory. We found that a $100 rebate was cost-effective when the air filter was used continuously, whereas a $30 rebate was cost-effective when the air filter was turned on only during air quality advisories.Competing Interest StatementThe authors have declared no competing interest.Funding StatementThis study was funded by Legacy for Airway HealthAuthor DeclarationsI confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.YesI 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.YesI 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).YesI have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines, such as any relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material, if applicable.YesAll data produced in the present study are available upon reasonable request to the authors