Dataset Information

Ecological studies of COVID-19 and air pollution: How useful are they?

ABSTRACT:

Background

Results from ecological studies have suggested that air pollution increases the risk of developing and dying from COVID-19. Drawing causal inferences from the measures of association reported in ecological studies is fraught with challenges given biases arising from an outcome whose ascertainment is incomplete, varies by region, time, and across sociodemographic characteristics, and cannot account for clustering or within-area heterogeneity. Through a series of analyses, we illustrate the dangers of using ecological studies to assess whether ambient air pollution increases the risk of dying from, or transmitting, COVID-19.

Methods

We performed an ecological analysis in the continental United States using county-level ambient concentrations of fine particulate matter (PM_2.5) between 2000 and 2016 and cumulative COVID-19 mortality counts through June 2020, December 2020, and April 2021. To show that spurious associations can be obtained in ecological data, we modeled the association between PM_2.5 and the prevalence of human immunodeficiency virus (HIV). We fitted negative binomial models, with a logarithmic offset for county-specific population, to these data. Natural cubic splines were used to describe the shape of the exposure-response curves.

Results

Our analyses revealed that the shape of the exposure-response curve between PM_2.5 and COVID-19 changed substantially over time. Analyses of COVID-19 mortality through June 30, 2021, suggested a positive linear relationship. In contrast, an inverse pattern was observed using county-level concentrations of PM_2.5 and the prevalence of HIV.

Conclusions

Our analyses indicated that ecological analyses are prone to showing spurious relationships between ambient air pollution and mortality from COVID-19 as well as the prevalence of HIV. We discuss the many potential biases inherent in any ecological-based analysis of air pollution and COVID-19.

SUBMITTER: Villeneuve PJ

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8835551 | biostudies-literature | 2022 Feb

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Ecological studies of COVID-19 and air pollution: How useful are they?

Villeneuve Paul J PJ Goldberg Mark S MS

Environmental epidemiology (Philadelphia, Pa.) 20220204 1

<h4>Background</h4>Results from ecological studies have suggested that air pollution increases the risk of developing and dying from COVID-19. Drawing causal inferences from the measures of association reported in ecological studies is fraught with challenges given biases arising from an outcome whose ascertainment is incomplete, varies by region, time, and across sociodemographic characteristics, and cannot account for clustering or within-area heterogeneity. Through a series of analyses, we il ...[more]

PMID: 35169673

Similar Datasets

Project description:BACKGROUND:Studies have reported that ambient air pollution is associated with an increased risk of developing or dying from coronavirus-2 (COVID-19). Methodological approaches to investigate the health impacts of air pollution on epidemics should differ from those used for chronic diseases, but the methods used in these studies have not been appraised critically. OBJECTIVES:Our study aimed to identify and critique the methodological approaches of studies of air pollution on infections and mortality due to COVID-19 and to identify and critique the methodological approaches of similar studies concerning severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS). METHODS:Published and unpublished papers of associations between air pollution and developing or dying from COVID-19 or SARS that were reported as of 10 May 2020 were identified through electronic databases, internet searches, and other sources. RESULTS:All six COVID-19 studies and two of three SARS studies reported positive associations. Two were time series studies that estimated associations between daily changes in air pollution, one was a cohort that assessed associations between air pollution and the secondary spread of SARS, and six were ecological studies that used area-wide exposures and outcomes. Common shortcomings included possible cross-level bias in ecological studies, underreporting of health outcomes, using grouped data, the lack of highly spatially resolved air pollution measures, inadequate control for confounding and evaluation of effect modification, not accounting for regional variations in the timing of outbreaks' temporal changes in at-risk populations, and not accounting for nonindependence of outcomes. DISCUSSION:Studies of air pollution and novel coronaviruses have relied mainly on ecological measures of exposures and outcomes and are susceptible to important sources of bias. Although longitudinal studies with individual-level data may be imperfect, they are needed to adequately address this topic. The complexities involved in these types of studies underscore the need for careful design and for peer review. https://doi.org/10.1289/EHP7411.

Dataset Information

Ecological studies of COVID-19 and air pollution: How useful are they?

Background

Methods

Results

Conclusions

Publications

Ecological studies of COVID-19 and air pollution: How useful are they?

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets