Exposure to formaldehyde and asthma outcomes: A systematic review, meta-analysis, and economic assessment.

BACKGROUND: Every major federal regulation in the United States requires an economic analysis estimating its benefits and costs. Benefit-cost analyses related to regulations on formaldehyde exposure have not included asthma in part due to lack of clarity in the strength of the evidence. OBJECTIVES: 1) To conduct a systematic review of evidence regarding human exposure to formaldehyde and diagnosis, signs, symptoms, exacerbations, or other measures of asthma in humans; and 2) quantify the annual economic benefit for decreases in formaldehyde exposure. METHODS: We developed and registered a protocol in PROSPERO (Record ID #38766, CRD 42016038766). We conducted a comprehensive search of articles published up to April 1, 2020. We evaluated potential risk of bias for included studies, identified a subset of studies to combine in a meta-analysis, and rated the overall quality and strength of the evidence. We quantified economics benefit to children from a decrease in formaldehyde exposure using assumptions consistent with EPA's proposed formaldehyde rule. RESULTS: We screened 4,821 total references and identified 150 human studies that met inclusion criteria; of these, we focused on 90 studies reporting asthma status of all participants with quantified measures of formaldehyde directly relevant to our study question. Ten studies were combinable in a meta-analysis for childhood asthma diagnosis and five combinable for exacerbation of childhood asthma (wheezing and shortness of breath). Studies had low to probably-low risk of bias across most domains. A 10-µg/m3 increase in formaldehyde exposure was associated with increased childhood asthma diagnosis (OR = 1.20, 95% CI: [1.02, 1.41]). We also found a positive association with exacerbation of childhood asthma (OR = 1.08, 95% CI: [0.92, 1.28]). The overall quality and strength of the evidence was rated as "moderate" quality and "sufficient" for asthma diagnosis and asthma symptom exacerbation in both children and adults. We estimated that EPA's proposed rule on pressed wood products would result in 2,805 fewer asthma cases and total economic benefit of $210 million annually. CONCLUSION: We concluded there was "sufficient evidence of toxicity" for associations between exposure to formaldehyde and asthma diagnosis and asthma symptoms in both children and adults. Our research documented that when exposures are ubiquitous, excluding health outcomes from benefit-cost analysis can underestimate the true benefits to health from environmental regulations.

A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Multiple Airborne Pollutants and Autism Spectrum Disorder.

BACKGROUND: Exposure to ambient air pollution is widespread and may be detrimental to human brain development and a potential risk factor for Autism Spectrum Disorder (ASD). We conducted a systematic review of the human evidence on the relationship between ASD and exposure to all airborne pollutants, including particulate matter air pollutants and others (e.g. pesticides and metals). OBJECTIVE: To answer the question: "is developmental exposure to air pollution associated with ASD?" METHODS: We conducted a comprehensive search of the literature, identified relevant studies using inclusion/exclusion criteria pre-specified in our protocol (registered in PROSPERO, CRD # 42015017890), evaluated the potential risk of bias for each included study and identified an appropriate subset of studies to combine in a meta-analysis. We then rated the overall quality and strength of the evidence collectively across all air pollutants. RESULTS: Of 1,158 total references identified, 23 human studies met our inclusion criteria (17 case-control, 4 ecological, 2 cohort). Risk of bias was generally low across studies for most domains; study limitations were related to potential confounding and accuracy of exposure assessment methods. We rated the quality of the body of evidence across all air pollutants as "moderate." From our meta-analysis, we found statistically significant summary odds ratios (ORs) of 1.07 (95% CI: 1.06, 1.08) per 10-µg/m3 increase in PM10 exposure (n = 6 studies) and 2.32 (95% CI: 2.15, 2.51) per 10-µg/m3 increase in PM2.5 exposure (n = 3 studies). For pollutants not included in a meta-analysis, we collectively evaluated evidence from each study in rating the strength and quality of overall evidence considering factors such as inconsistency, imprecision, and evidence of dose-response. All included studies generally showed increased risk of ASD with increasing exposure to air pollution, although not consistently across all chemical components. CONCLUSION: After considering strengths and limitations of the body of research, we concluded that there is "limited evidence of toxicity" for the association between early life exposure to air pollution as a whole and diagnosis of ASD. The strongest evidence was between prenatal exposure to particulate matter and ASD. However, the small number of studies in the meta-analysis and unexplained statistical heterogeneity across the individual study estimates means that the effect could be larger or smaller (including not significant) than these studies estimate. Our research supports the need for health protective public policy to reduce exposures to harmful airborne contaminants among pregnant women and children and suggests opportunities for optimizing future research.

Application of the Navigation Guide systematic review methodology to the evidence for developmental and reproductive toxicity of triclosan.

BACKGROUND: There are reports of developmental and reproductive health effects associated with the widely used biocide triclosan. OBJECTIVE: Apply the Navigation Guide systematic review methodology to answer the question: Does exposure to triclosan have adverse effects on human development or reproduction? METHODS: We applied the first 3 steps of the Navigation Guide methodology: 1) Specify a study question, 2) Select the evidence, and 3) Rate quality and strength of the evidence. We developed a protocol, conducted a comprehensive search of the literature, and identified relevant studies using pre-specified criteria. We assessed the number and type of all relevant studies. We evaluated each included study for risk of bias and rated the quality and strength of the evidence for the selected outcomes. We conducted a meta-analysis on a subset of suitable data. RESULTS: We found 4282 potentially relevant records, and 81 records met our inclusion criteria. Of the more than 100 endpoints identified by our search, we focused our evaluation on hormone concentration outcomes, which had the largest human and non-human mammalian data set. Three human studies and 8 studies conducted in rats reported thyroxine levels as outcomes. The rat data were amenable to meta-analysis. Because only one of the human thyroxine studies quantified exposure, we did not conduct a meta-analysis of the human data. Through meta-analysis of the data for rats, we estimated for prenatal exposure a 0.09% (95% CI: -0.20, 0.02) reduction in thyroxine concentration per mg triclosan/kg-bw in fetal and young rats compared to control. For postnatal exposure we estimated a 0.31% (95% CI: -0.38, -0.23) reduction in thyroxine per mg triclosan/kg-bw, also compared to control. Overall, we found low to moderate risk of bias across the human studies and moderate to high risk of bias across the non-human studies, and assigned a "moderate/low" quality rating to the body of evidence for human thyroid hormone alterations and a "moderate" quality rating to the body of evidence for non-human thyroid hormone alterations. CONCLUSION: Based on this application of the Navigation Guide systematic review methodology, we concluded that there was "sufficient" non-human evidence and "inadequate" human evidence of an association between triclosan exposure and thyroxine concentrations, and consequently, triclosan is "possibly toxic" to reproductive and developmental health. Thyroid hormone disruption is an upstream indicator of developmental toxicity. Additional endpoints may be identified as being of equal or greater concern as other data are developed or evaluated.

The Navigation Guide - evidence-based medicine meets environmental health: systematic review of nonhuman evidence for PFOA effects on fetal growth.

BACKGROUND: In contrast to current methods of expert-based narrative review, the Navigation Guide is a systematic and transparent method for synthesizing environmental health research from multiple evidence streams. The Navigation Guide was developed to effectively and efficiently translate the available scientific evidence into timely prevention-oriented action. OBJECTIVES: We applied the Navigation Guide systematic review method to answer the question "Does fetal developmental exposure to perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA) or its salts affect fetal growth in animals ?" and to rate the strength of the experimental animal evidence. METHODS: We conducted a comprehensive search of the literature, applied prespecified criteria to the search results to identify relevant studies, extracted data from studies, obtained additional information from study authors, conducted meta-analyses, and rated the overall quality and strength of the evidence. RESULTS: Twenty-one studies met the inclusion criteria. From the meta-analysis of eight mouse gavage data sets, we estimated that exposure of pregnant mice to increasing concentrations of PFOA was associated with a change in mean pup birth weight of -0.023 g (95% CI: -0.029, -0.016) per 1-unit increase in dose (milligrams per kilogram body weight per day). The evidence, consisting of 15 mammalian and 6 nonmammalian studies, was rated as "moderate" and "low" quality, respectively. CONCLUSION: Based on this first application of the Navigation Guide methodology, we found sufficient evidence that fetal developmental exposure to PFOA reduces fetal growth in animals.

The Navigation Guide - evidence-based medicine meets environmental health: systematic review of human evidence for PFOA effects on fetal growth.

BACKGROUND: The Navigation Guide methodology was developed to meet the need for a robust method of systematic and transparent research synthesis in environmental health science. We conducted a case study systematic review to support proof of concept of the method. OBJECTIVE: We applied the Navigation Guide systematic review methodology to determine whether developmental exposure to perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA) affects fetal growth in humans. METHODS: We applied the first 3 steps of the Navigation Guide methodology to human epidemiological data: 1) specify the study question, 2) select the evidence, and 3) rate the quality and strength of the evidence. We developed a protocol, conducted a comprehensive search of the literature, and identified relevant studies using prespecified criteria. We evaluated each study for risk of bias and conducted meta-analyses on a subset of studies. We rated quality and strength of the entire body of human evidence. RESULTS: We identified 18 human studies that met our inclusion criteria, and 9 of these were combined through meta-analysis. Through meta-analysis, we estimated that a 1-ng/mL increase in serum or plasma PFOA was associated with a -18.9 g (95% CI: -29.8, -7.9) difference in birth weight. We concluded that the risk of bias across studies was low, and we assigned a "moderate" quality rating to the overall body of human evidence. CONCLUSION: On the basis of this first application of the Navigation Guide systematic review methodology, we concluded that there is "sufficient" human evidence that developmental exposure to PFOA reduces fetal growth.

The Navigation Guide - evidence-based medicine meets environmental health: integration of animal and human evidence for PFOA effects on fetal growth.

BACKGROUND: The Navigation Guide is a novel systematic review method to synthesize scientific evidence and reach strength of evidence conclusions for environmental health decision making. OBJECTIVE: Our aim was to integrate scientific findings from human and nonhuman studies to determine the overall strength of evidence for the question "Does developmental exposure to perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA) affect fetal growth in humans?" METHODS: We developed and applied prespecified criteria to systematically and transparently a) rate the quality of the scientific evidence as "high," "moderate," or "low"; b) rate the strength of the human and nonhuman evidence separately as "sufficient," "limited," "moderate," or "evidence of lack of toxicity"; and c) integrate the strength of the human and nonhuman evidence ratings into a strength of the evidence conclusion. RESULTS: We identified 18 epidemiology studies and 21 animal toxicology studies relevant to our study question. We rated both the human and nonhuman mammalian evidence as "moderate" quality and "sufficient" strength. Integration of these evidence ratings produced a final strength of evidence rating in which review authors concluded that PFOA is "known to be toxic" to human reproduction and development based on sufficient evidence of decreased fetal growth in both human and nonhuman mammalian species. CONCLUSION: We concluded that developmental exposure to PFOA adversely affects human health based on sufficient evidence of decreased fetal growth in both human and nonhuman mammalian species. The results of this case study demonstrate the application of a systematic and transparent methodology, via the Navigation Guide, for reaching strength of evidence conclusions in environmental health.