| Literature DB >> 29915241 |
Vaughn Barry1, Mitchel Klein2, Andrea Winquist2, Howard H Chang3, James A Mulholland4, Evelyn O Talbott5, Judith R Rager5, Paige E Tolbert2, Stefanie Ebelt Sarnat2.
Abstract
Although short-term exposure to ambient ozone (O3) can cause poor respiratory health outcomes, the shape of the concentration-response (C-R) between O3 and respiratory morbidity has not been widely investigated. We estimated the effect of daily O3 on emergency department (ED) visits for selected respiratory outcomes in 5 US cities under various model assumptions and assessed model fit. Population-weighted average 8-h maximum O3 concentrations were estimated in each city. Individual-level data on ED visits were obtained from hospitals or hospital associations. Poisson log-linear models were used to estimate city-specific associations between the daily number of respiratory ED visits and 3-day moving average O3 levels controlling for long-term trends and meteorology. Linear, linear-threshold, quadratic, cubic, categorical, and cubic spline O3 C-R models were considered. Using linear C-R models, O3 was significantly and positively associated with respiratory ED visits in each city with rate ratios of 1.02-1.07 per 25 ppb. Models suggested that O3-ED C-R shapes were linear until O3 concentrations of roughly 60 ppb at which point risk continued to increase linearly in some cities for certain outcomes while risk flattened in others. Assessing C-R shape is necessary to identify the most appropriate form of the exposure for each given study setting.Entities:
Keywords: concentration-response; linearity; ozone; respiratory health; threshold
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2018 PMID: 29915241 PMCID: PMC6301150 DOI: 10.1038/s41370-018-0048-7
Source DB: PubMed Journal: J Expo Sci Environ Epidemiol ISSN: 1559-0631 Impact factor: 5.563
Summary statistics of daily 8-hour maximum ambient ozone concentrations by city
| City | Period [# of days] | O3 concentration (ppb) | ||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Mean | Median | Min | 10th % | 25th % | 75th % | 90th % | Max | IQR | ||
| Atlanta | 2002-2008 [2 557] | 42.2 | 41.3 | 9.2 | 22.8 | 28.2 | 54.4 | 63.5 | 96.5 | 26.2 |
| Birmingham | 2002-2008 [2 557] | 41.4 | 40.9 | 9.4 | 24.8 | 29.8 | 51.2 | 59.4 | 83.5 | 21.4 |
| Dallas | 2006-2008 [1 096] | 41.8 | 40.6 | 9.2 | 26.9 | 31.8 | 50.3 | 59.3 | 80.2 | 18.5 |
| Pittsburgh | 2002-2008 [2 557] | 37.5 | 35.9 | 3.9 | 16.8 | 22.8 | 50.6 | 59.9 | 106.3 | 27.8 |
| St. Louis | 2002-2007 [2 004] | 38.5 | 37.1 | 6.5 | 19.0 | 24.9 | 50.1 | 59.6 | 89.6 | 25.2 |
Abbreviations: IQR, interquartile range
Summary of emergency department visit data for respiratory outcomes by city and age group
| City | Period [# of days] | Total # of ED visits [Mean # of ED visits per day] | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| RD | Asthma | URI | COPD | ||
| Atlanta | 2002-2008 [2 557] | 1 022 735 [400.0] | 213 126 [83.4] | 590 474 [230.9] | 51 290 [20.1] |
| Birmingham | 2002-2008 [2 557] | 173 317 [67.8] | 27 113 [10.6] | 105 761 [41.4] | 15 866 [6.2] |
| Dallas | 2006-2008 [1 096] | 490 826 [447.8] | 82 798 [75.5] | 282 866 [258.1] | 24 614 [22.5] |
| Pittsburgh | 2002-2008 [2 557] | 264 558 [103.5] | 64 828 [25.4] | 111 811 [43.7] | 27 183 [10.6] |
| St. Louis | 2002-2007 [2 004] | 572 494 [285.7] | 102 460 [51.1] | 331 837 [165.6] | 31 361 [15.6] |
| Atlanta | 2002-2008 [2 557] | 539 273 [210.9] | 117 645 [46.0] | 337 060 [131.8] | 259 [0.10] |
| Birmingham | 2002-2008 [2 557] | 43 424 [17.0] | 4 806 [1.9] | 35 030 [13.7] | 39 [0.02] |
| Dallas | 2006-2008 [1 096] | 272 523 [248.7] | 46 687 [42.6] | 170 144 [155.2] | 41 [0.04] |
| Pittsburgh | 2002-2008 [2 557] | 109 417 [42.8] | 29 881 [11.7] | 57 484 [22.5] | 44 [0.02] |
| St. Louis | 2002-2007 [2 004] | 254 743 [127.1] | 55 677 [27.8] | 155 357 [77.5] | 123 [0.06] |
| Atlanta | 2002-2008 [2 557] | 483 256 [189.0] | 95 448 [37.3] | 253 301 [99.1] | 51 017 [20.0] |
| Birmingham | 2002-2008 [2 557] | 124 238 [48.6] | 21 058 [8.2] | 66 885 [26.2] | 15 539 [6.1] |
| Dallas | 2006-2008 [1 096] | 218 271 [199.2] | 36 106 [32.9] | 112 699 [102.8] | 24 573 [22.4] |
| Pittsburgh | 2002-2008 [2 557] | 155 141 [60.7] | 34 947 [13.7] | 54 327 [21.2] | 27 139 [10.6] |
| St. Louis | 2002-2007 [2 004] | 317 750 [158.6] | 46 783 [23.3] | 176 480 [88.1] | 31 238 [15.6] |
Abbreviations: RD, combined respiratory disease group; URI, upper respiratory tract infection; COPD, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease
City-specific rate ratios and 95% confidence intervals per 25 ppb increment in 8-hr maximum ambient O3 from linear C-R models for four respiratory ED outcomes
| City | RD | Asthma | URI | COPD | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| RR (95% CI) | P-value | RR (95% CI) | P-value | RR (95% CI) | P-value | RR (95% CI) | P-value | |
| Atlanta | 1.03 (1.01-1.05) | <0.01 | 1.04 (1.02-1.07) | <0.01 | 1.03 (1.01-1.05) | <0.01 | 1.00 (0.96-1.04) | 0.963 |
| Birmingham | 1.03 (1.00-1.06) | 0.023 | 1.04 (0.98-1.11) | 0.151 | 1.03 (0.99-1.06) | 0.114 | 0.99 (0.92-1.07) | 0.844 |
| Dallas | 1.05 (1.02-1.07) | <0.01 | 1.04 (1.00-1.08) | 0.047 | 1.06 (1.03-1.09) | <0.01 | 1.05 (0.99-1.11) | 0.110 |
| Pittsburgh | 1.03 (1.01-1.05) | <0.01 | 1.04 (1.01-1.08) | 0.023 | 1.03 (1.00-1.06) | 0.072 | 1.03 (0.98-1.09) | 0.246 |
| St. Louis | 1.02 (1.01-1.04) | 0.011 | 1.07 (1.03-1.11) | <0.01 | 1.01 (0.99-1.04) | 0.269 | 1.04 (0.98-1.10) | 0.177 |
| P-value testing whether city RRs differ3 | 0.748 | 0.765 | 0.184 | 0.564 | ||||
P-values from chi-square tests of city heterogeneity
City-specific thresholds and above threshold rate ratios and 95% confidence intervals per 25 ppb increment in 8-hr maximum ambient O3 from linear-threshold C-R models for four respiratory ED outcomes3
| City | RD | Asthma | URI | COPD | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Threshold (ppb) | RR (95% CI) | Threshold (ppb) | RR (95% CI) | Threshold (ppb) | RR (95% CI) | Threshold (ppb) | RR (95% CI) | |
| Atlanta | 24 | 1.04 (1.02-1.05) | 24 | 1.05 (1.03-1.08) | 25 | 1.04 (1.02-1.06) | 23 | 1.00 (0.95-1.04) |
| Birmingham | 10 | 1.03 (1.00-1.06) | 31 | 1.05 (0.99-1.12) | 25 | 1.04 (1.00-1.07) | 27 | 0.98 (0.91-1.06) |
| Dallas | 10 | 1.05 (1.02-1.07) | 10 | 1.04 (1.00-1.08) | 10 | 1.06 (1.03-1.09) | 10 | 1.05 (0.99-1.11) |
| Pittsburgh | 24 | 1.05 (1.02-1.07) | 23 | 1.07 (1.02-1.11) | 24 | 1.04 (1.01-1.08) | 26 | 1.06 (1.00-1.12) |
| St. Louis | 26 | 1.03 (1.01-1.05) | 27 | 1.08 (1.04-1.12) | 21 | 1.02 (0.99-1.04) | 40 | 1.05 (1.00-1.11) |
Thresholds determined by O3 level that maximized the log likelihood of the model
Figure 1Rate ratios and 95% confidence intervals from categorical C-R models. O3 categories are <25 ppb (reference), 25 to <35 ppb, 35 to <45 ppb, 45 to <60 ppb, and ≥60 ppb.
Figure 2Rate ratios and 95% confidence intervals from cubic spline C-R models. Rate ratios use O3 of 20 ppb as reference.a The best fitting model across all six O3 modeling approaches, as determined by AIC, is also listed on each figure for comparison purposes.
a20 ppb and 60 ppb correspond to 10th and 90th O3 percent
Comparing AICs from six approaches for modeling O3 concentrations*
| City | Linear | Threshold | Categorical | Quadratic | Cubic | Cubic Spline |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| RD | ||||||
| Atlanta | + 39 | + 43 | + 42 | + 39 | + 9 | |
| Birmingham | + 4 | + 20 | + 26 | + 2 | + 1 | |
| Dallas | + 12 | + 12 | + 4 | +2 | ||
| Pittsburgh | + 17 | + 24 | + 24 | + 18 | + 6 | |
| St. Louis | + 2 | + 19 | + 28 | + 4 | + 4 | |
| ASTHMA | ||||||
| Atlanta | + 24 | + 27 | + 35 | + 26 | + 9 | |
| Birmingham | + 8 | + 14 | + 1 | + 3 | + 5 | |
| Dallas | + 7 | + 7 | + 10 | + 1 | + 1 | |
| Pittsburgh | + 3 | + 16 | + 20 | + 3 | + 1 | |
| St. Louis | + 23 | + 26 | + 2 | + 4 | + 7 | |
| URI | ||||||
| Atlanta | + 24 | + 30 | + 25 | + 23 | + 8 | |
| Birmingham | + 14 | + 17 | + 3 | |||
| Dallas | + 5 | + 5 | + 2 | + 4 | + 5 | |
| Pittsburgh | + 10 | + 9 | + 2 | + 2 | ||
| St. Louis | + 10 | + 30 | + 33 | + 10 | + 3 | |
| COPD | ||||||
| Atlanta | + 11 | + 17 | + 2 | + 4 | + 7 | |
| Birmingham | + 12 | + 20 | + 24 | + 13 | + 11 | |
| Dallas | + 8 | + 1 | + 3 | + 6 | ||
| Pittsburgh | + 7 | + 11 | + 2 | + 1 | + 2 | |
| St. Louis | + 8 | + 16 | + 23 | + 2 | + 5 | |
for each city-outcome combination, the AIC from the modeling approach yielding the lowest AIC is presented in bold, and differences from the lowest AIC are presented for the other modeling approaches