Juleen Lam1,2, Erica Koustas3, Patrice Sutton1, Amy M Padula1, Michael D Cabana4,5, Hanna Vesterinen3, Charles Griffiths6, Mark Dickie7, Natalyn Daniels1, Evans Whitaker5, Tracey J Woodruff1. 1. University of California San Francisco, Program on Reproductive Health and the Environment, San Francisco, California, United States of America. 2. Department of Health Sciences, California State University, East Bay, Hayward, California, United States of America. 3. Scientific Consultant to the University of California, San Francisco, California, United States of America. 4. University of California San Francisco, Philip R. Lee Institute for Health Policy Studies, San Francisco, California, United States of America. 5. University of California San Francisco, Schools of Medicine and Pharmacy, San Francisco, California, United States of America. 6. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, National Center for Environmental Economics, Washington, DC, United States of America. 7. Department of Economics, University of Central Florida, Orlando, Florida, United States of America.
Abstract
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.
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.
Authors: Gordon H Guyatt; Andrew D Oxman; Gunn E Vist; Regina Kunz; Yngve Falck-Ytter; Pablo Alonso-Coello; Holger J Schünemann Journal: BMJ Date: 2008-04-26
Authors: M I Asher; U Keil; H R Anderson; R Beasley; J Crane; F Martinez; E A Mitchell; N Pearce; B Sibbald; A W Stewart Journal: Eur Respir J Date: 1995-03 Impact factor: 16.671
Authors: Jeong-Lim Kim; Lena Elfman; Gunilla Wieslander; Martin Ferm; Kjell Torén; Dan Norbäck Journal: J Korean Med Sci Date: 2011-01-24 Impact factor: 2.153
Authors: Swati D G Rayasam; Patricia D Koman; Daniel A Axelrad; Tracey J Woodruff; Nicholas Chartres Journal: Environ Sci Technol Date: 2022-08-18 Impact factor: 11.357
Authors: Kristi Pullen Fedinick; Ilch Yiliqi; Yukyan Lam; David Lennett; Veena Singla; Miriam Rotkin-Ellman; Jennifer Sass Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health Date: 2021-06-03 Impact factor: 3.390