Evaluation of the causal framework used for setting national ambient air quality standards

Systematic Review and Weight of Evidence Are Integral to Ecological and Human Health Assessments: They Need an Integrated Framework

Scientific assessments synthesize the various results of scientific research for policy and decision making. Synthesizing evidence in environmental assessments can involve either or both of 2 systems: systematic review (SR) and weight of evidence (WoE). Systematic review was developed to systematically assemble results of clinical trials to be combined by meta-analysis. Weight-of-evidence approaches have evolved from jurisprudence to make inferences from diverse bodies of evidence in various fields. Our objectives are to describe the similarities and differences between SR and WoE and to suggest how their best practices can be combined into a general framework that is applicable to human health and ecological assessments. Integrating SR and WoE is based on the recognition that 2 processes are required, assembling evidence and making an inference. Systematic review is characterized by methodical literature searching, screening, and data extraction, originally for meta-analysis but now for various inferential methods. Weight of evidence is characterized by systematically relating heterogeneous evidence to considerations appropriate to the inference and making the inference by weighing the evidence. Systematic review enables the unbiased assembly of evidence from literature, but methods for assembling other information must be considered as well. If only 1 type of quantitative study estimates the assessment endpoint, meta-analysis is appropriate for inference. Otherwise, the heterogeneous evidence must be weighed. A framework is presented that integrates best practices into a methodical assembly and weighing of evidence. A glossary of terms for the combined practice and a history of the origins of SR and WoE are provided in Supplemental Data. Integr Environ Assess Manag 2020;16:718-728. Published 2020. This article is a US Government work and is in the public domain in the USA.

Causal Modeling in Environmental Health

The field of environmental health has been dominated by modeling associations, especially by regressing an observed outcome on a linear or nonlinear function of observed covariates. Readers interested in advances in policies for improving environmental health are, however, expecting to be informed about health effects resulting from, or more explicitly caused by, environmental exposures. The quantification of health impacts resulting from the removal of environmental exposures involves causal statements. Therefore, when possible, causal inference frameworks should be considered for analyzing the effects of environmental exposures on health outcomes.

Framework for assessing causality of air pollution-related health effects for reviews of the National Ambient Air Quality Standards

To inform regulatory decisions on the risk due to exposure to ambient air pollution, consistent and transparent communication of the scientific evidence is essential. The United States Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA) develops the Integrated Science Assessment (ISA), which contains evaluations of the policy-relevant science on the effects of criteria air pollutants and conveys critical science judgments to inform decisions on the National Ambient Air Quality Standards. This article discusses the approach and causal framework used in the ISAs to evaluate and integrate various lines of scientific evidence and draw conclusions about the causal nature of air pollution-induced health effects. The framework has been applied to diverse pollutants and cancer and noncancer effects. To demonstrate its flexibility, we provide examples of causality judgments on relationships between health effects and pollutant exposures, drawing from recent ISAs for ozone, lead, carbon monoxide, and oxides of nitrogen. U.S. EPA's causal framework has increased transparency by establishing a structured process for evaluating and integrating various lines of evidence and uniform approach for determining causality. The framework brings consistency and specificity to the conclusions in the ISA, and the flexibility of the framework makes it relevant for evaluations of evidence across media and health effects.

Comprehensive review of epidemiological and animal studies on the potential carcinogenic effects of nicotine per se

The effects of long-term use of nicotine per se on cancer risk, in the absence of tobacco extract or smoke, are not clearly understood. This review evaluates the strength of published scientific evidence, in both epidemiological and animal studies, for the potential carcinogenic effects of nicotine per se; that is to act as a complete carcinogen or as a modulator of carcinogenesis. For human studies, there appears to be inadequate evidence for an association between nicotine exposure and the presence of or lack of a carcinogenic effect due to the limited information available. In animal studies, limited evidence suggests an association between long-term nicotine exposure and a lack of a complete carcinogenic effect. Conclusive studies using current bioassay guidelines, however, are missing. In studies using chemical/physical carcinogens or transgenic models, there appears to be inadequate evidence for an association between nicotine exposure and the presence of or lack of a modulating (stimulating) effect on carcinogenesis. This is primarily due to the large number of conflicting studies. In contrast, a majority of studies provides sufficient evidence for an association between nicotine exposure and enhanced carcinogenesis of cancer cells inoculated in mice. This modulating effect was especially prominent in immunocompromized mice. Overall, taking the human and animal studies into consideration, there appears to be inadequate evidence to conclude that nicotine per se does or does not cause or modulate carcinogenesis in humans. This conclusion is in agreement with the recent US Surgeon General's 2014 report on the health consequences of nicotine exposure.

Ozone exposure and systemic biomarkers: Evaluation of evidence for adverse cardiovascular health impacts

The US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) recently concluded that there is likely to be a causal relationship between short-term (< 30 days) ozone exposure and cardiovascular (CV) effects; however, biological mechanisms to link transient effects with chronic cardiovascular disease (CVD) have not been established. Some studies assessed changes in circulating levels of biomarkers associated with inflammation, oxidative stress, coagulation, vasoreactivity, lipidology, and glucose metabolism after ozone exposure to elucidate a biological mechanism. We conducted a weight-of-evidence (WoE) analysis to determine if there is evidence supporting an association between changes in these biomarkers and short-term ozone exposure that would indicate a biological mechanism for CVD below the ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS) of 75 parts per billion (ppb). Epidemiology findings were mixed for all biomarker categories, with only a few studies reporting statistically significant changes and with no consistency in the direction of the reported effects. Controlled human exposure studies of 2 to 5 hours conducted at ozone concentrations above 75 ppb reported small elevations in biomarkers for inflammation and oxidative stress that were of uncertain clinical relevance. Experimental animal studies reported more consistent results among certain biomarkers, although these were also conducted at ozone exposures well above 75 ppb and provided limited information on ozone exposure-response relationships. Overall, the current WoE does not provide a convincing case for a causal relationship between short-term ozone exposure below the NAAQS and adverse changes in levels of biomarkers within and across categories, but, because of study limitations, they cannot not provide definitive evidence of a lack of causation.

Weight-of-evidence evaluation of long-term ozone exposure and cardiovascular effects

We conducted a weight-of-evidence (WoE) analysis to assess whether the current body of research supports a causal relationship between long-term ozone exposure (defined by EPA as at least 30 days in duration) at ambient levels and cardiovascular (CV) effects. We used a novel WoE framework based on the United States Environmental Protection Agency's National Ambient Air Quality Standards causal framework for this analysis. Specifically, we critically evaluated and integrated the relevant epidemiology and experimental animal data and classified a causal determination based on categories proposed by the Institute of Medicine's 2008 report, Improving the Presumptive Disability Decision-making Process for Veterans. We found that the risks of CV effects are largely null across human and experimental animal studies. The few positive associations reported in studies of CV morbidity and mortality are very small in magnitude, mainly reported in single-pollutant models, and likely attributable to bias, chance, or confounding. The few positive effects in experimental animal studies were observed mainly in ex vivo studies at high exposures, and even the in vivo findings are not likely relevant to humans. The available data also do not support a biologically plausible mechanism for the effects of ozone on the CV system. Overall, the current WoE provides no convincing case for a causal relationship between long-term exposure to ambient ozone and adverse effects on the CV system in humans, but the limitations of the available studies preclude definitive conclusions regarding a lack of causation; thus, we categorize the strength of evidence for a causal relationship between long-term exposure to ozone and CV effects as "below equipoise."

Weight-of-evidence evaluation of short-term ozone exposure and cardiovascular effects

There is a relatively large body of research on the potential cardiovascular (CV) effects associated with short-term ozone exposure (defined by EPA as less than 30 days in duration). We conducted a weight-of-evidence (WoE) analysis to assess whether it supports a causal relationship using a novel WoE framework adapted from the US EPA's National Ambient Air Quality Standards causality framework. Specifically, we synthesized and critically evaluated the relevant epidemiology, controlled human exposure, and experimental animal data and made a causal determination using the same categories proposed by the Institute of Medicine report Improving the Presumptive Disability Decision-making Process for Veterans ( IOM 2008). We found that the totality of the data indicates that the results for CV effects are largely null across human and experimental animal studies. The few statistically significant associations reported in epidemiology studies of CV morbidity and mortality are very small in magnitude and likely attributable to confounding, bias, or chance. In experimental animal studies, the reported statistically significant effects at high exposures are not observed at lower exposures and thus not likely relevant to current ambient ozone exposures in humans. The available data also do not support a biologically plausible mechanism for CV effects of ozone. Overall, the current WoE provides no convincing case for a causal relationship between short-term exposure to ambient ozone and adverse effects on the CV system in humans, but the limitations of the available studies preclude definitive conclusions regarding a lack of causation. Thus, we categorize the strength of evidence for a causal relationship between short-term exposure to ozone and CV effects as "below equipoise."