Improving consistency in estimating future health burdens from environmental risk factors: Case study for ambient air pollution

Future changes in exposure to risk factors should impact mortality rates and population. However, studies commonly use mortality rates and population projections developed exogenously to the health impact assessment model used to quantify future health burdens attributable to environmental risks that are therefore invariant to projected exposure levels. This impacts the robustness of many future health burden estimates for environmental risk factors. This work describes an alternative methodology that more consistently represents the interaction between risk factor exposure, population and mortality rates, using ambient particulate air pollution (PM2.5) as a case study. A demographic model is described that estimates future population based on projected births, mortality and migration. Mortality rates are disaggregated between the fraction due to PM2.5 exposure and other factors for a historic year, and projected independently. Accounting for feedbacks between future risk factor exposure and population and mortality rates can greatly affect estimated future attributable health burdens. The demographic model estimates much larger PM2.5-attributable health burdens with constant 2019 PM2.5 (∼10.8 million deaths in 2050) compared to a model using exogenous population and mortality rate projections (∼7.3 million), largely due to differences in mortality rate projection methods. Demographic model-projected PM2.5-attributable mortality can accumulate substantially over time. For example, ∼71 million more people are estimated to be alive in 2050 when WHO guidelines (5 µg m-3) are achieved compared to constant 2019 PM2.5 concentrations. Accounting for feedbacks is more important in applications with relatively high future PM2.5 concentrations, and relatively large changes in non-PM2.5 mortality rates.

Taking multi-morbidity into account when attributing DALYs to risk factors: comparing dynamic modeling with the GBD2010 calculation method

BACKGROUND

Disability Adjusted Life Years (DALYs) quantify the loss of healthy years of life due to dying prematurely and due to living with diseases and injuries. Current methods of attributing DALYs to underlying risk factors fall short on two main points. First, risk factor attribution methods often unjustly apply incidence-based population attributable fractions (PAFs) to prevalence-based data. Second, it mixes two conceptually distinct approaches targeting different goals, namely an attribution method aiming to attribute uniquely to a single cause, and an elimination method aiming to describe a counterfactual situation without exposure. In this paper we describe dynamic modeling as an alternative, completely counterfactual approach and compare this to the approach used in the Global Burden of Disease 2010 study (GBD2010).

METHODS

Using data on smoking in the Netherlands in 2011, we demonstrate how an alternative method of risk factor attribution using a pure counterfactual approach results in different estimates for DALYs. This alternative method is carried out using the dynamic multistate disease table model DYNAMO-HIA. We investigate the differences between our alternative method and the method used by the GBD2010 by doing additional analyses using data from a synthetic population in steady state.

RESULTS

We observed important differences between the outcomes of the two methods: in an artificial situation where dynamics play a limited role, DALYs are a third lower as compared to those calculated with the GBD2010 method (398,000 versus 607,000 DALYs). The most important factor is newly occurring morbidity in life years gained that is ignored in the GBD2010 approach. Age-dependent relative risks and exposures lead to additional differences between methods as they distort the results of prevalence-based DALY calculations, but the direction and magnitude of the distortions depend on the particular situation.

CONCLUSIONS

We argue that the GBD2010 approach is a hybrid of an attributional and counterfactual approach, making the end result hard to understand, while dynamic modelling uses a purely counterfactual approach and thus yields better interpretable results.