Cargando…
Particulate matter air pollution and COVID-19 infection, severity, and mortality: A systematic review and meta-analysis
Ecological evidence links ambient particulate matter ≤2.5 mm (PM(2.5)) and the rate of COVID-19 infections, severity, and deaths. However, such studies are unable to account for individual-level differences in major confounders like socioeconomic status and often rely on imprecise measures of PM(2.5...
Autores principales: | , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
The Authors. Published by Elsevier B.V.
2023
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10079587/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/37030371 http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2023.163272 |
_version_ | 1785020750768373760 |
---|---|
author | Sheppard, Nicola Carroll, Matthew Gao, Caroline Lane, Tyler |
author_facet | Sheppard, Nicola Carroll, Matthew Gao, Caroline Lane, Tyler |
author_sort | Sheppard, Nicola |
collection | PubMed |
description | Ecological evidence links ambient particulate matter ≤2.5 mm (PM(2.5)) and the rate of COVID-19 infections, severity, and deaths. However, such studies are unable to account for individual-level differences in major confounders like socioeconomic status and often rely on imprecise measures of PM(2.5). We conducted a systematic review of case-control and cohort studies, which rely on individual-level data, searching Medline, Embase, and the WHO COVID-19 database up to 30 June 2022. Study quality was evaluated using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale. Results were pooled with a random effects meta-analysis, with Egger's regression, funnel plots, and leave-one-out/trim-and-fill sensitivity analyses to account for publication bias. N = 18 studies met inclusion criteria. A 10 μg/m(3) increase in PM(2.5) was associated with 66 % (95 % CI: 1.31–2.11) greater odds of COVID-19 infection (N = 7) and 127 % (95 % CI: 1.41–3.66) odds of severe illness (hospitalisation, ICU admission, or requiring respiratory support) (N = 6). Pooled mortality results (N = 5) indicated increased deaths due to PM(2.5) but were non-significant (OR 1.40; 0.94 to 2.10). Most studies were rated “good” quality (14/18 studies), though there were numerous methodological issues; few used individual-level data to adjust for socioeconomic status (4/18 studies), instead using area-based indicators (11/18 studies) or no such adjustments (3/18 studies). Most severity (9/10 studies) and mortality studies (5/6 studies) were based on people already diagnosed COVID-19, potentially introducing collider bias. There was evidence of publication bias in studies of infection (p = 0.012) but not severity (p = 0.132) or mortality (p = 0.100). While methodological limits and evidence of bias require cautious interpretation of the findings, we found compelling evidence that PM(2.5) increases the risk of COVID-19 infection and severe disease, and weaker evidence of an increase in mortality risk. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-10079587 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2023 |
publisher | The Authors. Published by Elsevier B.V. |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-100795872023-04-07 Particulate matter air pollution and COVID-19 infection, severity, and mortality: A systematic review and meta-analysis Sheppard, Nicola Carroll, Matthew Gao, Caroline Lane, Tyler Sci Total Environ Review Ecological evidence links ambient particulate matter ≤2.5 mm (PM(2.5)) and the rate of COVID-19 infections, severity, and deaths. However, such studies are unable to account for individual-level differences in major confounders like socioeconomic status and often rely on imprecise measures of PM(2.5). We conducted a systematic review of case-control and cohort studies, which rely on individual-level data, searching Medline, Embase, and the WHO COVID-19 database up to 30 June 2022. Study quality was evaluated using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale. Results were pooled with a random effects meta-analysis, with Egger's regression, funnel plots, and leave-one-out/trim-and-fill sensitivity analyses to account for publication bias. N = 18 studies met inclusion criteria. A 10 μg/m(3) increase in PM(2.5) was associated with 66 % (95 % CI: 1.31–2.11) greater odds of COVID-19 infection (N = 7) and 127 % (95 % CI: 1.41–3.66) odds of severe illness (hospitalisation, ICU admission, or requiring respiratory support) (N = 6). Pooled mortality results (N = 5) indicated increased deaths due to PM(2.5) but were non-significant (OR 1.40; 0.94 to 2.10). Most studies were rated “good” quality (14/18 studies), though there were numerous methodological issues; few used individual-level data to adjust for socioeconomic status (4/18 studies), instead using area-based indicators (11/18 studies) or no such adjustments (3/18 studies). Most severity (9/10 studies) and mortality studies (5/6 studies) were based on people already diagnosed COVID-19, potentially introducing collider bias. There was evidence of publication bias in studies of infection (p = 0.012) but not severity (p = 0.132) or mortality (p = 0.100). While methodological limits and evidence of bias require cautious interpretation of the findings, we found compelling evidence that PM(2.5) increases the risk of COVID-19 infection and severe disease, and weaker evidence of an increase in mortality risk. The Authors. Published by Elsevier B.V. 2023-07-01 2023-04-07 /pmc/articles/PMC10079587/ /pubmed/37030371 http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2023.163272 Text en © 2023 The Authors Since January 2020 Elsevier has created a COVID-19 resource centre with free information in English and Mandarin on the novel coronavirus COVID-19. The COVID-19 resource centre is hosted on Elsevier Connect, the company's public news and information website. Elsevier hereby grants permission to make all its COVID-19-related research that is available on the COVID-19 resource centre - including this research content - immediately available in PubMed Central and other publicly funded repositories, such as the WHO COVID database with rights for unrestricted research re-use and analyses in any form or by any means with acknowledgement of the original source. These permissions are granted for free by Elsevier for as long as the COVID-19 resource centre remains active. |
spellingShingle | Review Sheppard, Nicola Carroll, Matthew Gao, Caroline Lane, Tyler Particulate matter air pollution and COVID-19 infection, severity, and mortality: A systematic review and meta-analysis |
title | Particulate matter air pollution and COVID-19 infection, severity, and mortality: A systematic review and meta-analysis |
title_full | Particulate matter air pollution and COVID-19 infection, severity, and mortality: A systematic review and meta-analysis |
title_fullStr | Particulate matter air pollution and COVID-19 infection, severity, and mortality: A systematic review and meta-analysis |
title_full_unstemmed | Particulate matter air pollution and COVID-19 infection, severity, and mortality: A systematic review and meta-analysis |
title_short | Particulate matter air pollution and COVID-19 infection, severity, and mortality: A systematic review and meta-analysis |
title_sort | particulate matter air pollution and covid-19 infection, severity, and mortality: a systematic review and meta-analysis |
topic | Review |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10079587/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/37030371 http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2023.163272 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT sheppardnicola particulatematterairpollutionandcovid19infectionseverityandmortalityasystematicreviewandmetaanalysis AT carrollmatthew particulatematterairpollutionandcovid19infectionseverityandmortalityasystematicreviewandmetaanalysis AT gaocaroline particulatematterairpollutionandcovid19infectionseverityandmortalityasystematicreviewandmetaanalysis AT lanetyler particulatematterairpollutionandcovid19infectionseverityandmortalityasystematicreviewandmetaanalysis |