Inferences drawn from a risk assessment compared directly with a randomized trial of a home drinking water intervention

Joseph N.S. Eisenberg, Alan Hubbard, Timothy J. Wade, Matthew D. Sylvester, Mark W. LeChevallier, Deborah A Levy, John M. Colford

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

17 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Risk assessments and intervention trials have been used by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency to estimate drinking water health risks. Seldom an both methods used concurrently. Between 2001 and 2003, illness data from a trial were collected simultaneously with exposure data, providing a unique opportunity to compare direct risk estimates of waterborne disease from the intervention trial with indirect estimates from a risk assessment. Comparing the group with water treatment (active) with that without water treatment (sham), the estimated annual attributable disease rate (cases per 10,000 persons per year) from the trial provided no evidence of a significantly elevated drinking water risk [attributable risk = -365 cases/year, sham minus active; 95% confidence interval (CI), -2,555 to 1,825]. The predicted mean rate of disease per 10,OOD persons per person-year from the risk assessment was 13.9 (2.5, 97.5 percentiles: 1.6, 37.7) assuming 4 log removal due to viral disinfection and 5.5 (2.5, 97.5 percentiles: 1.4, 19.2) assuming 6 log removal. Risk assessments are important under conditions of low risk when estimates are difficult to attain from trials. In particular, this assessment pointed toward the importance of attaining site-specific treatment data and the clear need for a better understanding of viral removal by disinfection. Trials provide direct risk estimates, and the upper confidence limit estimates, even if not statistically significant, are informative about possible upper estimates of likely risk. These differences suggest that conclusions about waterborne disease risk may be strengthened by the joint use of these two approaches.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)1199-1204
Number of pages6
JournalEnvironmental Health Perspectives
Volume114
Issue number8
DOIs
StatePublished - Aug 1 2006

Fingerprint

Drinking Water
Risk assessment
risk assessment
drinking water
waterborne disease
Disinfection
Water Purification
Water treatment
disinfection
water treatment
Health risks
United States Environmental Protection Agency
Environmental Protection Agency
trial
health risk
confidence interval
Joints
Confidence Intervals
Health
removal

Keywords

  • Drinking water
  • Gastrointestinal
  • Intervention trial
  • Microbial risk assessment
  • Waterborne pathogens

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health
  • Health, Toxicology and Mutagenesis

Cite this

Eisenberg, J. N. S., Hubbard, A., Wade, T. J., Sylvester, M. D., LeChevallier, M. W., Levy, D. A., & Colford, J. M. (2006). Inferences drawn from a risk assessment compared directly with a randomized trial of a home drinking water intervention. Environmental Health Perspectives, 114(8), 1199-1204. https://doi.org/10.1289/ehp.8682

Inferences drawn from a risk assessment compared directly with a randomized trial of a home drinking water intervention. / Eisenberg, Joseph N.S.; Hubbard, Alan; Wade, Timothy J.; Sylvester, Matthew D.; LeChevallier, Mark W.; Levy, Deborah A; Colford, John M.

In: Environmental Health Perspectives, Vol. 114, No. 8, 01.08.2006, p. 1199-1204.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Eisenberg, Joseph N.S. ; Hubbard, Alan ; Wade, Timothy J. ; Sylvester, Matthew D. ; LeChevallier, Mark W. ; Levy, Deborah A ; Colford, John M. / Inferences drawn from a risk assessment compared directly with a randomized trial of a home drinking water intervention. In: Environmental Health Perspectives. 2006 ; Vol. 114, No. 8. pp. 1199-1204.
@article{370831b3b99f4dc0b3c476552b3d46f5,
title = "Inferences drawn from a risk assessment compared directly with a randomized trial of a home drinking water intervention",
abstract = "Risk assessments and intervention trials have been used by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency to estimate drinking water health risks. Seldom an both methods used concurrently. Between 2001 and 2003, illness data from a trial were collected simultaneously with exposure data, providing a unique opportunity to compare direct risk estimates of waterborne disease from the intervention trial with indirect estimates from a risk assessment. Comparing the group with water treatment (active) with that without water treatment (sham), the estimated annual attributable disease rate (cases per 10,000 persons per year) from the trial provided no evidence of a significantly elevated drinking water risk [attributable risk = -365 cases/year, sham minus active; 95{\%} confidence interval (CI), -2,555 to 1,825]. The predicted mean rate of disease per 10,OOD persons per person-year from the risk assessment was 13.9 (2.5, 97.5 percentiles: 1.6, 37.7) assuming 4 log removal due to viral disinfection and 5.5 (2.5, 97.5 percentiles: 1.4, 19.2) assuming 6 log removal. Risk assessments are important under conditions of low risk when estimates are difficult to attain from trials. In particular, this assessment pointed toward the importance of attaining site-specific treatment data and the clear need for a better understanding of viral removal by disinfection. Trials provide direct risk estimates, and the upper confidence limit estimates, even if not statistically significant, are informative about possible upper estimates of likely risk. These differences suggest that conclusions about waterborne disease risk may be strengthened by the joint use of these two approaches.",
keywords = "Drinking water, Gastrointestinal, Intervention trial, Microbial risk assessment, Waterborne pathogens",
author = "Eisenberg, {Joseph N.S.} and Alan Hubbard and Wade, {Timothy J.} and Sylvester, {Matthew D.} and LeChevallier, {Mark W.} and Levy, {Deborah A} and Colford, {John M.}",
year = "2006",
month = "8",
day = "1",
doi = "10.1289/ehp.8682",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "114",
pages = "1199--1204",
journal = "Environmental Health Perspectives",
issn = "0091-6765",
publisher = "Public Health Services, US Dept of Health and Human Services",
number = "8",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Inferences drawn from a risk assessment compared directly with a randomized trial of a home drinking water intervention

AU - Eisenberg, Joseph N.S.

AU - Hubbard, Alan

AU - Wade, Timothy J.

AU - Sylvester, Matthew D.

AU - LeChevallier, Mark W.

AU - Levy, Deborah A

AU - Colford, John M.

PY - 2006/8/1

Y1 - 2006/8/1

N2 - Risk assessments and intervention trials have been used by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency to estimate drinking water health risks. Seldom an both methods used concurrently. Between 2001 and 2003, illness data from a trial were collected simultaneously with exposure data, providing a unique opportunity to compare direct risk estimates of waterborne disease from the intervention trial with indirect estimates from a risk assessment. Comparing the group with water treatment (active) with that without water treatment (sham), the estimated annual attributable disease rate (cases per 10,000 persons per year) from the trial provided no evidence of a significantly elevated drinking water risk [attributable risk = -365 cases/year, sham minus active; 95% confidence interval (CI), -2,555 to 1,825]. The predicted mean rate of disease per 10,OOD persons per person-year from the risk assessment was 13.9 (2.5, 97.5 percentiles: 1.6, 37.7) assuming 4 log removal due to viral disinfection and 5.5 (2.5, 97.5 percentiles: 1.4, 19.2) assuming 6 log removal. Risk assessments are important under conditions of low risk when estimates are difficult to attain from trials. In particular, this assessment pointed toward the importance of attaining site-specific treatment data and the clear need for a better understanding of viral removal by disinfection. Trials provide direct risk estimates, and the upper confidence limit estimates, even if not statistically significant, are informative about possible upper estimates of likely risk. These differences suggest that conclusions about waterborne disease risk may be strengthened by the joint use of these two approaches.

AB - Risk assessments and intervention trials have been used by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency to estimate drinking water health risks. Seldom an both methods used concurrently. Between 2001 and 2003, illness data from a trial were collected simultaneously with exposure data, providing a unique opportunity to compare direct risk estimates of waterborne disease from the intervention trial with indirect estimates from a risk assessment. Comparing the group with water treatment (active) with that without water treatment (sham), the estimated annual attributable disease rate (cases per 10,000 persons per year) from the trial provided no evidence of a significantly elevated drinking water risk [attributable risk = -365 cases/year, sham minus active; 95% confidence interval (CI), -2,555 to 1,825]. The predicted mean rate of disease per 10,OOD persons per person-year from the risk assessment was 13.9 (2.5, 97.5 percentiles: 1.6, 37.7) assuming 4 log removal due to viral disinfection and 5.5 (2.5, 97.5 percentiles: 1.4, 19.2) assuming 6 log removal. Risk assessments are important under conditions of low risk when estimates are difficult to attain from trials. In particular, this assessment pointed toward the importance of attaining site-specific treatment data and the clear need for a better understanding of viral removal by disinfection. Trials provide direct risk estimates, and the upper confidence limit estimates, even if not statistically significant, are informative about possible upper estimates of likely risk. These differences suggest that conclusions about waterborne disease risk may be strengthened by the joint use of these two approaches.

KW - Drinking water

KW - Gastrointestinal

KW - Intervention trial

KW - Microbial risk assessment

KW - Waterborne pathogens

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=33746919064&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=33746919064&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1289/ehp.8682

DO - 10.1289/ehp.8682

M3 - Article

VL - 114

SP - 1199

EP - 1204

JO - Environmental Health Perspectives

JF - Environmental Health Perspectives

SN - 0091-6765

IS - 8

ER -