View
218
Download
1
Category
Preview:
Citation preview
NYC’s Waterborne Disease Risk Assessment Program – 20 Years Later:
Program Implementation and Data Findings
2013 NYC Watershed / Tifft Science & Technology SymposiumSeptember 18, 2013
Presented by Anne Seeley, MPH (NYCDEP)with Sharon Balter, MD (NYCDOHMH-DEP); David Lipsky, PhD (NYCDEP);
Daniel Cimini, RN (NYCDOHMH) & Lisa Alleyne, MPA (NYCDOHMH)
2
Presentation Outline
• Background
• WDRAP Program Description
• Results
• Special Projects & Activities
• Conclusions & Summary
3
Background - Why WDRAP?
• Giardia & Cryptosporidium found in US waters
• Chlorine resistance of cysts/oocysts
• Crypto illness special risk to AIDs population
• Milwaukee Crypto Outbreak - 1993
• Drinking water & public health community concern
• EPA - Surface Water Treatment Rule Serieso SWTR, IESWTR, LT1ESWTR, LT2ESWTRo Requirements for filtered & unfiltered systems
3
4
Background – Regulatory Context
Surface Water Treatment Rule
Filtration Avoidance Requirements
• Source Water Quality Criteria
• Disinfection Requirements
• Site-Specific Conditions
o Watershed Control
o Compliance w/Total Coliform & TTHM standards
o No waterborne disease outbreaks
4
5
Giardiasis & Cryptosporidiosis - Some Facts & Challenges
Background
5
• Numerous Potential Routes of Transmission
• Non-specific symptoms (GI Illness)
• Requires special testing to diagnose
• Low # case reports / Crypto not reportable (‘til ‘94)
6
WDRAP - Description
• Joint NYC agency program:
NYCDEP (BWS) & NYCDOHMH (BCD)
• Parasitic Disease Surveillance Program
Established 1993 at DOHMH
• Funded by DEP under FAD
7
WDRAP - Description
Objectives:
• Collect data on rates of giardiasis & cryptosporidiosis, and on demographics & risk factors
• Provide systems to track diarrheal illness to ensure rapid detection of any potential outbreaks
• Conduct outreach & education / special studies
8
Disease Surveillance – Giardiasis (G) & Cryptosporidiosis (C)
WDRAP - Description
8
• Objectives:
o G & C rates full capture of all lab-diagnosed cases.
o Demographic & risk factor
• Disease Surveillance (DS)o Active Disease Surveillance: 1993(G) /1994(C) – ‘til 2011
Call / visit all labs (N = ~70)
o Electronic Reporting: 2011 – present
9
Disease Surveillance – Case Interviews
WDRAP - Description
9
• Cryptosporidiosis – Interviews for demographic & risk factor info – all cases
• Giardiasis -- Interviews of patients with high risk to transmit to others -- All ‘93 – ’95; Now only food handlers, health care workers, day care attendees
• Contact of health care providers to verify information
10
WDRAP - Description
• Demographic data collected: o Geography (citywide, by borough, by neighborhood/UHF code)o Gendero Ageo Race/ethnicity (crypto only)o Census track poverty level
• Potential Risk Factor data collected, including: o High-Risk Sexual Activityo International Travelo Contact w/ Animalso Recreational Watero Drinking Water (plain tap, filtered, boiled, incidental tap…)
11
Outbreak Detection Systems (Syndromic Surveillance)
WDRAP - Description
11
• Emergency Department (ED) Monitoringo ~ 49 EDs (out of 52 in NYC)
o ~ 11,000 visits/day
• Anti-diarrheal Medication (ADM) Monitoringo ADM (by DEP) & OTC (by DOHMH)o > 300 stores / all boroughs
o > 30,000 sales/day (non-prescription)
• Clinical Lab Monitoringo Major parasitic lab serving NYC
• Nursing Home Programo ~ 8 sentinel nursing homes
12
Outbreak Detection System Features
WDRAP Description
System Data Frequency
Geographic Unit
Data Analysis
ED(Emergency Dept.)
7 day/wk Citywide, Zip, Hosp,
EARS-X
OTC(Over-the-Counter ADM)
7 day/wk Citywide SAS (CUSUM)
ADM(Anti-diarrheal Meds.)
7 day/wk Citywide, Borough
SaTScan / CUSUM
Clinical Lab ~ 3 day/wk Metro NYC SAS / CUSUM
Nursing Home Outbreaks B (except SI) Signal = Outbreak
13
From Milwaukee Outbreak – re sales of Anti-Diarrheal Medications
(credit: B. Mekenzie)
Outbreak Detection
13
14
Results – Disease Surveillance
Jul-9
3
Jan-
94
Jul-9
4
Jan-
95
Jul-9
5
Jan-
96
Jul-9
6
Jan-
97
Jul-9
7
Jan-
98
Jul-9
8
Jan-
99
Jul-9
9
Jan-
00
Jul-0
0
Jan-
01
Jul-0
1
Jan-
02
Jul-0
2
Jan-
03
Jul-0
3
Jan-
04
Jul-0
4
Jan-
05
Jul-0
5
Jan-
06
Jul-0
6
Jan-
07
Jul-0
7
Jan-
08
Jul-0
8
Jan-
09
Jul-0
9
Jan-
10
Jul-1
0
Jan-
11
Jul-1
1
Jan-
12
Jul-1
2
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
Fig. 1: Giardiasis, number of cases by month of diagnosis, New York City, July 1993 - December 2012
Month of Diagnosis
Nu
mb
er o
f C
ases
15
Results – Disease SurveillanceJa
n-95
Jul-9
5
Jan-
96
Jul-9
6
Jan-
97
Jul-9
7
Jan-
98
Jul-9
8
Jan-
99
Jul-9
9
Jan-
00
Jul-0
0
Jan-
01
Jul-0
1
Jan-
02
Jul-0
2
Jan-
03
Jul-0
3
Jan-
04
Jul-0
4
Jan-
05
Jul-0
5
Jan-
06
Jul-0
6
Jan-
07
Jul-0
7
Jan-
08
Jul-0
8
Jan-
09
Jul-0
9
Jan-
10
Jul-1
0
Jan-
11
Jul-1
1
Jan-
12
Jul-1
2
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
Fig. 3: Cryptosporidiosis, number of cases by month of onset,
New York City, Jan 1995 – Dec 2012
Month of Onset
Nu
mb
er
of
Ca
se
s
This increase in cases in August 2000 was suspected to be related to an outbreak at a re-sort in Florida at which a group of Staten Island residents had vacationed that month.
The increase of cryptosporidiosis cases reported in August 2005 is suspected to be due to a sur-veillance bias caused by publicity around an out-break in upstate NY related to recreational water exposure at a spray park.
16
Results – Disease Surveillance
1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 20120
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
400
450
Fig. 6: Cryptosporidiosis, number of cases by year of diagnosis and immune status, New York City, 1995 - 2012
Persons with HIV/AIDS Immunocompetent
Immunocompromised, Not HIV/AIDS Immune Status Unknown
Year
Nu
mb
er o
f ca
ses
18
Results – Disease Surveillance TABLE 10: Cryptosporidiosis, number of cases and annual case rate per 100,000 population by age group and sex, New York City, 2012 Sex Age group
Male number (rate)
Female number (rate)
Total number (rate)
<5 years 6 (2.3)
8 (3.2)
14 (2.7)
5-9 years 1 (0.4)
2 (0.9)
3 (0.6)
10-19 years 3 (0.6)
5 (1.0)
8 (0.8)
20-44 years 63 (4.1)
11 (0.7)
74 (2.3)
45-59 years 19 (2.6)
6 (0.7)
25 (1.6)
≥ 60 years 1 (0.2)
0
1 (0.1)
Total 93 (2.4)
32 (0.7)
125 (1.5)
19
Average of percent of interviewed cryptosporidiosis case patientsreporting selected risk exposures before disease onset – (Average of annual percent positive reports 1995 – 2012)
Results - Risk Factor Interviews
ActivityImmunocompetentPatients
Persons with HIV/AIDS
International Travel 39% 10%
High-Risk Sexual Activity 15% 23%
Contact with Animals 32% 35%
Recreational Water Contact 35% 13%
21
Syndromic Surveillance Systems Combined --Fig. 9: Signals for GI Illness, New York City, Jan – June 2012
Results – Syndromic Surveillance
21
22
Syndromic Surveillance Systems Combined –Figure 10: Signals for GI Illness, New York City, July – Dec 2012
Results – Syndromic Surveillance
22
23
Special Projects & Activities
• Outreach & Education – NYCo Medical / public health communityo Immunocompromised populationo General population
• Action Plans (CAP, CGAP)
• Water Security Initiativeo Electronic Data Dashboardo Retrospective Study
• Event Investigations (e.g., 2003 Blackout, Hurricane Sandy)
• Communication - Generalo CDC Working Group on Waterborne Crypto /Communication Groupo Utility-Health Collaboration Project (Water Research Foundation)
• Special Studies - (Crypto case-control, Giardiasis Summer Study…)
24
Disease Surveillance -- re rates, demographics, risk factors
Conclusions – What have we learned?
24
• Full capture (diagnosed cases) achieved
• G & C significant decline over years o Especially HIV/AIDS pop.o HAART: Advances in treatment of HIV/AIDS has significantly changed the crypto profile in NYC (and US)
• Determinations about risk factors for cryptosporidiosis cannot be made w/o controls
• Rates higher in some sub-groups / patterns suggest exposures other than a common community-level exposure contributes to cases
• G & C surveillance results do not suggest an association between illness and the NYC water supply.
25
Conclusions – What have we learned?
Outbreak Detection (OD) Systems
• Multiple OD systems in operationo Some system interruptions (data not in our control, tech
issues, resources)
• Sensitivity & timelinesso Difficult to fully assess w/o outbreakso Strength from overlap (concurrent signals)o DEP & DOHMH believe would detect sizable community GI
outbreako Some GI events observed in OD data:
-- NYC metro area: foodborne - imported raspberries -- 2003 blackout: attributed to foodborne
Continued…
25
26
Conclusions – What have we learned?
Outbreak Detection (OD) Systems, cont’d
• No evidence of a waterborne disease outbreak
• Some seasonal patterns – consistent w/ seasonal viral GI illness
• Importance of communication links o DOHMH – DEPo Various data sources (doctors/HCPs, hospitals, pharmacies)
• Importance of preparedness (e.g., communication tools, drills)
26
27
Summary
• Extensive public health surveillance systems are in place in NYC to detect GI illness / outbreaks
• NYC data indicates unlikely that drinking water represents major risk of exposure for giardiasis or cryptosporidiosis
• No indications of waterborne outbreaks have been detected
28
Closing
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS (WDRAP Team): • NYCDOHMH: M. Layton, D. Weiss, S. Balter, D. Cimini, L. Alleyne, and others• NYCDEP: S. Schindler, D. Lipsky, A. Seeley
CONTACT: • Anne Seeley (aseeley@dep.nyc.gov / 718-595-5346)• Sharon Balter (sbalter@health.nyc.gov / 347-396-2674
WEBSITES:• DEP website:
http://www.nyc.gov/html/dep/html/drinking_water/wdrap.shtml
• DOHMH websites: http://www.nyc.gov/html/doh/html/diseases/cdgia.shtmlhttp://www.nyc.gov/html/doh/html/diseases/cdcry.shtml
-- THANK YOU --
Recommended