scholarly journals Lead Poisoning Surveillance: A Collaborative Effort between Epidemiology and WIC

2017 ◽  
Vol 9 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Kaylee Hervey ◽  
Christine Steward ◽  
Dante Corimanya ◽  
Sandra Reichenberger ◽  
Whitney Crager ◽  
...  

IntroductionThere is no safe level of lead in the body, and elevated lead inchildren can lead to decreased Intelligence Quotients (IQ) andbehavioral problems. The American Academy of Pediatricsrecommends lead testing of children with a positive risk assessment.Children who live in low socioeconomic areas may be at higher riskfor lead exposure. As recent events have shown, having an elevatedlead poisoning surveillance system can be critical to ensure that thereis not a community-wide lead exposure. To reach the children thatmay not have been screened by a primary care physician, on March1, 2016 the Sedgwick County Health Department Women, Infants,and Children (WIC) program began offering lead screenings to allchildren in the WIC program and their mothers. Per Centers forDisease Control and Prevention (CDC) guidelines, the SedgwickCounty Health Department Epidemiology program (Epi) investigatesanyone who has an elevated blood lead test (5μg/dL or greater).There are two types of lead tests – screening (capillary finger stick)and confirmatory (venous blood draw).MethodsSedgwick County WIC clients are offered screening lead testingat their WIC appointments. Education to reduce lead exposure isprovided at the time the test is performed. The filter papers used in thistesting are sent to the Kansas Health and Environmental Laboratories(KHEL) for analysis, and the results are reported to Epi. Epi reportsthe lead testing results to WIC, who track the results in their patientcharts. Epi receives KHEL results of <5μg/dL via fax and resultsof >= 5μg/dL via electronic laboratory reporting in the EpiTraxdisease investigation software maintained by the Kansas Departmentof Health and Environment. Epi notifies any WIC clients with results>= 5μg/dL, while WIC staff notify all other clients about their results.Education is provided to the client a second time by Epi staff and/ora WIC nurse or dietician. For clients with elevated blood lead tests,Epi interviews the case or guardian using an enhanced blood leadexposure questionnaire which asks about potential lead exposures,both in the home and at other locations (work, hobbies, etc.). If only ascreening test was performed, Epi recommends confirmatory testing.WIC lead testing program measures, including types of exposuresidentified, are monitored over time using data obtained from EpiTrax.ResultsBetween March 1 and July 21, of the 2,150 WIC clients offeredlead testing, 89% self-reported never having received a lead testpreviously. Of the 1,427 clients with WIC lead screening results,seven cases of elevated blood lead were identified. Of the seven, fivedid not have a previous elevated lead test in EpiTrax. The averagescreening test result was 8.6μg/dL (range 6.8 to 13.4). The averageage of the cases was 2 years (range 1-4). Of the seven cases, two(29%) were confirmed as 10.0 and 11.0μg/dL through venous testingat their primary care provider’s office. The remaining five cases havenot received confirmatory testing. One of the three cases interviewedreported that their babysitter lived in an old home, which could bethe source of lead exposure. While interviewing a child’s guardianabout an elevated 2016 test (7.9μg/dL), Epi discussed a previous2015 elevated lead test (6.0μg/dL) of which the client’s guardianwas unaware.ConclusionsThe ease of access to lead testing in the Sedgwick County WICprogram and the joint effort between WIC and Epi to implement anenhanced lead poisoning surveillance system identified six childrenwith elevated lead levels whose guardians did not know they hadelevated lead levels. This new surveillance program educates WICparents about lead, determines the lead levels in children for guardianknowledge (low level) and further follow-up (elevated level), andidentifies lead exposures of WIC children with elevated lead tests.

2018 ◽  
Vol 166 ◽  
pp. 1-9 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jenna E. Forsyth ◽  
M. Saiful Islam ◽  
Sarker Masud Parvez ◽  
Rubhana Raqib ◽  
M. Sajjadur Rahman ◽  
...  

PEDIATRICS ◽  
1996 ◽  
Vol 98 (3) ◽  
pp. 372-377
Author(s):  
James R. Campbell ◽  
Stanley J. Schaffer ◽  
Peter G. Szilagyi ◽  
Karen G. O'Connor ◽  
Peter Briss ◽  
...  

Objectives. In 1991, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) decreased the blood lead level of concern to 10 µg/dL (0.48 µmol/L) and recommended universal screening. Because these guidelines continue to provoke controversy, we conducted a study to:1) estimate the proportion of pediatricians who are members of the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) who report screening for elevated blood lead levels; 2) describe their clinical practices regarding screening for elevated blood lead levels; 3) compare attitudes of universal screeners, selective screeners, and nonscreeners; and 4) identify characteristics of pediatricians who universally screen. Design. Confidential, cross-sectional survey of a nationally representative random sample of 1610 pediatricians conducted through the AAP Periodic Survey. Subjects. The study included 1035 responders (64% response rate). Analysis was limited to the 734 pediatricians who provide well-child care (ie, primary-care pediatricians). Results. Fifty-three percent of pediatricians reported screening all their patients aged 9 to 36 months, 39% reported screening some, and 8% reported screening none. Among those who screen, 96% use a blood lead assay. The primary risk factors for which selective screeners screen are: history of pica (94%); living in an older home with recent renovations (92%); living in an older home with peeling paint (93%); and having a sibling who had an elevated blood lead level (88%). Among primary-care pediatricians, 73% agree that blood lead levels ≥10 µg/dL should be considered elevated, and 16% disagree. However, 89% of primary-care pediatricians believe that epidemiologic studies should be performed to determine which communities have high proportions of children with elevated blood lead levels, and 34% of primary-care pediatricians believe that the costs of screening exceed the benefits. Conclusions. Three years after the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention issued new guidelines for the management of elevated blood lead levels, a slight majority of primary-care pediatricians in the United States who are members of the AAP report that they universally screen their appropriately aged patients, while most of the remaining pediatricians report screening high-risk patients. Many pediatricians may want additional guidance about circumstances under which selective screening should be considered.


2007 ◽  
Vol 151 (5) ◽  
pp. 506-512 ◽  
Author(s):  
Camila M. Chaparro ◽  
Raymond Fornes ◽  
Lynnette M. Neufeld ◽  
Gilberto Tena Alavez ◽  
Raúl Eguía-Líz Cedillo ◽  
...  

Author(s):  
Carla Bezold ◽  
Samantha J. Bauer ◽  
Jessie P. Buckley ◽  
Stuart Batterman ◽  
Haifa Haroon ◽  
...  

Older buildings in the United States often contain lead paint, and their demolition poses the risk of community lead exposure. We investigated associations between demolitions and elevated blood lead levels (EBLLs) among Detroit children aged <6 years, 2014–2018, and evaluated yearly variation given health and safety controls implemented during this time. Case-control analysis included incident EBLL cases (≥5 µg/dL) and non-EBLL controls from test results reported to the Michigan Department of Health and Human Services. Exposure was defined as the number of demolitions (0, 1, 2+) within 400 feet of the child’s residence 45 days before the blood test. We used logistic regression to calculate odds ratios (ORs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs), and test effect modification by year. Associations between demolition and EBLL differed yearly (p = 0.07): 2+ demolitions were associated with increased odds of EBLLs in 2014 (OR: 1.75; 95% CI: (1.17, 2.55), 2016 (2.36; 1.53, 3.55) and 2017 (2.16; 1.24, 3.60), but not in 2018 (0.94; 0.41, 1.86). This pattern remained consistent in sensitivity analyses. The null association in 2018 may be related to increased health and safety controls. Maintenance of controls and monitoring are essential, along with other interventions to minimize lead exposure, especially for susceptible populations.


2021 ◽  
Vol 11 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Man Fung Tsoi ◽  
Chris Wai Hang Lo ◽  
Tommy Tsang Cheung ◽  
Bernard Man Yung Cheung

AbstractLead is a heavy metal without a biological role. High level of lead exposure is known to be associated with hypertension, but the risk at low levels of exposure is uncertain. In this study, data from US NHANES 1999–2016 were analyzed. Adults with blood lead and blood pressure measurements, or self-reported hypertension diagnosis, were included. If not already diagnosed, hypertension was defined according to the AHA/ACC 2017 hypertension guideline. Results were analyzed using R statistics version 3.5.1 with sample weight adjustment. Logistic regression was used to study the association between blood lead level and hypertension. Odds ratio (OR) and 95% confidence interval (95% CI) were estimated. Altogether, 39,477 participants were included. Every doubling in blood lead level was associated with hypertension (OR [95%CI] 1.45 [1.40–1.50]), which remained significant after adjusting for demographics. Using quartile 1 as reference, higher blood lead levels were associated with increased adjusted odds of hypertension (Quartile 4 vs. Quartile 1: 1.22 [1.09–1.36]; Quartile 3 vs. Quartile 1: 1.15 [1.04–1.28]; Quartile 2 vs. Quartile 1: 1.14 [1.05–1.25]). In conclusion, blood lead level is associated with hypertension in the general population with blood lead levels below 5 µg/dL. Our findings suggest that reducing present levels of environmental lead exposure may bring cardiovascular benefits by reducing blood pressure.


2001 ◽  
Vol 56 (6) ◽  
pp. 501-505 ◽  
Author(s):  
Aysha Habib Khan ◽  
Amanullah Khan ◽  
Farooq Ghani ◽  
Muhammad Khurshid

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document