Suppr超能文献

家庭饮水氯化对印度奥里萨邦五岁以下儿童腹泻的影响:一项双盲随机安慰剂对照试验。

Effect of household-based drinking water chlorination on diarrhoea among children under five in Orissa, India: a double-blind randomised placebo-controlled trial.

机构信息

Department of Disease Control, Faculty of Tropical and Infectious Diseases, London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine, London, United Kingdom.

出版信息

PLoS Med. 2013 Aug;10(8):e1001497. doi: 10.1371/journal.pmed.1001497. Epub 2013 Aug 20.

Abstract

BACKGROUND

Boiling, disinfecting, and filtering water within the home can improve the microbiological quality of drinking water among the hundreds of millions of people who rely on unsafe water supplies. However, the impact of these interventions on diarrhoea is unclear. Most studies using open trial designs have reported a protective effect on diarrhoea while blinded studies of household water treatment in low-income settings have found no such effect. However, none of those studies were powered to detect an impact among children under five and participants were followed-up over short periods of time. The aim of this study was to measure the effect of in-home water disinfection on diarrhoea among children under five.

METHODS AND FINDINGS

We conducted a double-blind randomised controlled trial between November 2010 and December 2011. The study included 2,163 households and 2,986 children under five in rural and urban communities of Orissa, India. The intervention consisted of an intensive promotion campaign and free distribution of sodium dichloroisocyanurate (NaDCC) tablets during bi-monthly households visits. An independent evaluation team visited households monthly for one year to collect health data and water samples. The primary outcome was the longitudinal prevalence of diarrhoea (3-day point prevalence) among children aged under five. Weight-for-age was also measured at each visit to assess its potential as a proxy marker for diarrhoea. Adherence was monitored each month through caregiver's reports and the presence of residual free chlorine in the child's drinking water at the time of visit. On 20% of the total household visits, children's drinking water was assayed for thermotolerant coliforms (TTC), an indicator of faecal contamination. The primary analysis was on an intention-to-treat basis. Binomial regression with a log link function and robust standard errors was used to compare prevalence of diarrhoea between arms. We used generalised estimating equations to account for clustering at the household level. The impact of the intervention on weight-for-age z scores (WAZ) was analysed using random effect linear regression. Over the follow-up period, 84,391 child-days of observations were recorded, representing 88% of total possible child-days of observation. The longitudinal prevalence of diarrhoea among intervention children was 1.69% compared to 1.74% among controls. After adjusting for clustering within household, the prevalence ratio of the intervention to control was 0.95 (95% CI 0.79-1.13). The mean WAZ was similar among children of the intervention and control groups (-1.586 versus -1.589, respectively). Among intervention households, 51% reported their child's drinking water to be treated with the tablets at the time of visit, though only 32% of water samples tested positive for residual chlorine. Faecal contamination of drinking water was lower among intervention households than controls (geometric mean TTC count of 50 [95% CI 44-57] per 100 ml compared to 122 [95% CI 107-139] per 100 ml among controls [p<0.001] [n = 4,546]).

CONCLUSIONS

Our study was designed to overcome the shortcomings of previous double-blinded trials of household water treatment in low-income settings. The sample size was larger, the follow-up period longer, both urban and rural populations were included, and adherence and water quality were monitored extensively over time. These results provide no evidence that the intervention was protective against diarrhoea. Low compliance and modest reduction in water contamination may have contributed to the lack of effect. However, our findings are consistent with other blinded studies of similar interventions and raise additional questions about the actual health impact of household water treatment under these conditions.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.govNCT01202383 Please see later in the article for the Editors' Summary.

摘要

背景

在家中煮沸、消毒和过滤水可以改善数亿人依靠不安全供水的饮用水的微生物质量。然而,这些干预措施对腹泻的影响尚不清楚。大多数采用开放试验设计的研究报告称对腹泻有保护作用,而在低收入地区进行的家庭水处理盲法研究则没有发现这种效果。然而,这些研究都没有足够的能力来检测五岁以下儿童的影响,而且参与者的随访时间都很短。本研究旨在测量家庭水消毒对五岁以下儿童腹泻的影响。

方法和发现

我们于 2010 年 11 月至 2011 年 12 月期间进行了一项双盲随机对照试验。该研究包括印度奥里萨邦农村和城市社区的 2163 户家庭和 2986 名五岁以下儿童。干预措施包括在每两个月一次的家庭访问中进行密集的宣传活动和免费发放二氯异氰尿酸钠(NaDCC)片剂。一个独立的评估小组每月对家庭进行一次为期一年的访问,以收集健康数据和水样。主要结果是五岁以下儿童腹泻的纵向患病率(3 天点患病率)。在每次访问时还测量了体重与年龄的比值(WAZ),以评估其作为腹泻替代标志物的潜力。每月通过护理人员的报告和儿童饮用水中游离余氯的存在来监测依从性。在总家庭访问的 20%中,对儿童饮用水进行耐热大肠菌群(TTC)检测,这是粪便污染的一个指标。主要分析是基于意向治疗原则。采用二项式回归对数链接函数和稳健标准误差,比较两组腹泻的患病率。我们使用广义估计方程来解释家庭层面的聚类。干预对体重与年龄比值(WAZ)的影响采用随机效应线性回归进行分析。在随访期间,记录了 84391 个儿童日的观察结果,占总可能观察儿童日的 88%。干预组儿童腹泻的纵向患病率为 1.69%,对照组为 1.74%。在校正家庭内的聚类后,干预与对照的患病率比为 0.95(95%CI 0.79-1.13)。干预组和对照组儿童的平均 WAZ 相似(分别为-1.586 和-1.589)。在干预家庭中,有 51%的人报告他们孩子的饮用水用片剂处理过,但只有 32%的水样检测出游离氯呈阳性。与对照组相比,干预家庭饮用水的粪便污染程度较低(每 100 毫升的几何平均值 TTC 计数为 50[95%CI 44-57],而对照组为 122[95%CI 107-139],p<0.001[n=4546])。

结论

我们的研究旨在克服以前在低收入环境中进行的家庭水处理双盲试验的缺点。样本量更大,随访时间更长,包括城市和农村人口,并且随着时间的推移,依从性和水质得到了广泛的监测。这些结果没有证据表明干预措施对腹泻有保护作用。低依从性和适度降低水的污染可能是导致没有效果的原因。然而,我们的发现与类似干预措施的其他盲法研究一致,并对这些条件下家庭水处理的实际健康影响提出了额外的问题。

临床试验注册

ClinicalTrials.govNCT01202383 请稍后在文章中查看编辑摘要。

https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/d8ce/3747993/404289c59736/pmed.1001497.g001.jpg

文献检索

告别复杂PubMed语法,用中文像聊天一样搜索,搜遍4000万医学文献。AI智能推荐,让科研检索更轻松。

立即免费搜索

文件翻译

保留排版,准确专业,支持PDF/Word/PPT等文件格式,支持 12+语言互译。

免费翻译文档

深度研究

AI帮你快速写综述,25分钟生成高质量综述,智能提取关键信息,辅助科研写作。

立即免费体验