Article

Increased rates of asthma among World Trade Center disaster responders

Department of Population Health, Hofstra North Shore-LIJ School of Medicine, New York, New York, USA.
American Journal of Industrial Medicine (Impact Factor: 1.59). 01/2012; 55(1):44-53. DOI: 10.1002/ajim.21025
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT Studies have documented high rates of asthma symptoms among responders to the World Trade Center (WTC) disaster. However, whether there are increased rates of asthma among responders compared to the general population is unknown.
The study population consisted of a prospective cohort of 20,834 responders participating in the WTC Medical Monitoring and Treatment Program between July 2002 and December 2007. We calculated prevalence and standardized morbidity ratios (SMRs) of lifetime asthma and 12-month asthma (defined as ≥1 attacks in the prior 12 months) among WTC responders. The comparison population consisted of >200,000 adults who completed the National Health Interview Survey in 2000 (for pre-9/11 comparisons) and between 2002 and 2007 (for post-9/11 comparisons).
WTC responders were on average 43 ± 9 years old, 86% male, 59% white, and 42% had an occupation in protective services. The lifetime prevalence of asthma in the general population was relatively constant at about 10% from 2000 to 2007. However, among WTC responders, lifetime prevalence increased from 3% in 2000, to 13% in 2002, and 19% in 2007. The age-adjusted overall SMR for lifetime asthma among WTC responders was 1.8 (95% CI: 1.8-1.9) for men and 2.0 (95% CI: 1.9-2.1) for women. Twelve-month asthma was also more frequent among WTC responders compared to the general population (SMR 2.4, 95% CI: 2.2-2.5) for men and 2.2 (95% CI: 2.0-2.5) for women.
WTC responders are at an increased risk of asthma as measured by lifetime prevalence or active disease.

0 Followers
 · 
129 Views
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Despite incremental lessons learned since 9/11, responder and community health remain at unnecessary risk during responses to catastrophic disasters, as evidenced during the BP Deepwater Horizon spill and Hurricanes Katrina, Rita, and Sandy. Much of the health harm that occurs during disaster response, as distinct from during the disaster event itself, is avoidable. Protection of public health should be an integral component of disaster response, which should “do no additional harm.” This commentary examines how challenges and gaps the World Trade Center response resulted in preventable occupational and environmental health harm. It proposes changes in disaster response policies to better protect the health of rescue and recovery workers, volunteers, and impacted worker and residential communities. Am. J. Ind. Med. © 2014 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.
    American Journal of Industrial Medicine 11/2014; 57(11). DOI:10.1002/ajim.22386 · 1.59 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: The World Trade Center (WTC) disaster on September 11, 2001 was an unprecedented traumatic event with long-lasting health consequences among the affected populations in the New York metropolitan area. This meta-analysis aimed to estimate the risk of probable posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) associated with specific types of WTC exposures. Meta-analytical findings from 10 studies of 3,271 to 20,294 participants yielded 37 relevant associations. The pooled summary odds ratio (OR) was 2.05 (95% confidence interval (CI): 1.82, 2.32), with substantial heterogeneity linked to exposure classification, cohort type, data source, PTSD assessment instrument/criteria, and lapse time since 9/11. In general, responders (e.g. police, firefighters, rescue/recovery workers and volunteers) had a lower probable PTSD risk (OR = 1.61; 95% CI: 1.39, 1.87) compared to civilians (e.g. residents, office workers, and passersby; OR = 2.71, 95% CI: 2.35, 3.12). The differences in ORs between responders and civilians were larger for physical compared to psychosocial exposure types. We also found that injury, lost someone, and witnessed horror were the three (out of six) most pernicious exposures. These findings suggest that these three exposures should be a particular focus in psychological evaluation and treatment programs in WTC intervention and future emergency preparedness efforts.
    PLoS ONE 07/2014; 9(7):e101491. DOI:10.1371/journal.pone.0101491 · 3.53 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: As the threat of international terrorism rises, there is an increasing requirement to provide evidence-based information and training for the emergency personnel who will respond to terrorist incidents. Current major incident training advises that emergency responders prioritize their own personal safety above that of the 'scene and survivors'. However, there is limited information available on the nature of these threats and how they may be accurately evaluated. This study reviews the published medical literature to identify the hazards experienced by emergency responders who have attended previous terrorist incidents. A PubMed literature search identified 10,894 articles on the subject of 'terrorism', and there was a dramatic increase in publications after the 9/11 attacks in 2001. There is heterogeneity in the focus and quality of this literature, and 307 articles addressing the subject of scene safety were assessed for information regarding the threats encountered at terrorist incidents. These articles demonstrate that emergency responders have been exposed to both direct terrorist threats and environmental scene hazards, including airborne particles, structural collapse, fire, and psychological stress. The emphasis of training and preparedness for terrorist incidents has been primarily on the direct threats, but the published literature suggests that the dominant causes of mortality and morbidity in responders after such incidents are the indirect environmental hazards. If the medical response to terrorist incidents is to be based on evidence rather than anecdote, analysis of the current literature should be incorporated into major incident training, and consistent collection of key data from future incidents is required.
    Critical care (London, England) 09/2014; 18(5):521. DOI:10.1186/s13054-014-0521-1