4.6 Article

A quantitative microbial risk assessment model for Legionnaires' disease: Animal model selection and dose-response modeling

期刊

RISK ANALYSIS
卷 27, 期 6, 页码 1581-1596

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/j.1539-6924.2007.00990.x

关键词

dose-response assessment; legionella pneumophila; Legionnaires' disease; microbial risk assessment

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Legionnaires' disease (LD), first reported in 1976, is an atypical pneumonia caused by bacteria of the genus Legionella, and most frequently by L. pneumophila (Lp). Subsequent research on exposure to the organism employed various animal models, and with quantitative microbial risk assessment (QMRA) techniques, the animal model data may provide insights on human dose-response for LD. This article focuses on the rationale for selection of the guinea pig model, comparison of the dose-response model results, comparison of projected low-dose responses for guinea pigs, and risk estimates for humans. Based on both in vivo and in vitro comparisons, the guinea pig (Cavia porcellus) dose-response data were selected for modeling human risk. We completed dose-response modeling for the beta-Poisson (approximate and exact), exponential, probit, logistic, and Weibull models for Lp inhalation, mortality, and infection (end point elevated body temperature) in guinea pigs. For mechanistic reasons, including low-dose exposure probability, further work on human risk estimates for LD employed the exponential and beta-Poisson models. With an exposure of 10 colony-forming units (CFU) (retained dose), the QMRA model predicted a mild infection risk of 0.4 (as evaluated by seroprevalence) and a clinical severity LD case (e.g., hospitalization and supportive care) risk of 0.0009. The calculated rates based on estimated human exposures for outbreaks used for the QMRA model validation are within an order of magnitude of the reported LD rates. These validation results suggest the LD QMRA animal model selection, dose-response modeling, and extension to human risk projections were appropriate.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据