1
|
Bianchi FP, Stefanizzi P, Trerotoli P, Tafuri S. Sex and age as determinants of the seroprevalence of anti-measles IgG among European healthcare workers: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Vaccine 2022; 40:3127-3141. [PMID: 35491343 DOI: 10.1016/j.vaccine.2022.04.016] [Citation(s) in RCA: 5] [Impact Index Per Article: 2.5] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 10/08/2021] [Revised: 03/14/2022] [Accepted: 04/04/2022] [Indexed: 12/25/2022]
Abstract
INTRODUCTION The international literature shows good evidence of a significant rate of measles susceptibility among healthcare workers (HCWs). As such, they are an important public health issue. METHODS We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to estimate the prevalence of susceptible HCWs in EU/EEA countries and in the UK and to explore the characteristics (sex and age differences) and management of those found to be susceptible. RESULTS Nineteen studies were included in the meta-analysis. The prevalence of measles-susceptible HCWs was 13.3% (95 %CI: 10.0-17.0%). In a comparison of serosusceptible female vs. male HCWs, the RR was 0.92 (95 %CI = 0.83-1.03), and in a comparison of age classes (born after vs. before 1980) the RR was 2.78 (95 %CI = 2.20-3.50). The most recent studies proposed the mandatory vaccination of HCWs. DISCUSSION According to our meta-analysis, the prevalence of serosusceptible European HCWs is 13%; HCWs born in the post-vaccination era seem to be at higher risk. Healthcare professionals susceptible to measles are a serious epidemiological concern. Greater efforts should therefore be made to identify those who have yet to be vaccinated and actively encourage their vaccination.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
| | - Pasquale Stefanizzi
- Department of Biomedical Science and Human Oncology, Aldo Moro University of Bari, Italy
| | - Paolo Trerotoli
- Department of Biomedical Science and Human Oncology, Aldo Moro University of Bari, Italy
| | - Silvio Tafuri
- Department of Biomedical Science and Human Oncology, Aldo Moro University of Bari, Italy.
| |
Collapse
|
2
|
Di Pietrantonj C, Rivetti A, Marchione P, Debalini MG, Demicheli V. Vaccines for measles, mumps, rubella, and varicella in children. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2021; 11:CD004407. [PMID: 34806766 PMCID: PMC8607336 DOI: 10.1002/14651858.cd004407.pub5] [Citation(s) in RCA: 9] [Impact Index Per Article: 3.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 12/19/2022]
Abstract
BACKGROUND Measles, mumps, rubella, and varicella (chickenpox) are serious diseases that can lead to serious complications, disability, and death. However, public debate over the safety of the trivalent MMR vaccine and the resultant drop in vaccination coverage in several countries persists, despite its almost universal use and accepted effectiveness. This is an update of a review published in 2005 and updated in 2012. OBJECTIVES To assess the effectiveness, safety, and long- and short-term adverse effects associated with the trivalent vaccine, containing measles, rubella, mumps strains (MMR), or concurrent administration of MMR vaccine and varicella vaccine (MMR+V), or tetravalent vaccine containing measles, rubella, mumps, and varicella strains (MMRV), given to children aged up to 15 years. SEARCH METHODS We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (the Cochrane Library 2019, Issue 5), which includes the Cochrane Acute Respiratory Infections Group's Specialised Register, MEDLINE (1966 to 2 May 2019), Embase (1974 to 2 May 2019), the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (2 May 2019), and ClinicalTrials.gov (2 May 2019). SELECTION CRITERIA We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs), controlled clinical trials (CCTs), prospective and retrospective cohort studies (PCS/RCS), case-control studies (CCS), interrupted time-series (ITS) studies, case cross-over (CCO) studies, case-only ecological method (COEM) studies, self-controlled case series (SCCS) studies, person-time cohort (PTC) studies, and case-coverage design/screening methods (CCD/SM) studies, assessing any combined MMR or MMRV / MMR+V vaccine given in any dose, preparation or time schedule compared with no intervention or placebo, on healthy children up to 15 years of age. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS Two review authors independently extracted data and assessed the methodological quality of the included studies. We grouped studies for quantitative analysis according to study design, vaccine type (MMR, MMRV, MMR+V), virus strain, and study settings. Outcomes of interest were cases of measles, mumps, rubella, and varicella, and harms. Certainty of evidence of was rated using GRADE. MAIN RESULTS We included 138 studies (23,480,668 participants). Fifty-one studies (10,248,159 children) assessed vaccine effectiveness and 87 studies (13,232,509 children) assessed the association between vaccines and a variety of harms. We included 74 new studies to this 2019 version of the review. Effectiveness Vaccine effectiveness in preventing measles was 95% after one dose (relative risk (RR) 0.05, 95% CI 0.02 to 0.13; 7 cohort studies; 12,039 children; moderate certainty evidence) and 96% after two doses (RR 0.04, 95% CI 0.01 to 0.28; 5 cohort studies; 21,604 children; moderate certainty evidence). The effectiveness in preventing cases among household contacts or preventing transmission to others the children were in contact with after one dose was 81% (RR 0.19, 95% CI 0.04 to 0.89; 3 cohort studies; 151 children; low certainty evidence), after two doses 85% (RR 0.15, 95% CI 0.03 to 0.75; 3 cohort studies; 378 children; low certainty evidence), and after three doses was 96% (RR 0.04, 95% CI 0.01 to 0.23; 2 cohort studies; 151 children; low certainty evidence). The effectiveness (at least one dose) in preventing measles after exposure (post-exposure prophylaxis) was 74% (RR 0.26, 95% CI 0.14 to 0.50; 2 cohort studies; 283 children; low certainty evidence). The effectiveness of Jeryl Lynn containing MMR vaccine in preventing mumps was 72% after one dose (RR 0.24, 95% CI 0.08 to 0.76; 6 cohort studies; 9915 children; moderate certainty evidence), 86% after two doses (RR 0.12, 95% CI 0.04 to 0.35; 5 cohort studies; 7792 children; moderate certainty evidence). Effectiveness in preventing cases among household contacts was 74% (RR 0.26, 95% CI 0.13 to 0.49; 3 cohort studies; 1036 children; moderate certainty evidence). Vaccine effectiveness against rubella, using a vaccine with the BRD2 strain which is only used in China, is 89% (RR 0.11, 95% CI 0.03 to 0.42; 1 cohort study; 1621 children; moderate certainty evidence). Vaccine effectiveness against varicella (any severity) after two doses in children aged 11 to 22 months is 95% in a 10 years follow-up (rate ratio (rr) 0.05, 95% CI 0.03 to 0.08; 1 RCT; 2279 children; high certainty evidence). Safety There is evidence supporting an association between aseptic meningitis and MMR vaccines containing Urabe and Leningrad-Zagreb mumps strains, but no evidence supporting this association for MMR vaccines containing Jeryl Lynn mumps strains (rr 1.30, 95% CI 0.66 to 2.56; low certainty evidence). The analyses provide evidence supporting an association between MMR/MMR+V/MMRV vaccines (Jeryl Lynn strain) and febrile seizures. Febrile seizures normally occur in 2% to 4% of healthy children at least once before the age of 5. The attributable risk febrile seizures vaccine-induced is estimated to be from 1 per 1700 to 1 per 1150 administered doses. The analyses provide evidence supporting an association between MMR vaccination and idiopathic thrombocytopaenic purpura (ITP). However, the risk of ITP after vaccination is smaller than after natural infection with these viruses. Natural infection of ITP occur in 5 cases per 100,000 (1 case per 20,000) per year. The attributable risk is estimated about 1 case of ITP per 40,000 administered MMR doses. There is no evidence of an association between MMR immunisation and encephalitis or encephalopathy (rate ratio 0.90, 95% CI 0.50 to 1.61; 2 observational studies; 1,071,088 children; low certainty evidence), and autistic spectrum disorders (rate ratio 0.93, 95% CI 0.85 to 1.01; 2 observational studies; 1,194,764 children; moderate certainty). There is insufficient evidence to determine the association between MMR immunisation and inflammatory bowel disease (odds ratio 1.42, 95% CI 0.93 to 2.16; 3 observational studies; 409 cases and 1416 controls; moderate certainty evidence). Additionally, there is no evidence supporting an association between MMR immunisation and cognitive delay, type 1 diabetes, asthma, dermatitis/eczema, hay fever, leukaemia, multiple sclerosis, gait disturbance, and bacterial or viral infections. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Existing evidence on the safety and effectiveness of MMR/MMRV vaccines support their use for mass immunisation. Campaigns aimed at global eradication should assess epidemiological and socioeconomic situations of the countries as well as the capacity to achieve high vaccination coverage. More evidence is needed to assess whether the protective effect of MMR/MMRV could wane with time since immunisation.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Carlo Di Pietrantonj
- Servizio Regionale di Riferimento per l'Epidemiologia, SSEpi-SeREMI, Azienda Sanitaria Locale ASL AL, Alessandria, Italy
| | - Alessandro Rivetti
- Dipartimento di Prevenzione - S.Pre.S.A.L, ASL CN2 Alba Bra, Alba, Italy
| | - Pasquale Marchione
- Signal Management Unit, Post-Marketing Surveillance Department, Italian Medicine Agency - AIFA, Rome, Italy
| | | | - Vittorio Demicheli
- Servizio Regionale di Riferimento per l'Epidemiologia, SSEpi-SeREMI, Azienda Sanitaria Locale ASL AL, Alessandria, Italy
| |
Collapse
|
3
|
Di Pietrantonj C, Rivetti A, Marchione P, Debalini MG, Demicheli V. Vaccines for measles, mumps, rubella, and varicella in children. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2020; 4:CD004407. [PMID: 32309885 PMCID: PMC7169657 DOI: 10.1002/14651858.cd004407.pub4] [Citation(s) in RCA: 41] [Impact Index Per Article: 10.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 12/19/2022]
Abstract
BACKGROUND Measles, mumps, rubella, and varicella (chickenpox) are serious diseases that can lead to serious complications, disability, and death. However, public debate over the safety of the trivalent MMR vaccine and the resultant drop in vaccination coverage in several countries persists, despite its almost universal use and accepted effectiveness. This is an update of a review published in 2005 and updated in 2012. OBJECTIVES To assess the effectiveness, safety, and long- and short-term adverse effects associated with the trivalent vaccine, containing measles, rubella, mumps strains (MMR), or concurrent administration of MMR vaccine and varicella vaccine (MMR+V), or tetravalent vaccine containing measles, rubella, mumps, and varicella strains (MMRV), given to children aged up to 15 years. SEARCH METHODS We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (the Cochrane Library 2019, Issue 5), which includes the Cochrane Acute Respiratory Infections Group's Specialised Register, MEDLINE (1966 to 2 May 2019), Embase (1974 to 2 May 2019), the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (2 May 2019), and ClinicalTrials.gov (2 May 2019). SELECTION CRITERIA We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs), controlled clinical trials (CCTs), prospective and retrospective cohort studies (PCS/RCS), case-control studies (CCS), interrupted time-series (ITS) studies, case cross-over (CCO) studies, case-only ecological method (COEM) studies, self-controlled case series (SCCS) studies, person-time cohort (PTC) studies, and case-coverage design/screening methods (CCD/SM) studies, assessing any combined MMR or MMRV / MMR+V vaccine given in any dose, preparation or time schedule compared with no intervention or placebo, on healthy children up to 15 years of age. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS Two review authors independently extracted data and assessed the methodological quality of the included studies. We grouped studies for quantitative analysis according to study design, vaccine type (MMR, MMRV, MMR+V), virus strain, and study settings. Outcomes of interest were cases of measles, mumps, rubella, and varicella, and harms. Certainty of evidence of was rated using GRADE. MAIN RESULTS We included 138 studies (23,480,668 participants). Fifty-one studies (10,248,159 children) assessed vaccine effectiveness and 87 studies (13,232,509 children) assessed the association between vaccines and a variety of harms. We included 74 new studies to this 2019 version of the review. Effectiveness Vaccine effectiveness in preventing measles was 95% after one dose (relative risk (RR) 0.05, 95% CI 0.02 to 0.13; 7 cohort studies; 12,039 children; moderate certainty evidence) and 96% after two doses (RR 0.04, 95% CI 0.01 to 0.28; 5 cohort studies; 21,604 children; moderate certainty evidence). The effectiveness in preventing cases among household contacts or preventing transmission to others the children were in contact with after one dose was 81% (RR 0.19, 95% CI 0.04 to 0.89; 3 cohort studies; 151 children; low certainty evidence), after two doses 85% (RR 0.15, 95% CI 0.03 to 0.75; 3 cohort studies; 378 children; low certainty evidence), and after three doses was 96% (RR 0.04, 95% CI 0.01 to 0.23; 2 cohort studies; 151 children; low certainty evidence). The effectiveness (at least one dose) in preventing measles after exposure (post-exposure prophylaxis) was 74% (RR 0.26, 95% CI 0.14 to 0.50; 2 cohort studies; 283 children; low certainty evidence). The effectiveness of Jeryl Lynn containing MMR vaccine in preventing mumps was 72% after one dose (RR 0.24, 95% CI 0.08 to 0.76; 6 cohort studies; 9915 children; moderate certainty evidence), 86% after two doses (RR 0.12, 95% CI 0.04 to 0.35; 5 cohort studies; 7792 children; moderate certainty evidence). Effectiveness in preventing cases among household contacts was 74% (RR 0.26, 95% CI 0.13 to 0.49; 3 cohort studies; 1036 children; moderate certainty evidence). Vaccine effectiveness against rubella is 89% (RR 0.11, 95% CI 0.03 to 0.42; 1 cohort study; 1621 children; moderate certainty evidence). Vaccine effectiveness against varicella (any severity) after two doses in children aged 11 to 22 months is 95% in a 10 years follow-up (rate ratio (rr) 0.05, 95% CI 0.03 to 0.08; 1 RCT; 2279 children; high certainty evidence). Safety There is evidence supporting an association between aseptic meningitis and MMR vaccines containing Urabe and Leningrad-Zagreb mumps strains, but no evidence supporting this association for MMR vaccines containing Jeryl Lynn mumps strains (rr 1.30, 95% CI 0.66 to 2.56; low certainty evidence). The analyses provide evidence supporting an association between MMR/MMR+V/MMRV vaccines (Jeryl Lynn strain) and febrile seizures. Febrile seizures normally occur in 2% to 4% of healthy children at least once before the age of 5. The attributable risk febrile seizures vaccine-induced is estimated to be from 1 per 1700 to 1 per 1150 administered doses. The analyses provide evidence supporting an association between MMR vaccination and idiopathic thrombocytopaenic purpura (ITP). However, the risk of ITP after vaccination is smaller than after natural infection with these viruses. Natural infection of ITP occur in 5 cases per 100,000 (1 case per 20,000) per year. The attributable risk is estimated about 1 case of ITP per 40,000 administered MMR doses. There is no evidence of an association between MMR immunisation and encephalitis or encephalopathy (rate ratio 0.90, 95% CI 0.50 to 1.61; 2 observational studies; 1,071,088 children; low certainty evidence), and autistic spectrum disorders (rate ratio 0.93, 95% CI 0.85 to 1.01; 2 observational studies; 1,194,764 children; moderate certainty). There is insufficient evidence to determine the association between MMR immunisation and inflammatory bowel disease (odds ratio 1.42, 95% CI 0.93 to 2.16; 3 observational studies; 409 cases and 1416 controls; moderate certainty evidence). Additionally, there is no evidence supporting an association between MMR immunisation and cognitive delay, type 1 diabetes, asthma, dermatitis/eczema, hay fever, leukaemia, multiple sclerosis, gait disturbance, and bacterial or viral infections. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS Existing evidence on the safety and effectiveness of MMR/MMRV vaccines support their use for mass immunisation. Campaigns aimed at global eradication should assess epidemiological and socioeconomic situations of the countries as well as the capacity to achieve high vaccination coverage. More evidence is needed to assess whether the protective effect of MMR/MMRV could wane with time since immunisation.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Carlo Di Pietrantonj
- Azienda Sanitaria Locale ASL AL, Servizio Regionale di Riferimento per l'Epidemiologia, SSEpi-SeREMI, Via Venezia 6, Alessandria, Italy, 15121
| | - Alessandro Rivetti
- ASL CN2 Alba Bra, Dipartimento di Prevenzione - S.Pre.S.A.L, Via Vida 10, Alba, Piemonte, Italy, 12051
| | - Pasquale Marchione
- Italian Medicine Agency - AIFA, Signal Management Unit, Post-Marketing Surveillance Department, Via del Tritone 181, Rome, Italy, 00187
| | | | - Vittorio Demicheli
- Azienda Sanitaria Locale ASL AL, Servizio Regionale di Riferimento per l'Epidemiologia, SSEpi-SeREMI, Via Venezia 6, Alessandria, Italy, 15121
| |
Collapse
|
4
|
Allan A, Rowlands S. What do parents believe are the causes of their Type 1 diabetic child's condition? HEALTH EDUCATION 2020. [DOI: 10.1108/he-12-2019-0061] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/17/2022]
Abstract
PurposeThis paper aims to investigate parents' beliefs about the causes of their child's Type 1 diabetes to understand if this affects the way diagnosis is processed and if this impacts on sibling parenting.Design/methodology/approachOnline, semi-structured qualitative interviews with nine parents of children with Type 1 diabetes who have at least one non-diabetic child. The results were analysed using interpretative phenomenological analysis (IPA).FindingsTwo interlinked themes were identified: “What ifs”: parents postulated underlying genetic reasons for their child's diabetes and had working theories about the triggers of diabetes that included stress, infection, vaccination or a virus. Developing a personal aetiology of their child's condition allowed some a feeling of control, while others focused on practical ways to manage diabetes. “Having something to blame”: narratives dwelt on the relationship between beliefs about causes and self-blame. Some believed that acting on an identified trigger reduced personal guilt.Research limitations/implicationsAlthough internet access is widespread in the UK, a limitation of this research is that it excluded those without internet access.Practical implicationsThe findings of this research may provide greater depth and a more holistic perspective to the health promoter to better support parents of Type 1 diabetics.Social implicationsThe analysis of illness narratives that this research provides may offer a greater understanding of the social context in which health and illness develop. This research found some examples of parental confidence about the causes and triggers of their child's diabetes being positively associated with a sense of control. This might indicate the value of a more comprehensive larger-scale study to establish whether parents who are supported to develop a personalised conception of the aetiology of their child's diabetes develop a greater sense of coherence and well-being regarding their child's condition.Originality/valueThere is very limited literature focusing on the beliefs of sufferers and their families about Type 1 diabetes causality. Of that which does exist, some research is heterogenous in its sampling of Types 1 and 2 diabetes sufferers. This study offers a rare, focused insight into the beliefs of parents about the background causes and more proximal triggers of their child's Type 1 diabetes.
Collapse
|
5
|
Geoghegan S, O'Callaghan KP, Offit PA. Vaccine Safety: Myths and Misinformation. Front Microbiol 2020; 11:372. [PMID: 32256465 PMCID: PMC7090020 DOI: 10.3389/fmicb.2020.00372] [Citation(s) in RCA: 118] [Impact Index Per Article: 29.5] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 11/04/2019] [Accepted: 02/19/2020] [Indexed: 01/17/2023] Open
Abstract
The World Health Organization has named vaccine hesitancy as one of the top ten threats to global health in 2019. The reasons why people choose not to vaccinate are complex, but lack of confidence in vaccine safety, driven by concerns about adverse events, has been identified as one of the key factors. Healthcare workers, especially those in primary care, remain key influencers on vaccine decisions. It is important, therefore, that they be supported by having easy access to trusted, evidence-based information on vaccines. Although parents and patients have a number of concerns about vaccine safety, among the most common are fears that adjuvants like aluminum, preservatives like mercury, inactivating agents like formaldehyde, manufacturing residuals like human or animal DNA fragments, and simply the sheer number of vaccines might be overwhelming, weakening or perturbing the immune system. As a consequence, some fear that vaccines are causing autism, diabetes, developmental delays, hyperactivity, and attention-deficit disorders, amongst others. In this review we will address several of these topics and highlight the robust body of scientific evidence that refutes common concerns about vaccine safety.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Sarah Geoghegan
- Division of Infectious Diseases, The Children's Hospital of Philadelphia, Philadelphia, PA, United States.,National Children's Research Centre, Dublin, Ireland
| | - Kevin P O'Callaghan
- Division of Infectious Diseases, The Children's Hospital of Philadelphia, Philadelphia, PA, United States
| | - Paul A Offit
- Division of Infectious Diseases, The Children's Hospital of Philadelphia, Philadelphia, PA, United States
| |
Collapse
|
6
|
Norris JM, Johnson RK, Stene LC. Type 1 diabetes-early life origins and changing epidemiology. Lancet Diabetes Endocrinol 2020; 8:226-238. [PMID: 31999944 PMCID: PMC7332108 DOI: 10.1016/s2213-8587(19)30412-7] [Citation(s) in RCA: 166] [Impact Index Per Article: 41.5] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 10/20/2019] [Revised: 11/25/2019] [Accepted: 11/25/2019] [Indexed: 12/20/2022]
Abstract
Type 1 diabetes is a chronic, immune-mediated disease characterised by the destruction of insulin-producing cells. Standardised registry data show that type 1 diabetes incidence has increased 3-4% over the past three decades, supporting the role of environmental factors. Although several factors have been associated with type 1 diabetes, none of the associations are of a magnitude that could explain the rapid increase in incidence alone. Moreover, evidence of changing prevalence of these exposures over time is insufficient. Multiple factors could simultaneously explain the changing type 1 diabetes incidence, or the magnitude of observed associations could have been underestimated because of exposure measurement error, or the mismodelling of complex exposure-time-response relationships. The identification of environmental factors influencing the risk of type 1 diabetes and increased understanding of the cause at the individual level, regardless of the ability to explain the changing incidence at the population level, is important because of the implications for prevention.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Jill M Norris
- Department of Epidemiology, Colorado School of Public Health, Aurora, CO, USA.
| | - Randi K Johnson
- Division of Biomedical Informatics and Personalized Medicine, University of Colorado Anschutz Medical Campus, Aurora, CO, USA
| | - Lars C Stene
- Department of Chronic Diseases and Ageing, Norwegian Institute of Public Health, Oslo, Norway
| |
Collapse
|
7
|
Butalia S, Kaplan GG, Khokhar B, Haubrich S, Rabi DM. The Challenges of Identifying Environmental Determinants of Type 1 Diabetes: In Search of the Holy Grail. Diabetes Metab Syndr Obes 2020; 13:4885-4895. [PMID: 33328748 PMCID: PMC7734044 DOI: 10.2147/dmso.s275080] [Citation(s) in RCA: 1] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 08/01/2020] [Accepted: 10/15/2020] [Indexed: 12/21/2022] Open
Abstract
Type 1 diabetes is the result of autoimmune-mediated destruction and inflammation of the insulin-producing β-cells of the pancreas. The excess morbidity and mortality from its complications coupled with its increasing incidence emphasize the importance to better understand the etiology of this condition. It has a strong genetic component, but a genetic predisposition is not the sole contributor to disease development as only 30% to 50% of identical twins both develop the disease. In addition, there are multiple lines of evidence to support that environmental factors contribute to the pathogenesis of type 1 diabetes. Environmental risk factors that have been proposed include infections, dietary factors, air pollution, vaccines, location of residence, childhood obesity, family environment and stress. Researchers have conducted many observational studies to identify and characterize these potential environmental factors, but findings have been inconsistent or inconclusive. Many studies have had inherent methodological issues in recruitment, participation, defining cases and exposures, and/or data analysis which may limit the interpretability of findings. Identifying and addressing these limitations may allow for greatly needed advances in our understanding of type 1 diabetes. As such, the purpose of this article is to review and discuss the limitations of observational studies that aim to determine environmental risk factors for type 1 diabetes and propose recommendations to overcome them.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Sonia Butalia
- Department of Medicine, Cumming School of Medicine, University of Calgary, Calgary, Alberta, Canada
- Department of Community Health Sciences, Cumming School of Medicine, University of Calgary, Calgary, Alberta, Canada
- O’Brien Institute for Public Health, Cumming School of Medicine, University of Calgary, Calgary, Alberta, Canada
- Libin Cardiovascular Institute, Cumming School of Medicine, University of Calgary, Calgary, Alberta, Canada
- Correspondence: Sonia ButaliaDivision of Endocrinology and Metabolism, Richmond Road Diagnostic and Treatment Centre, 1820 Richmond Road SW, Calgary, AlbertaT2T 5C7, CanadaTel +1 403-955-8327Fax +1 403-955-8249 Email
| | - Gilaad G Kaplan
- Department of Medicine, Cumming School of Medicine, University of Calgary, Calgary, Alberta, Canada
- Department of Community Health Sciences, Cumming School of Medicine, University of Calgary, Calgary, Alberta, Canada
- O’Brien Institute for Public Health, Cumming School of Medicine, University of Calgary, Calgary, Alberta, Canada
| | - Bushra Khokhar
- Department of Community Health Sciences, Cumming School of Medicine, University of Calgary, Calgary, Alberta, Canada
| | - Sydney Haubrich
- Ward of the 21st Century, University of Calgary, Calgary, Alberta, Canada
| | - Doreen M Rabi
- Department of Medicine, Cumming School of Medicine, University of Calgary, Calgary, Alberta, Canada
- Department of Community Health Sciences, Cumming School of Medicine, University of Calgary, Calgary, Alberta, Canada
- O’Brien Institute for Public Health, Cumming School of Medicine, University of Calgary, Calgary, Alberta, Canada
- Libin Cardiovascular Institute, Cumming School of Medicine, University of Calgary, Calgary, Alberta, Canada
- Department of Cardiac Sciences, Faculty of Medicine, University of Calgary, Calgary, Alberta, Canada
| |
Collapse
|
8
|
Viskari H, Oikarinen S, Hoppu S, Vuorinen T, Huhtala H, Toppari J, Veijola R, Ilonen J, Knip M, Hyöty H. Live attenuated enterovirus vaccine (OPV) is not associated with islet autoimmunity in children with genetic susceptibility to type 1 diabetes: prospective cohort study. Diabetologia 2018; 61:203-209. [PMID: 28866779 DOI: 10.1007/s00125-017-4410-4] [Citation(s) in RCA: 4] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.7] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 05/23/2017] [Accepted: 07/10/2017] [Indexed: 12/27/2022]
Abstract
AIMS/HYPOTHESIS Animal and human studies have implied that enterovirus infections may modulate the risk of islet autoimmunity and type 1 diabetes. We set out to assess whether serial administration of live oral poliovirus vaccine (OPV) in early life can influence the initiation of islet autoimmunity in a cohort of genetically predisposed children. METHODS OPV was administered to 64 children and a further 251 children received inactivated poliovirus vaccine (IPV). The emergence of type 1 diabetes-associated autoantibodies in serum (autoantibodies to GAD, insulinoma-associated protein 2, insulin and islet cells) was monitored during prospective follow-up. Stool and serum samples were collected for enterovirus detection by RT-PCR. RESULTS Administration of OPV increased enterovirus detected in stool samples from 11.3% to 38.9% (p < 0.001) during the first year of life. During the follow-up (median 11.0 years), at least one autoantibody was detected in 17.2% of children vaccinated with OPV and 19.1% with IPV (p = 0.723). At least two autoantibodies were observed in 3.1% and 6.8% of children, respectively (p = 0.384). CONCLUSIONS/INTERPRETATION Replication of attenuated poliovirus strains in gut mucosa is not associated with an increased risk of islet autoimmunity. TRIAL REGISTRATION ClinicalTrials.gov : NCT02961595.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Hanna Viskari
- Department of Virology, Faculty of Medicine and Life Sciences, University of Tampere, Tampere, Finland.
- Department of Internal Medicine, Tampere University Hospital, 33520, Tampere, Finland.
| | - Sami Oikarinen
- Department of Virology, Faculty of Medicine and Life Sciences, University of Tampere, Tampere, Finland
- Fimlab Laboratories, Pirkanmaa Hospital District, Tampere, Finland
| | - Sanna Hoppu
- Department of Intensive Care, Tampere University Hospital, Tampere, Finland
| | - Tytti Vuorinen
- Department of Clinical Virology, Turku University Hospital, Turku, Finland
- Department of Virology, University of Turku, Turku, Finland
| | - Heini Huhtala
- Faculty of Social Sciences, University of Tampere, Tampere, Finland
| | - Jorma Toppari
- Department of Physiology, Institute of Biomedicine, University of Turku, Turku, Finland
- Department of Pediatrics, Turku University Hospital, Turku, Finland
| | - Riitta Veijola
- Department of Pediatrics, PEDEGO Research Unit, Medical Research Center, Oulu University Hospital and University of Oulu, Oulu, Finland
| | - Jorma Ilonen
- Immunogenetics Laboratory, University of Turku and Turku University Hospital, Turku, Finland
| | - Mikael Knip
- Children's Hospital, University of Helsinki and Helsinki University Hospital, Helsinki, Finland
- Research Programs Unit, Diabetes and Obesity, University of Helsinki, Helsinki, Finland
- Department of Pediatrics, Tampere University Hospital, Tampere, Finland
- Folklhälsan Research Center, Helsinki, Finland
| | - Heikki Hyöty
- Department of Virology, Faculty of Medicine and Life Sciences, University of Tampere, Tampere, Finland
- Fimlab Laboratories, Pirkanmaa Hospital District, Tampere, Finland
| |
Collapse
|