| Literature DB >> 18588694 |
Philip J Cooper1, Neal Alexander, Ana-Lucia Moncayo, Susana M Benitez, Martha E Chico, Maritza G Vaca, George E Griffin.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The environmental factors that determine the elevated levels of polyclonal IgE observed in populations living in the Tropics are poorly understood but may include geohelminth infections. We investigated the association between geohelminth infections and total IgE levels in school children in rural tropical Ecuador, and assessed the effect on IgE of repeated anthelmintic treatments over a period of 12 months. The study was nested within a cluster-randomized study that randomized 68 schools to receive either 400 mg of albendazole every 2 months over a year or no treatment. We studied random samples of children completing follow-up and representing four groups stratified by the presence of geohelminth infection at baseline and treatment allocation. We measured levels of total IgE and anti-A. lumbricoides IgG (used as a measure of past and current geohelminth infectious exposure) in blood samples collected at the start of the study and after 12 months.Entities:
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2008 PMID: 18588694 PMCID: PMC2459155 DOI: 10.1186/1471-2172-9-33
Source DB: PubMed Journal: BMC Immunol ISSN: 1471-2172 Impact factor: 3.615
Baseline characteristics of the four study groups.
| Variable | Infection/No treatment (n = 100) | No infection/No treatment (n = 100) | Infection/treatment (n = 100) | No infection/Treatment (n = 100) |
| Age (years) | ||||
| Mean (SD) | 9.5 (2.0) | 9.3 (1.8) | 9.2 (1.6) | 9.4 (1.8) |
| Sex | ||||
| Male/Female | 55/45 | 47/43 | 50/50 | 54/46 |
| Socioeconomic level | ||||
| Mean (SD) | 2.6 (1.1) | 2.0 (0.9) | 2.2 (0.9) | 1.9 (0/8) |
| Body mass index (kg/m2) | ||||
| Mean (SD) | 15.8 (1.8) | 15.9 (2.5) | 15.6 (1.5) | 16.1 (2.4) |
| Crowding (persons/room) | ||||
| Mean (SD) | 2.7 (1.2) | 2.4 (1.2) | 2.8 (1.1) | 2.4 (1.1) |
| Geohelminth prevalence (%) | ||||
| Any | 100 | 0 | 100 | 0 |
| | 75 | 0 | 73 | 0 |
| | 76 | 0 | 80 | 0 |
| Hookworm | 19 | 0 | 15 | 0 |
| | 3 | 0 | 3 | 0 |
| Intensity, GM (range) epg | ||||
| | 5,658 (70–227,500) | 0 | 6,512 (70–182,700) | 0 |
| | 602 (70–40,250) | 0 | 583 (70–13,720) | 0 |
| Number of albendazole treatments | ||||
| 0 | 98% | 97% | 0% | 0% |
| 1–3 | 2% | 2% | 4% | 0% |
| 4–6 | 0% | 0% | 3% | 8% |
| 7 | 0% | 1% | 93% | 92% |
GM – geometric mean. SD – standard deviation. Epg – eggs per gramme of stool. Anthelmintic treatments were with single doses of 400 mg of albendazole.
Figure 1Prevalence of infection with geohelminths during the study. Shown is the prevalence of infections before receiving the 1st dose of albendazole (0 months) and at 12 months (before receiving the 7th dose of albendazole) in the four study groups. Groups are: 1) infection/no treatment (light grey columns), 2) no infection/no treatment (dark grey), 3) infection/treatment (hatched), and 4) no infection/treatment (checked).
Relationship between baseline variables and levels of total IgE before treatment.
| Geometric mean total IgE at baseline | |||||||||
| Variable | Model 1 | Model 2 | Model 3 | Model 4 | |||||
| Fold difference (95% CI) | p value | Fold difference (95% CI) | p value | Fold difference (95% CI) | p value | Fold difference (95% CI) | p value | ||
| Age (per year) | 1.01 (0.94–1.10) | 0.74 | 1.01 (0.94–1.09) | 0.78 | 1.02 (0.94–1.10) | 0.70 | 1.05 (0.97–1.12) | 0.23 | |
| Sex (females relative to males) | 0.83 (0.64–1.07) | 0.15 | 0.84 (0.65–1.09) | 0.20 | 0.85 (0.66–1.10) | 0.22 | 0.86 (0.68–1.10) | 0.24 | |
| Body Mass Index (per kg/m2) | 1.01 (0.94–1.08) | 0.81 | 1.01 (0.95–1.08) | 0.73 | 1.01 (0.95–1.08) | 0.68 | 1.00 (0.94–1.06) | 0.98 | |
| Socioeconomic level (per unit score) | 1.10 (0.95–1.27) | 0.18 | 1.09 (0.94–1.26) | 0.25 | 1.11 (0.96–1.28) | 0.17 | 1.06 (0.93–1.21) | 0.40 | |
| Crowding (per person/sleeping room) | 0.98 (0.87–1.10) | 0.74 | 0.98 (0.87–1.10) | 0.74 | 0.97 (0.87–1.09) | 0.66 | 1.00 (0.90–1.11) | 0.99 | |
| Treated group (relative to untreated) | 0.95 (0.73–1.24) | 0.71 | 0.95 (0.73–1.23) | 0.69 | 0.96 (0.74–1.25) | 0.79 | 0.96 (0.75–1.23) | 0.75 | |
| Geohelminth prevalence at t = 0 (present versus absent) | |||||||||
| Any | 2.10 (1.60–2.75) | 1.55 (1.19–2.01) | |||||||
| | 1.38 (0.99–1.91) | 0.06 | |||||||
| | 1.79 (1.31–2.46) | ||||||||
| Hookworm | 1.60 (0.99–2.60) | 0.06 | 1.55 (0.95–2.52) | 0.08 | |||||
| | 0.77 (0.26–2.23) | 0.62 | 0.71 (0.24–2.05) | 0.52 | |||||
| Geohelminth intensity (epg) at t = 0 (relative to no infection) | |||||||||
| | 1–8000 | 1.55 (1.05–2.30) | 0.03 | ||||||
| >8000 | 1.33 (0.85–2.08) | 0.21 | |||||||
| | 1–500 | 1.32 (0.90–1.96) | 0.16 | ||||||
| >500 | 2.23 (1.44–3.43) | ||||||||
| Anti- | |||||||||
| (relative to lower tertile) IgGc | |||||||||
| middle tertile | 1.64 (1.21–2.23) | ||||||||
| upper tertile | 3.51 (2.55–4.82) | ||||||||
Statistical significance, after Bonferroni corrections, is inferred by: Model 1 (P < 0.05), Model 2 (P < 0.01), Model 3 (P < 0.008), and Model 4 (P < 0.02). Statistically significant P values are shown in bold for each model. P values for trend: a0.08, b, c<0.001.
Figure 2Effect of albendazole treatment on changes in levels of total IgE (A) and Ascaris lumbricoides-specific IgG (B) antibodies at 12 months compared to baseline. 100% indicates no change. Groups are: 1) infection/no treatment (light grey boxes), 2) no infection/no treatment (dark grey), 3) infection/treatment (hatched), and 4) no infection/treatment (checked). Box plots show median (middle line), interquartile range (box margins), 95% data range (bars), and outlying values (circles). Statistical significance in both Figures, after Bonferroni corrections (only the 4 comparisons shown were considered), is inferred by P < 0.0125.
Relationship between variables and geometric mean fold change in total IgE at 12 months compared to baseline.
| Explanatory variable | Fold difference in geometric mean of fold change in total IgE from 0 to 12 months | |||||||||
| Model 1 | Model 2 | Model 3 | Model 4 | |||||||
| Fold difference (95% CI) | p value | Fold difference (95% CI) | p value | Fold difference (95% CI) | p value | Fold difference (95% CI) | p value | |||
| Age (per year) | 1.01 (0.94–1.10) | 0.08 | 0.98 (0.95–1.00) | 0.10 | 0.98 (0.95–1.00) | 0.08 | 0.98 (0.95–1.00) | 0.09 | ||
| Sex (females relative to males) | 0.97 (0.88–1.06) | 0.48 | 0.96 (0.88–1.06) | 0.42 | 0.96 (0.88–1.06) | 0.44 | 0.97 (0.88–1.06) | 0.50 | ||
| Body Mass Index (per kg/m2) | 1.00 (0.98–1.02) | 0.89 | 1.00 (0.98–1.02) | 0.95 | 1.00 (0.98–1.02) | 0.98 | 1.00 (0.98–1.02) | 0.89 | ||
| Socioeconomic level (per unit score) | 0.97 (0.92–1.02) | 0.22 | 0.97 (0.92–1.02) | 0.22 | 0.97 (0.92–1.02) | 0.19 | 0.97 (0.93–1.02) | 0.30 | ||
| Crowding (per person/sleeping room) | 0.98 (0.94–1.02) | 0.28 | 0.98 (0.94–1.02) | 0.31 | 0.98 (0.94–1.02) | 0.31 | 0.98 (0.94–1.02) | 0.26 | ||
| Treated group (relative to untreated) | 0.76 (0.69–0.84) | 0.75 (0.68–0.84) | 0.75 (0.68–0.84) | 0.77 (0.70–0.86) | ||||||
| Geohelminth prevalence at t = 0 (present versus absent). | Any | 0.88 (0.80–0.97) | 0.89 (0.81–0.99) | 0.03 | ||||||
| 0.95 (0.85–1.07) | 0.38 | |||||||||
| 0.95 (0.84 1.07) | 0.40 | |||||||||
| Hookworm | 0.81 (0.67–0.96) | 0.02 | 0.80 (0.67–0.96) | 0.02 | ||||||
| 1.15 (0.78–1.69) | 0.47 | 1.19 (0.81–1.75) | 0.38 | |||||||
| Geohelminth prevalence at t = 12 (present versus absent). | Any | 1.14 (1.02–1.26) | 1.13 (1.02–1.26) | 0.02 | ||||||
| 1.11 (0.98–1.26) | 0.11 | |||||||||
| 1.04 (0.92–1.18) | 0.49 | |||||||||
| Hookworm | 1.04 (0.81–1.33) | 0.76 | 1.08 (0.84–1.38) | 0.56 | ||||||
| 0.92 (0.56–1.51) | 0.74 | 0.92 (0.56–1.52) | 0.76 | |||||||
| Geohelminth intensity (epg) at t = 0 (relative to no infection) | 1–8000 | 0.94 (0.82–1.08) | 0.40 | |||||||
| >8000 | 0.86 (0.73–1.00) | 0.05 | ||||||||
| 1–500 | 1.06 (0.92–1.21) | 0.45 | ||||||||
| >500 | 0.93 (0.79–1.10) | 0.42 | ||||||||
| Geohelminth intensity (epg) at t = 12 (relative to no infection) | 1–8000 | 1.12 (0.94–1.35) | 0.20 | |||||||
| >8000 | 1.15 (0.93–1.42) | 0.21 | ||||||||
| 1–500 | 1.08 (0.93–1.25) | 0.32 | ||||||||
| >500 | 1.03 (0.85–1.25) | 0.76 | ||||||||
| Anti- | middle tertile | 0.87 (0.75–1.00) | 0.05 | |||||||
| upper tertile | 0.81 (0.68–0.96) | 0.02 | ||||||||
| Anti- | middle tertileg | 1.14 (0.99–1.31) | 0.06 | |||||||
| upper tertile | 1.22 (1.02–1.46) | 0.03 | ||||||||
Statistical significance, after Bonferroni corrections, is inferred by: Model 1 (P < 0.03), Model 2 (P < 0.006), Model 3 (P < 0.004), and Model 4 (P < 0.008). Statistically significant P values are shown in bold for each of the 4 models. P values for test for trend: a0.05 b0.61 c0.13 d0.55 e0.018 f0.025. gTertile boundaries are defined by the t = 0 data and applied also to the t = 12 data.