| Literature DB >> 28083719 |
J W Uzorka1,2, S M Arend3.
Abstract
While postnatal toxoplasmosis in immune-competent patients is generally considered a self-limiting and mild illness, it has been associated with a variety of more severe clinical manifestations. The causal relation with some manifestations, e.g. myocarditis, has been microbiologically proven, but this is not unequivocally so for other reported associations, such as with epilepsy. We aimed to systematically assess causality between postnatal toxoplasmosis and epilepsy in immune-competent patients. A literature search was performed. The Bradford Hill criteria for causality were used to score selected articles for each component of causality. Using an arbitrary but defined scoring system, the maximal score was 15 points (13 for case reports). Of 704 articles, five case reports or series and five case-control studies were selected. The strongest evidence for a causal relation was provided by two case reports and one case-control study, with a maximal causality score of, respectively, 9/13, 10/13 and 10/15. The remaining studies had a median causality score of 7 (range 5-9). No selection bias was identified, but 6/10 studies contained potential confounders (it was unsure whether the infection was pre- or postnatal acquired, or immunodeficiency was not specifically excluded). Based on the evaluation of the available literature, although scanty and of limited quality, a causal relationship between postnatal toxoplasmosis and epilepsy seems possible. More definite proof requires further research, e.g. by performing Toxoplasma serology in all de novo epilepsy cases.Entities:
Mesh:
Year: 2017 PMID: 28083719 PMCID: PMC5495839 DOI: 10.1007/s10096-016-2897-0
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Eur J Clin Microbiol Infect Dis ISSN: 0934-9723 Impact factor: 3.267
Criteria and scoring method for assessment of the causality of postnatal toxoplasmosis for the development of epilepsy
| Bradford Hill criteria | Explanation | Score (points) | Criteria for score |
|---|---|---|---|
| Strength | What was the strength of the association? | OR/RR is strong (2) | 2: OR/RR ≥ 4 and significant |
| OR/RR is weak (1) | 1: OR/RR < 4 and significant | ||
| No association (0) | 0: No significant association | ||
| Not applicable (NA) | NA: case report(s) | ||
| Consistency | Was the result found in different settings, by different authors?a | Yes (2) | 2: if ≥ 2 different settings and ≥ 2 different groups |
| Yes (1) | 1: if ≥ 2 different settings or ≥ 2 different groups | ||
| No (0) | 0: only 1 setting and 1 group | ||
| Specificity | Was the tested group representative for a general conclusion? | Yes (2) | 2: tested group reflects population of interest |
| Partially (1) | 1: tested group was randomly selected from a | ||
| No (0) | 0: strongly selected subjects | ||
| Temporality | Did the effect take place after the exposure? | Yes (2) | Note that exposure indicates infection with |
| No or not evaluable (0) | |||
| Gradient | Is there a relation between the amount of exposure and (the severity of) the disease? | Yes (2) | For lack of alternative parameter, amount of exposure was defined as higher antibody titres to |
| No (0) | |||
| Plausibility | Is the causation biologically plausible?a | Yes (1) | 1: a plausible pathophysiological explanation is available |
| No (0) | |||
| Coherence | Is the relation between exposure and disease in conflict with our current data?a | No (1) | Current data consist of knowledge taught in standard medical textbooks or other sources (note that the lack of conflict yields a positive score). |
| Yes (0) | |||
| Experiment | Did anti- | Yes (2) | 2: treatment was randomised |
| Yes (1) | 1: treatment was not randomised | ||
| No/not sure (0) | |||
| Analogy | Are there similar associations?a | Yes (1) | 1: any other infection associated with development of epilepsy |
| No (0) |
aThese four criteria were not applicable to individual articles but were scored simultaneously for all articles in the present study (see the Results section)
Causality scores of the selected articles
| Reference | Year of publication | Design | No. of cases | Age (years) | Strength | Consistencya | Specificity | Temporality | Gradient | Plausibilitya | Coherencea | Experiment | Analogya | Score/maximal scoreb |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| [ | 1966 | Case series | 5 | 4 to 12 | NA | 2 | 2 | 2 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 10/13 |
| [ | 1978 | Case report | 1 | 16 | NA | 2 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 6/13 |
| [ | 1980 | Case report | 1 | 28 | NA | 2 | 1 | 2 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 8/13 |
| [ | 1982 | Case–control | 204 | Avg. cases: 51.4 | 0 | 2 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 6/15 |
| [ | 1987 | Case report | 1 | 22 | NA | 2 | 1 | 2 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 9/13 |
| [ | 2001 | Case–control | 45 | Avg. cases: 43 | 1 | 2 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 7/15 |
| [ | 2003 | Case–control | 150 | Avg. cases: 37.8 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 9/15 |
| [ | 2007 | Case–control | 150 | Avg. cases: 28.9 | 0 | 2 | 2 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 7/15 |
| [ | 2014 | Case–control | 1977c | Cases: 0 to 50+ | 1 | 2 | 2 | 0 | 2 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 10/15 |
| [ | 2016 | Case report | 1 | 15 | NA | 2 | 1 | 2 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 7/13 |
aThese criteria were allocated scores for all articles simultaneously
bFor case reports, the maximal score was 13, as the criterion of strength was not applicable
cAfter excluding HIV-infected patients
Bias and confounding of selected articles
| Reference | Bias and confounding | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Information bias | Selection bias | Confounding | Total | |
| [ | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| [ | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1a |
| [ | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| [ | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1b |
| [ | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| [ | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1b |
| [ | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1b |
| [ | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1b |
| [ | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1b |
| [ | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
aIn this study, immunodeficiency was not specifically excluded
bIn these five studies, it was unsure whether the infection was pre- or postnatally acquired