| Literature DB >> 29664909 |
Anne-Louise Ponsonby1,2, Angela Pezic1, Fergus J Cameron1, Christine Rodda1,3, Andrew S Kemp1, John B Carlin1, Heikki Hyoty4, Amirbabak Sioofy-Khojine4, Terence Dwyer1,5, Justine A Ellis1,6, Maria E Craig7,8.
Abstract
We aimed to examine the association between parental occupational social contact and hygiene factors on type 1 diabetes (T1D) risk and possible mediation of these effects through child enteroviral infection. We interviewed 333 incident T1D cases and 660 controls from 2008-2011 in Melbourne, Australia. Enteroviral indices (ribonucleic acid by reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction and Coxsackie B virus antibody levels) in peripheral blood were measured in nested case control samples. Parent occupational social contact was assessed by the number of well or sick children, adults or animals contacted daily through work. Higher parental occupational social contact was strongly associated with reduced T1D risk with evidence of dose response (contact with the well or sick score, Adjusted odds ratio (AOR) per category: 0.73 (95% Confidence Interval (CI): 0.66, 0.81); P<0.001 or AOR 0.63 (95% CI: 0.53, 0.75); P<0.001) respectively). Nine of the ten parental social contact indices, were significant mediated through one or more enteroviral indices. The strength of association between enterovirus presence and T1D onset increased with child age (1.2 fold increase per year; P = 0.05). Lower child hand hygiene enhanced the adverse effect of low parental occupational contact with the sick; Synergy Index 5.16 (95% CI: 3.61, 7.36). The interaction between hand washing and parental occupational contact is more consistent with protection against parental enteroviral shedding than the sharing of a protective infectious agent or microbiome.Entities:
Mesh:
Year: 2018 PMID: 29664909 PMCID: PMC5903611 DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0193992
Source DB: PubMed Journal: PLoS One ISSN: 1932-6203 Impact factor: 3.240
Characteristics of children in the early environment and type 1 diabetes prevention project.
| Factor | Cases | Controls | P-value |
|---|---|---|---|
| 8.4 (3.6) | 6.5 (3.5) | <0.001 | |
| 30.5 (4.8) | 29.4 (5.5) | 0.001 | |
| 85.9 (279/325) | 80.4 (510/634) | 0.038 | |
| 50.8 (169/333) | 59.6 (393/660) | 0.008 | |
| 15.8 (50/316) | 12.8 (77/600) | 0.213 | |
| 91.5 (300/328) | 78.8 (402/510) | <0.001 |
Higher parent occupational microbial contact is associated with a reduced risk of type 1 diabetes onset: Ten measures and two composite indices.
| Category | Cases, % (n/N) | Controls, % (n/N) | AOR | 95% CI | P-value | AOR | 95% CI | P-value |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Not at all | 14.7% (45/307) | 4.8% (26/540) | Ref | Ref | ||||
| n = < 10 | 34.5% (106/307) | 40.7% (220/540) | 0.25 | 0.15, 0.44 | <0.001 | 0.11 | 0.05, 0.25 | <0.001 |
| n = 10 < 30 | 29.6% (91/307) | 28.9% (156/540) | 0.27 | 0.15, 0.49 | <0.001 | 0.10 | 0.04, 0.23 | <0.001 |
| n = 30 or more | 21.2% (65/307) | 25.6% (138/540) | 0.20 | 0.11, 0.37 | <0.001 | 0.09 | 0.04, 0.22 | <0.001 |
| Not at all | 3.3% (10/307) | 1.5% (7/477) | Ref | Ref | ||||
| n = < 10 | 21.5% (66/307) | 23.7% (113/477) | 0.35 | 0.12, 1.01 | 0.05 | 0.17 | 0.04, 0.73 | 0.02 |
| n = 10 < 30 | 45.9% (141/307) | 35.4% (169/477) | 0.54 | 0.19, 1.52 | 0.24 | 0.26 | 0.06, 1.11 | 0.07 |
| n = 30 or more | 29.3% (90/307) | 39.4% (188/477) | 0.29 | 0.10, 0.83 | 0.02 | 0.15 | 0.04, 0.65 | 0.01 |
| Not at all | 30.4% (93/306) | 10.9% (57/521) | Ref | Ref | ||||
| n = < 10 | 42.2% (129/306) | 55.1% (287/521) | 0.24 | 0.16, 0.36 | <0.001 | 0.14 | 0.08, 0.25 | <0.001 |
| n = 10 < 30 | 18.3% (56/306) | 19.4% (101/521) | 0.31 | 0.19, 0.50 | <0.001 | 0.17 | 0.09, 0.31 | <0.001 |
| n = 30 or more | 9.2% (28/306) | 14.6% (76/521) | 0.16 | 0.09, 0.28 | <0.001 | 0.09 | 0.05, 0.19 | <0.001 |
| Not at all | 39.7% (121/305) | 26.6% (119/448) | Ref | Ref | ||||
| n = < 10 | 50.2% (153/305) | 60.5% (271/448) | 0.52 | 0.37, 0.72 | <0.001 | 0.43 | 0.29, 0.63 | <0.001 |
| n = 10 < 30 | 7.5% (23/305) | 6.7% (30/448) | 0.74 | 0.40, 1.38 | 0.35 | 0.70 | 0.33, 1.49 | 0.36 |
| n = 30 or more | 2.6% (8/305) | 6.3% (28/448) | 0.25 | 0.11, 0.58 | 0.001 | 0.21 | 0.08, 0.54 | 0.001 |
| Not at all | 56.7% (174/307) | 39.7% (204/514) | Ref | Ref | ||||
| n = < 10 | 40.1% (123/307) | 58.6% (301/514) | 0.44 | 0.33, 0.60 | <0.001 | 0.33 | 0.23, 0.48 | <0.001 |
| n = 10 or more | 3.3% (10/307) | 1.8% (9/514) | 1.12 | 0.43, 2.88 | 0.82 | 0.60 | 0.23, 1.57 | 0.30 |
| Not at all | 49.0% (150/306) | 44.1% (198/449) | Ref | Ref | ||||
| n = < 10 | 48.0% (147/306) | 52.8% (237/449) | 0.73 | 0.54, 0.99 | 0.05 | 0.60 | 0.42, 0.86 | 0.006 |
| n = 10 or more | 2.9% (9/306) | 3.1% (14/449) | 0.92 | 0.38, 2.24 | 0.85 | 0.84 | 0.31, 2.23 | 0.72 |
| No | 83.0% (253/305) | 75.6% (380/503) | Ref | Ref | ||||
| Yes | 17.1% (52/305) | 24.5% (123/503) | 0.58 | 0.40, 0.84 | 0.004 | 0.51 | 0.34, 0.78 | 0.002 |
| No | 89.6% (268/299) | 79.6% (356/447) | Ref | Ref | ||||
| Yes | 10.4% (31/299) | 20.4% (91/447) | 0.43 | 0.27, 0.68 | <0.001 | 0.33 | 0.20, 0.55 | <0.001 |
| No | 88.0% (270/307) | 76.8% (381/496) | Ref | Ref | ||||
| Yes | 12.1% (37/307) | 23.2% (115/496) | 0.43 | 0.28, 0.65 | <0.001 | 0.36 | 0.23, 0.56 | <0.001 |
| No | 95.9% (282/294) | 87.6% (381/435) | Ref | Ref | ||||
| Yes | 4.1% (12/294) | 12.4% (54/435) | 0.25 | 0.13, 0.49 | <0.001 | 0.15 | 0.07, 0.33 | <0.001 |
| Not at all | 2.5% (8/325) | 1.4% (8/562) | Ref | Ref | ||||
| Category 1 | 8.0% (26/325) | 4.5% (25/562) | 1.03 | 0.33, 3.29 | 0.95 | 2.92 | 0.51, 16.86 | 0.23 |
| Category 2 | 12.9% (42/325) | 13.9% (78/562) | 0.53 | 0.18, 1.56 | 0.25 | 0.59 | 0.14, 2.53 | 0.48 |
| Category 3 | 24.9% (81/325) | 15.8% (89/562) | 0.72 | 0.25, 2.08 | 0.55 | 0.40 | 0.10, 1.63 | 0.20 |
| Category 4 | 14.2% (46/325) | 21.2% (119/562) | 0.38 | 0.13, 1.09 | 0.07 | 0.20 | 0.05, 0.83 | 0.03 |
| Category 5 | 7.4% (24/325) | 7.8% (44/562) | 0.46 | 0.15, 1.42 | 0.18 | 0.17 | 0.04, 0.75 | 0.02 |
| Category 6 | 30.2% (98/325) | 35.4% (199/562) | 0.43 | 0.15, 1.22 | 0.11 | 0.20 | 0.05, 0.78 | 0.02 |
| Not at all | 76.5% (244/319) | 62.8% (329/524) | Ref | Ref | ||||
| Category 1 | 11.6% (37/319) | 15.7% (82/524) | 0.55 | 0.35, 0.85 | 0.007 | 0.53 | 0.32, 0.87 | 0.01 |
| Category 2 | 7.5% (24/319) | 12.8% (67/524) | 0.46 | 0.28, 0.77 | 0.003 | 0.38 | 0.22, 0.68 | 0.001 |
| Category 3 | 2.8% (9/319) | 3.2% (17/524) | 0.69 | 0.30, 1.62 | 0.40 | 0.45 | 0.19, 1.09 | 0.08 |
| Category 4 | 1.6% (5/319) | 5.5% (29/524) | 0.20 | 0.08, 0.54 | 0.001 | 0.11 | 0.03, 0.36 | <0.001 |
Ref = Reference category. n = number of person-specific or animal-specific contacts.
* Adjusted for age and sex only
† Adjusted for age, sex, family history of insulin dependent diabetes mellitus, time spent in sun during last winter weekdays, ever breastfed, maternal age at birth, SEIFA disadvantage index and Caucasian ancestry
‡ Occupational well score is a summation of individual occupational well categories. 0 = no exposure in all the six categories, 2 = some exposure in 2 of the 6 categories etc.
§ Occupational sick score is a summation of individual occupational sick categories. 0 = no exposure in all the four categories, 2 = some exposure in 2 of the 4 categories etc.
The association between child hygiene, day care and recent illness and type 1 diabetes onset.
| Cases, % (n/N) | Controls, % (n/N) | AOR | 95% CI | P-value | AOR | 95% CI | P-value | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 3.0% (10/330) | 1.3% (8/635) | Ref | Ref | |||||
| 17.6% (58/330) | 10.2% (65/635) | 0.74 | 0.26, 2.09 | 0.57 | 0.83 | 0.22, 3.09 | 0.78 | |
| 23.0% (76/330) | 16.5% (105/635) | 0.59 | 0.21, 1.63 | 0.31 | 0.62 | 0.17, 2.26 | 0.47 | |
| 35.5% (117/330) | 36.7% (233/635) | 0.46 | 0.17, 1.24 | 0.13 | 0.56 | 0.16, 1.98 | 0.37 | |
| 20.9% (69/330) | 35.3% (224/635) | 0.28 | 0.10, 0.76 | 0.01 | 0.37 | 0.10, 1.32 | 0.12 | |
| 87.8 (280/319) | 79.7 (463/581) | Ref | Ref | |||||
| 12.2 (39/319) | 20.3 (118/581) | 0.64 | 0.43, 0.96 | 0.03 | 0.52 | 0.33, 0.81 | 0.004 | |
| 27.2 (88/323) | 48.9 (278/569) | Ref | Ref | |||||
| 72.8 (235/323) | 51.1 (291/569) | 2.70 | 1.98, 3.68 | <0.001 | 2.58 | 1.80, 3.71 | <0.001 | |
Ref = Reference category
* Adjusted for age and sex only
† Adjusted for age, sex, family history of insulin dependent diabetes mellitus, time spent in sun during last winter weekdays, ever breastfed, maternal age at birth, SEIFA disadvantage index and Caucasian ancestry
Fig 1Combined exposure to low occupational sick score and low hand washing is associated with greater risk of type 1 diabetes onset: Evidence of interaction.
The combined exposure to low occupational sick score (0–2 vs. rest) and low hand washing (never, occasionally) had an odds ratio of 3.86 (95% CI: 2.08, 7.16); among those with a low occupational sick score and high hand washing the odds ratio was 1.74 (95% CI: 0.89, 3.41); among those with low hand washing and a high occupational sick score the odds ratio was 1.67 (95% CI: 0.86, 3.24) compared to the lowest risk category associated with both high occupational sick score and high hand washing (AOR 1.00 (reference)). The Synergy Index is 5.16 (95% CI: 3.61, 7.36) with a Relative Excess Risk due to Interaction of 37.46 (95% CI: 13.96, 60.95) and Attributable Proportion of 0.79 (95% CI: 0.72, 0.86). The AORmulti is 1.19, P = 0.03. All odds ratio adjusted for age and sex. Thus, the interaction is evident on the additive and multiplicative scale.
The association between enteroviral indices and type 1 diabetes onset in childhood.
| Cases, % (n/N) or proportion (95% CI)% | Controls, % (n/N) or proportion (95% CI)% | AOR | 95% CI | P-value | AOR | 95% CI | P-value | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 0.88 (0.85, 0.92)% | 0.81 (0.78, 0.85)% | n/a | n/a | 0.02 | n/a | n/a | 0.047 | |
| 0.59 (0.52, 0.66)% | 0.54 (0.49, 0.59)% | n/a | n/a | 0.50 | n/a | 0.88 | ||
| 12.8% (20/156) | 21.0% (68/324) | Ref | Ref | |||||
| 87.2% (136/156) | 79.0% (256/324) | 1.65 | 0.95, 2.87 | 0.07 | 1.49 | 0.84, 2.65 | 0.18 | |
| 78.0% (230/295) | 94.7% (484/511) | Ref | Ref | |||||
| 22.0% (65/295) | 5.3% (27/511) | 5.07 | 3.09, 8.31 | <0.001 | 5.61 | 3.16, 9.98 | <0.001 | |
Ref = Reference category
* Adjusted for age and sex
† Adjusted for age, sex, Caucasian ancestry and family history of insulin dependent diabetes mellitus.
The percentage of selected factors associated with type 1 diabetes that are mediated through enteroviral indices.
| Enterovirus detected | Enterovirus seropositivity | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Factor | N | % of total effect mediated | 95% CI | N | % of total effect mediated | 95% CI |
| Occupational contact with well adults, mother | ||||||
| Occupational contact with well adults, father | 646 | -13.4 | -211.4, 224.4 | 377 | 9.9 | -100.8, 154.3 |
| Occupational contact with well children, mother | ||||||
| Occupational contact with well children, father | ||||||
| Occupational contact with well animals, mother | ||||||
| Occupational contact with well animals, father | 624 | -7.3 | -31.1, 35.0 | |||
| Occupational contact with sick adults, mother | ||||||
| Occupational contact with sick adults, father | ||||||
| Occupational contact with sick children, mother | ||||||
| Occupational contact with sick children, father | ||||||
Fig 2The association between detectable enterovirus and type 1 diabetes onset varies by child age.
Linear model: The odds ratio (with 95% confidence interval) for enterovirus presence and T1D onset increased with age (difference in effect, P = 0.03 per year). For infants at 1 year of age the OR was 1.74 (95% CI: 0.54, 5.59); for children aged 5, OR 3.23 (95% CI: 1.01, 10.38); for children aged 12, OR 9.56 (95% CI: 2.98, 30.70).