| Literature DB >> 34686548 |
Gwenyth O Lee1, Joseph N S Eisenberg2, Jessica Uruchima2, Gabriela Vasco3,4, Shanon M Smith5, Amanda Van Engen2, Courtney Victor5, Elise Reynolds2, Rebecca MacKay5, Kelsey J Jesser6, Nancy Castro7, Manuel Calvopiña8, Konstantinos T Konstantinidis9, William Cevallos10, Gabriel Trueba3, Karen Levy6.
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: The functional consequences of the bacterial gut microbiome for child health are not well understood. Characteristics of the early child gut microbiome may influence the course of enteric infections, and enteric infections may change the composition of the gut microbiome, all of which may have long-term implications for child growth and development. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: We are conducting a community-based birth cohort study to examine interactions between gut microbiome conditions and enteric infections, and how environmental conditions affect the development of the gut microbiome. We will follow 360 newborns from 3 sites along a rural-urban gradient in northern coastal Ecuador, characterising enteric infections and gut microbial communities in the children every 3 to 6 months over their first 2 years of life. We will use longitudinal regression models to assess the correlation between environmental conditions and gut microbiome diversity and presence of specific taxa, controlling for factors that are known to be associated with the gut microbiome, such as diet. From 6 to 12 months of age, we will collect weekly stool samples to compare microbiome conditions in diarrhoea stools versus stools from healthy children prior to, during and after acute enteric infections, using principal-coordinate analysis and other multivariate statistical methods. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Ethics approvals have been obtained from Emory University and the Universidad San Francisco de Quito institutional review boards. The findings will be disseminated through conference presentations and peer-reviewed journals. © Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2021. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.Entities:
Keywords: community child health; epidemiology; molecular biology; public health; tropical medicine
Mesh:
Year: 2021 PMID: 34686548 PMCID: PMC8543627 DOI: 10.1136/bmjopen-2020-046241
Source DB: PubMed Journal: BMJ Open ISSN: 2044-6055 Impact factor: 2.692
Figure 1Overview diagram of the relationships the study will explore. The numbers on the diagram refer to the specific aims that will address the relationship. Solid lines indicate the main effects that will be tested in models, and dashed lines indicate effect modification. EED, environmental enteric dysfunction.
Figure 2Study sites. The urban–rural gradient of the ECoMiD study: the city of Esmeraldas, the town of Borbón and smaller rural communities in the Canton of Eloy Alfaro, including communities with and without road access. ECoMiD, Enteropatógenos, Crecimiento, Microbioma, y Diarrea.
Study inclusion and exclusion criteria
| Inclusion criteria | Exclusion criteria | Justification | Additional information |
| Normal pregnancy | High-risk pregnancy based on the opinion of the attending healthcare professional. HIV+ mothers will be counted as high risk. Known multiple pregnancies will also be counted as high risk. | Our aim is to examine the development of the microbiome in healthy children. | Determination of whether a pregnancy is ‘high-risk’ is based on the opinion of the medical professional providing prenatal care to the woman, according to the Ecuadorian Ministry of Health schema, and not by the study team. In the region, 90% of pregnant women receive HIV testing and the estimated prevalence of HIV is 1.13%. |
| Mother plans to remain in study area at least 6 months | Mother indicates plans to move to a community outside the study catchment area within 6 months of delivery. | This population is highly mobile, so this criterion is included to increase retention. | Participants with planned movement from one rural community to nearby rural communities would still be eligible. Participants moving between established study sites will also be retained (eg, mother recruited in Borbón who moves temporarily or permanently to Esmeraldas). |
| Planned vaginal delivery | Planned delivery by caesarean section. | Delivery type is known to impact the child’s microbiota. | Mothers who are enrolled who have unplanned caesarean deliveries will continue in the study. |
Figure 3Overall participant timeline. Primary study activities are programmed according to the age of the child. Squares indicate a single sampling point, except for intensive samples, which are collected weekly from 6 to 12 months of age (a total of 24 samples), and diarrhoeal symptoms, which are collected weekly for the entire period of the study. EED, environmental enteric dysfunction; SES, socioeconomic status.
Figure 4Environmental context of the ECoMiD study. Study data are organised according to a socio-ecological framework. ECoMiD, Enteropatógenos, Crecimiento, Microbioma, y Diarrea.
Quantitative and categorical results from water and hand-rinse sampling
| Colilert result | Petrifilm result | Concentration of | Category |
| Absent | 0 | <1 CFU or MPN/100 mL | Not detected |
| Present | 0 | 1–99 MPN/100 mL | Low |
| Present | 1–9 CFU/1 mL | 100–999 CFU/100 mL | Medium |
| Present | 10-49 CFU/1 mL | 1000–4999 CFU/100 mL | High |
| Present | ≥50 CFU/1 mL | ≥5000 CFU/100 m | Very high |
We use a combination of 1 mL Petrifilm quantitative tests and 100 mL Colilert presence/absence tests to estimate colony forming units or most probable number. This approach was chosen to optimise the information obtained while staying feasible and within fieldworker capabilities. Combining the 2 tests provides a categorical measure of household contamination. Note that we assume that any sample positive for Petrifilm will also be positive for Colilert, as the sensitivity is much higher for Colilert (Colilert has a lower detection limit of 1 MPN/100 mL, whereas Petrifilms have a lower detection limit of 100 CFU/100 mL). If we detect growth on Petrifilm in the absence of a positive result on the Colilert, we will rely on the Petrifilm result.
CFU, colony forming unit; MPN, most probable number.
Sample size and power calculation estimates for study aims
| Aim | Exposure used for power calculation | Exposure prevalence | Outcome | Required sample size | Available sample size |
| 1a | Household water access (as an example environmental exposure) | 25%–50%* | Difference of 0.25† or more in class-level Chao1 species richness | 1268–1800 | 1800 |
| 1b | Household water access (as an example environmental exposure) | 5%–50%* | Excess risk of 12% or greater for any specific enteric infection‡ | 199–880 | 1080 |
| 2a | Any specific enteric infection | 10%–50%‡ | Excess risk of 8.2% of greater in symptomatic diarrhoea§ | 306–737 | 1080 |
| 2b | Number of enteric infections from 0 to 24 months | (1) 10%–25%¶ | EED score** difference of | (1) 80–299 | 360 |
| 2c | Number of enteric infections from 0 to 24 months | 10%–50%¶ | Excess risk of 8.1% or greater in growth faltering‡‡ (eg, stunting) | 306–737 | 1080 |
| 3a-b | Diarrheal status | 50%§§ | Difference of 0.40¶¶ or more in class-level Chao1 species richness | 388 | 400l |
| 3a-b | (1) Enteric infection-specific prevalence of 25% or more‡ | 50% | (1) Difference of 0.80¶¶ or more in class-level Chao1 species richness | (1) 98 | (1)~100††† |
*Prevalence of household piped water access is 47% across the 3 study sites.
†The mean differences in Chao1 species richness across the 3 study sites (most rural to most urban) is 1.1.
‡Prevalence of E.coli across the 3 study sites in the EcoZUR study was 24.5%.
§Based on symptomatic diarrhoea prevalence of 10% or more in the cohort—data from the “Ecologia, Desarrollo, Salud, y Sociedad” (EcoDeSS) study suggests diarrhoea prevalence of ~12%.41
¶"The Etiology, Risk Factors, and Interactions of Enteric Infections and Malnutrition and the Consequences for Child Health and Development Project” (MAL-ED) prevalence of 29% of non-diarrheal stool samples containing 2 or more pathogens.79
**Based on the score developed by Kosek et al.49
††For comparison, George et al reported difference on the magnitude of 0.70–1.00 between children with and without specific environmental exposures.
‡‡Based on growth faltering prevalence of 10% or more in the cohort—previously characterised prevalence of stunting of 10%–14% in children<5 in “Ecologia, Desarrollo, Salud, y Sociedad” (EcoDeSS) study data.38
§§Case–control status selected based on diarrhoea status using banked samples.
¶¶For comparison, in the ”E. coli en Zonas Urbanas y Rurales” (EcoZUR) study data, differences between adults with vs without acute diarrhoea had Chao1 differences of approximately 0.5; l based on 1:1 case–control design (ie, 200 cases and 200 controls).
***"The Etiology, Risk Factors, and Interactions of Enteric Infections and Malnutrition and the Consequences for Child Health and Development Project” (MAL-ED) prevalence of ~77% of diarrheal stool samples containing one or more pathogens.79
†††Available sample size is dependent on specific pathogen prevalence in the 400 samples tested—we have based our estimate on (i) 24.5% prevalence of pathogenic E.coli=49 children infected, for a total sample size of 98 and (ii) 77% prevalence of any pathogen=154 children infected, for a total of 308.
‡‡‡
EED, environmental enteric dysfunction.