bioRxiv Science⌕ Search
Home/Archive/bioRxiv

bioRxiv · 10.1101/073098

Zika virus infection as a cause of congenital brain abnormalities and Guillain-Barre syndrome: systematic review

Fabienne Krauer·Maurane Riesen·Ludovic Reveiz·Olufemi T Oladapo·Ruth Martinez-Vega·Teegwende V Porgo·Anina Haefliger·Nathalie J Broutet·Nicola Low·WHO Zika Causality Working Group
View original source ↗Export metadata ↓

Abstract

BackgroundThe World Health Organization stated in March 2016 that there was scientific consensus that the mosquito-borne Zika virus was a cause of the neurological disorder Guillain-Barre syndrome and of microcephaly and other congenital brain abnormalities, based on rapid evidence assessments. Decisions about causality require systematic assessment to guide public health actions. The objectives of this study were: to update and re-assess the evidence for causality through a rapid and systematic review about links between Zika virus infection and a) congenital brain abnormalities, including microcephaly, in the foetuses and offspring of pregnant women and b) Guillain-Barre syndrome in any population; and to describe the process and outcomes of an expert assessment of the evidence about causality.\n\nMethods and findingsThe study had three linked components. First, in February 2016, we developed a causality framework that defined questions about the relationship between Zika virus infection and each of the two clinical outcomes in 10 dimensions; temporality, biological plausibility, strength of association, alternative explanations, cessation, dose-response, animal experiments, analogy, specificity and consistency. Second, we did a systematic review (protocol number CRD42016036693). We searched multiple online sources up to May 30, 2016 to find studies that directly addressed either outcome and any causality dimension, used methods to expedite study selection, data extraction and quality assessment, and summarised evidence descriptively. Third, a multidisciplinary panel of experts assessed the review findings and reached consensus on causality. We found 1091 unique items up to May 30, 2016. For congenital brain abnormalities, including microcephaly, we included 72 items; for eight of 10 causality dimensions (all except dose-response relationship and specificity) we found that more than half the relevant studies supported a causal association with Zika virus infection. For Guillain-Barre syndrome, we included 36 items, of which more than half the relevant studies supported a causal association in seven of ten dimensions (all except dose-response relationship, specificity and animal experimental evidence). Articles identified non-systematically from May 30-July 29, 2016 strengthened the review findings. The expert panel concluded that: a) the most likely explanation of available evidence from outbreaks of Zika virus infection and clusters of microcephaly is that Zika virus infection during pregnancy is a cause of congenital brain abnormalities including 61 microcephaly; and b) the most likely explanation of available evidence from outbreaks of Zika virus infection and Guillain-Barre syndrome is that Zika virus infection is a trigger of Guillain-Barre syndrome. The expert panel recognised that Zika virus alone may not be sufficient to cause either congenital brain abnormalities or Guillain-Barre syndrome but agreed that the evidence was sufficient to recommend increased public health measures. Weaknesses are the limited assessment of the role of dengue virus and other possible co-factors, the small number of comparative epidemiological studies, and the difficulty in keeping the review up to date with the pace of publication of new research.\n\nConclusionsRapid and systematic reviews with frequent updating and open dissemination are now needed, both for appraisal of the evidence about Zika virus infection and for the next public health threats that will emerge. This rapid systematic review found sufficient evidence to say that Zika virus is a cause of congenital abnormalities and is a trigger of Guillain-Barre situation.

Source connections

Explore related subjects

EpidemiologyPreprint

Keep this discovery

BibTeXRIS

Fabienne Krauer, Maurane Riesen, Ludovic Reveiz, Olufemi T Oladapo, Ruth Martinez-Vega, Teegwende V Porgo, Anina Haefliger, Nathalie J Broutet, Nicola Low, WHO Zika Causality Working Group. 2016-09-02. Zika virus infection as a cause of congenital brain abnormalities and Guillain-Barre syndrome: systematic review. https://doi.org/10.1101/073098

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related preprints

bioRxiv2016

A risk stratification approach for improved interpretation of diagnostic accuracy statistics

Diagnostic accuracy statistics, including predictive values, risk-differences, Youdens index and Area Under the Curve (AUC), assess the promise of novel biomarkers proposed as diagnostic tests. We reinterpret these statistics in light of risk-stratification (how well a biomarker separates those at higher risk from those at lower risk) to better understand their implications for public-health programs. We introduce an intuitively simple statistic, Mean Risk Stratification (MRS): the average change in risk (pre-test vs. post-test) revealed for tested individuals. High MRS implies better risk separation achieved by testing. MRS demonstrates that conventional predictive values can mislead because they do not account for disease prevalence or test-positivity rates. Little risk-stratification is possible for rare diseases, demonstrating a \"high-bar\" to justify population-based screening. Importantly, we demonstrate that the risk-difference, Youdens index, and AUC measure only multiplicative relative gains in risk-stratification: AUC=0.6 achieves only 20% of maximum risk-stratification (AUC=0.9 achieves 80%). However, large relative gains in risk-stratification might not imply large absolute gains if disease is rare or if the test is rarely positive. We illustrate MRS by our experience comparing the performance of cervical cancer screening tests in China vs. the USA. The test with the worst AUC=0.72 in China (visual inspection with ascetic acid) provides twice the risk-stratification of the test with best AUC=0.83 in the USA (human papillomavirus and Pap cotesting) because China has three times more cervical precancer/cancer. MRS could be routinely calculated to better understand the clinical/public-health implications of standard diagnostic accuracy statistics.

Epidemiology↗
bioRxiv2016

Collider Scope: How selection bias can induce spurious associations

Large-scale cross-sectional and cohort studies have transformed our understanding of the genetic and environmental determinants of health outcomes. However, the representativeness of these samples may be limited - either through selection into studies, or by attrition from studies over time. Here we explore the potential impact of this selection bias on results obtained from these studies, from the perspective that this amounts to conditioning on a collider (i.e., a form of collider bias). While it is acknowledged that selection bias will have a strong effect on representativeness and prevalence estimates, it is often assumed that it should not have a strong impact on estimates of associations. We argue that because selection can induce collider bias (which occurs when two variables independently influence a third variable, and that third variable is conditioned upon), selection can lead to substantially biased estimates of associations. In particular, selection related to phenotypes can bias associations with genetic variants associated with those phenotypes. In simulations, we show that even modest influences on selection into, or attrition from, a study can generate biased and potentially misleading estimates of both phenotypic and genotypic associations. Our results highlight the value of knowing which population your study sample is representative of. If the factors influencing selection and attrition are known, they can be adjusted for. For example, having DNA available on most participants in a birth cohort study offers the possibility of investigating the extent to which polygenic scores predict subsequent participation, which in turn would enable sensitivity analyses of the extent to which bias might distort estimates.\n\nKey MessagesSelection bias (including selective attrition) may limit the representativeness of large-scale cross-sectional and cohort studies.\n\nThis selection bias may induce collider bias (which occurs when two variables independently influence a third variable, and that variable is conditioned upon).\n\nThis may lead to substantially biased estimates of associations, including of genetic associations, even when selection / attrition is relatively modest.

Epidemiology↗
bioRxiv2016

A comparative analysis of Chikungunya and Zika transmission

The recent global dissemination of Chikungunya and Zika has fostered public health concern worldwide. To better understand the drivers of transmission of these two arboviral diseases, we propose a joint analysis of Chikungunya and Zika epidemics in the same territories, taking into account the common epidemiological features of the epidemics: transmitted by the same vector, in the same environments, and observed by the same surveillance systems. We analyse eighteen outbreaks in French Polynesia and the French West Indies using a hierarchical time-dependent SIR model accounting for the effect of virus, location and weather on transmission, and based on a disease specific serial interval. We show that Chikungunya and Zika have similar transmission potential in the same territories (transmissibility ratio between Zika and Chikungunya of 1.04 [95% credible interval: 0.97; 1.13]), but that detection and reporting rates were different (around 19% for Zika and 40% for Chikungunya). Temperature variations between 22{degrees}C and 29{degrees}C did not alter transmission, but increased precipitation showed a dual effect, first reducing transmission after a two-week delay, then increasing it around five weeks later. The present study provides valuable information for risk assessment and introduces a modelling framework for the comparative analysis of arboviral infections that can be extended to other viruses and territories.

Epidemiology↗