Evidence Hub

Antibiotic Treatments During Infancy, Changes in Nasal Microbiota, and Asthma Development: Population-based Cohort Study

Laura Toivonen, Linnea Schuez-Havupalo, Sinikka Karppinen, M. Waris, K. Hoffman, C. Camargo, K. Hasegawa, V. Peltola

Clinical Infectious Diseases, 2020

697 participants · 54 citations

Abstract

Abstract Background Early-life exposures to antibiotics may increase the risk of developing childhood asthma. However, little is known about the mechanisms linking antibiotic exposures to asthma. We hypothesized that changes in the nasal airway microbiota serve as a causal mediator in the antibiotics–asthma link. Methods In a population-based birth-cohort study in Finland, we identified longitudinal nasal microbiota profiles during age 2–24 months using 16S rRNA gene sequencing and an unsupervised machine learning approach. We performed a causal mediation analysis to estimate the natural direct effect of systemic antibiotic treatments during age 0–11 months on risks of developing physician-diagnosed asthma by age 7 years and the natural indirect (causal mediation) effect through longitudinal changes in nasal microbiota. Results In our birth cohort of 697 children, 8.0% later developed asthma. Exposure to ≥2 antibiotic treatments during age 0–11 months was associated with a 4.0% increase in the absolute risk of developing asthma (absolute increase, 95% CI, .9–7.2%; P = .006). The unsupervised clustering approach identified 6 longitudinal nasal microbiota profiles. Infants with a larger number of antibiotic treatments had a higher risk of having a profile with early Moraxella sparsity (per each antibiotic treatment, adjusted RRR, 1.38; 95% CI, 1.15–1.66; P < .001). This effect of antibiotics on asthma was partly mediated by longitudinal changes in the nasal microbiota (natural…

How strong is the evidence?

Evidence Hub reads this as a cohort study, done in people. Its evidence level is 3 of 5 (Moderate · trial / cohort / secondary analysis). Trials without a large randomized design, cohorts and secondary analyses give moderate evidence. Reported size: 697 participants or records.

How the five levels of evidence work. The level is assigned automatically from the abstract and can be wrong, so check the paper.

Read the paper

Related studies

Go deeper in Evidence Hub

Evidence Hub adds a study data sheet (design, sample size, evidence level, key numbers), an AI summary and a chat grounded in the paper's text.

Open this study Sign up free