Читать книгу Periodontitis and Systemic Diseases - Группа авторов - Страница 9
ОглавлениеJosefine Hirschfeld and Iain L. C. Chapple
Periodontitis is a highly prevalent chronic inflammatory disease that impacts 45% to 50% of adults worldwide, with severe disease affecting 7.4%1 to 11.2%2. The global incidence of severe periodontitis in 2015 was 6 million, accounting for 3.5 million disability associated life years (DALYs, a measure of disease burden, expressed as the number of years lost due to morbidity), compared with 1.7 million DALYs for untreated caries in adult teeth; more than any other oral disease1. Moreover, the indirect cost to the global economy in 2015 of severe periodontitis was estimated at US $54 billion in productivity losses3 and the human cost is also significant in terms of reduced nutrition, social confidence and oral health-related quality of life. Periodontitis prevalence increases with age, with a steep incline between the third and fourth decades of life. Due to the growing world population, associated with an increasing life expectancy and a decrease in the prevalence of caries-related tooth loss in many countries1, the burden of periodontitis is expected to increase.
Periodontitis is a chronic multifactorial inflammatory disease associated with dysbiotic plaque biofilms and characterised by progressive destruction of the tooth-supporting tissues. Its primary features are presence of periodontal pocketing and radiographically assessed alveolar bone loss, and can also include signs of gingival inflammation such as redness, swelling and bleeding of the gingiva. Periodontitis is a major public health problem due to its high prevalence, and because it often leads to tooth loss when left untreated. This can result in reduced chewing function and aesthetics, and can further exacerbate oral pathology by leading to pathological tooth migration and occlusal trauma as well as periodontal–endodontic lesions. Therefore, periodontitis directly impairs quality of life4.
Many aspects of the pathophysiology of this inflammatory condition have been characterised. It is recognised that periodontitis has multiple component causes, which when combined in each individual can exceed a threshold for disease initiation5. Examples include:
● an aberrant host immune-inflammatory response to the dental plaque biofilm
● dysbiosis within the biofilm, which contains higher proportions of Gram-negative, anaerobic and facultative bacteria and is microbially less diverse than a healthy biofilm
● genetic and epigenetic factors affecting immune responses and tissue homeostasis
● older age, leading to immune senescence and consequent hyper-inflammatory responses, termed ‘inflammaging’
● modifiable lifestyle factors such as suboptimal oral hygiene, smoking, high stress levels and diets high in refined sugars and low in antioxidant micronutrients
● certain systemic conditions, which affect the immune system and which are discussed in this book.
Environmental factors may also contribute to the onset and progression of periodontitis, but these are currently less well understood. The dysregulated immune reactions ultimately lead to host-mediated damage and breakdown of the periodontal tissues including the alveolar bone. Clinical phenotypes may vary, with some patients presenting with severe periodontal breakdown at a relative young age.
Importantly, there is now abundant evidence that untreated periodontitis promotes the translocation of dental plaque-derived microorganisms, their antigens and certain metabolic components into the circulation, where they may elicit systemic inflammation via an acute-phase response and oxidative stress. This systemic dissemination of antigens and inflammatory mediators has been proposed to form the basis of the association between periodontitis and mortality and also with several systemic non-communicable diseases (NCDs), in conjunction with other mechanisms specific to those diseases6. Numerous clinical and experimental studies have been undertaken in recent decades to better define the association between periodontitis and several systemic NCDs. However, these studies differ markedly in design and quality. In some clinical studies, inconsistent use of case definitions of disease, insufficient control of biases and small sample sizes render results difficult to interpret. Moreover, changes in disease classification systems make comparisons between studies published over several decades challenging. However, the new classification system of periodontal and peri-implant diseases and conditions7, as well as recently updated case definitions for periodontitis8 will help to create greater consistency in clinical periodontal research. Furthermore, the advent of international standards and guidelines for conducting and reporting studies has introduced more consistency and clarity and has improved the quality of those studies adhering to them. Some examples are PRISMA for meta-analyses, CONSORT or STROBE for clinical studies, ARRIVE for animal studies9 and MIQE or MIAPE for experimental ex vivo studies10.
Prior to reading this book, it is important to consider certain principles. First is the principle of evidence-based medicine, which acknowledges that a hierarchy of evidence exists11. This helps practising clinicians and researchers appraise literature and apply evidence to their work, based on the relative strengths and weaknesses of individual study designs. This hierarchy can be depicted as a pyramid, often referred as to the ‘evidence-based medicine pyramid’ (Fig 0-1). The pyramid is divided into levels, where each represents a different type of study design and corresponds to increasing rigour, quality and reliability of the results, and also to higher costs of conducting the relevant studies.
Fig 0-1 Evidence-based medicine pyramid.
The first three levels of the pyramid provide the foundation of knowledge. This background information is important and helpful, but can be heavily influenced by beliefs, opinions and even political views. The top of the pyramid suggests a lower risk of statistical error and bias from confounding variables. Cross-sectional and case-control studies represent the first stage of testing an observation. These studies are conducted in the early stages of research to help identify variables that might be associated with a condition. One of the weaknesses of these designs is that there are often small sample sizes and they are usually non-randomised. The next evidence level is that of prospective cohort studies, which follow people, who are exposed to the suspected risk factor for a disease, over a period of time. Here, causality can be assessed, but cohort studies require large sample sizes and long follow-up times, making them more difficult to apply to diseases with a long latency, such as periodontitis, or for rare conditions. Large double-blind randomised controlled trials are the most reliable study designs and provide the strongest level of evidence for cause and effect relationships. However, these studies are expensive and can be ethically problematic.
Systematic reviews and meta-analyses are located at the top of the pyramid and compare the results of studies side by side. Multiple studies are reviewed using a systematic approach and, where studies are not too dissimilar in design (show low heterogeneity), a statistical summary (meta-analysis) is undertaken that summarises the effect of an intervention, the influence of a risk factor or other outcomes across multiple studies. They are considered as providing the strongest and highest quality of evidence. However, results strongly depend upon the quality and comparability of the included studies. Cochrane publishes systematic reviews with the highest level of rigour and techniques to identify the risks of bias in systematic reviews12.
Next is the distinction between an association and a causal relationship between two or more diseases. An association is when two conditions are related such that they are commonly observed together. A causal relationship between two conditions implies that a change in one is caused by a change in the other. Causal relationships are stronger than associations, but also more difficult to prove. An example for distinguishing between these two is the following fictional research question: if researchers included coffee drinkers and non-coffee drinkers in their cross-sectional study, they may find that a greater proportion of coffee drinkers have periodontitis, compared with non-coffee drinkers. This is an association, which does not imply that coffee drinking causes periodontitis, but merely that coffee drinking and periodontitis are commonly observed together.
What would be more interesting, however, is whether coffee drinking is a component cause or part of the causal pathway of periodontitis. The causal argument can be strengthened in cross-sectional studies by accounting for things that might confound the association. In our example, it may be that people who drink coffee have higher stress levels or are more likely to smoke and therefore more likely to have periodontitis. Hence, smoking and/or stress is confounding the association observed. There are several ways of eliminating or minimising the effect of confounders. If they are known and measurable, they can be eliminated in the design of the study, for instance by excluding smokers and observing whether non-smoking coffee drinkers have a higher prevalence of periodontitis than non-smoking non-coffee drinkers.
Another method of minimising the effects of confounding is using a stratified analysis. If our fictional research was conducted in smokers as well as non-smokers, the results could be analysed separately in both groups. If the association was then found to be of a similar magnitude in both, smoking would be unlikely to be a confounder of the relationship. A further method of accounting for the potential presence of confounders is in the statistical analyses by employing regression modelling techniques, sometimes referred to as ‘adjusted analyses’. The basic premise of all these techniques, however, is that the confounder needs to be known, and needs to be easily, accurately and reproducibly measurable. This can sometimes be difficult, for example in the case of determining the socio-economic status of study participants. The ideal way of eliminating the problem of confounding is the process of randomisation. If the randomisation is robust, the arms should be equivalent in both known and unknown confounders, hence comparisons between the arms are devoid of these problems. Thus, randomised controlled trials and meta-analyses thereof form the pinnacle of the evidence-based medicine pyramid.
Fig 0-2 Bradford-Hill criteria: the nine aspects of association providing epidemiological evidence of a causal relationship between a presumed cause and an observed effect.
The criteria set out by Austin Bradford Hill, in 1965, represent a useful tool in guiding from association to causation (Fig 0-2). In this classic essay, Bradford Hill set out some aspects of association, which should be considered “before deciding that the most likely interpretation of it is causation”13. These included:
● The strength of the association. If the magnitude of the association is large, for example as measured by a high odds ratio or relative risk, it is more likely that the association will not be attenuated by some unmeasured or imperfectly measured variable. This makes the association more likely to be causal.
● Consistency. If an association has only been observed by one group at one time, it is likely to be artefactual. Reproducibility of the association from different populations at different times and or locations lends credence to the association.
● Specificity. This property relates to the association seen between two, very specific, conditions. The more specific an association between a factor and an effect, the greater the probability that it is causal. If this criterion is not met, however, it does not imply a lack of causation.
● Temporality. This criterion implies that the cause of a disease must precede the development of the disease itself. This condition is fulfilled in infection models, where exposure to a single pathogen causes a specific disease and where the exposure always precedes the disease. In complex disease processes, detecting this condition is more challenging, as the exposures are often subclinical for a period of time and may not be the sole cause, but a contributory factor.
● Biological gradient/dose–response relationship. It stands to reason that if exposure to a risk factor, pathogen or condition causes or contributes to another disease, greater exposure should be linked to poorer outcomes of that disease.
● Plausibility. Fundamental to any step from association to causation is the ability to postulate the underlying biologically plausible mechanism, by which the causal relationship is expressed. In the absence of such an explanation, implying causality becomes challenging.
● Coherence. This criterion is an extension of the plausibility criterion, stating that the plausible explanation should fit with what is currently known of the biology of the disease. Again, not meeting this criterion is not necessarily a barrier to causality, as the knowledge base is subject to evolution and change.
● Experiment. Experimentally intervening to alter the exposure to an agent suspected of contributing to a disease, and then monitoring changes in the onset or progression of that disease further strengthens the causal hypothesis.
● Analogy. If the biological mechanism from one established causal relationship is accepted, other associations employing similar biological mechanisms have a lesser burden of proof before they are accepted as causal.
The GRADE (Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluations) framework is another useful tool for rating the quality of evidence in systematic reviews and other evidence syntheses, but it can also be applied also to individual studies14. It provides a systematic approach and transparent tool for generating clinical practice recommendations. Evidence from randomised controlled trials (RCTs) begins as high-quality evidence but can be downgraded according to five factors: risk of bias, inconsistency, indirectness, imprecision and publication bias. Evidence from non-randomised studies begins as low-quality evidence, but its rating can be upgraded, if no other limitations have been identified, according to three reasons: large magnitude of effect, evidence of a dose–response effect and all plausible confounding taken into account. After the process of downgrading or upgrading, the quality of the evidence for each outcome is indicated as high, moderate, low or very low15. GRADE has adopted most of Bradford Hill’s criteria, some implicitly, others explicitly. However, it has been proposed that GRADE should be adapted to consider the Bradford Hill criteria more extensively. The reason is that evidence from non-randomised studies may provide a more adequate or best available measure of a health-related research question, but that such evidence might be graded as lower quality in the GRADE framework16.
The expert authors of the following book chapters have taken into account the above criteria for critically appraising the existing evidence on the associations or causal relationships between periodontitis and systemic diseases. This book therefore provides comprehensive, contemporary and well- considered insights into the clinical evidence and biological plausibility of each condition. This is underpinned by the body of scientific literature published to date, which has been critically discussed throughout the book. The reader will be provided with an understanding of how periodontitis impacts on the health of other organ systems and vice versa, but also of the limitations of existing studies and how these can be overcome in the future.
References
1. Kassebaum NJ, Smith AGC, Bernabé E, et al. Global, regional, and national prevalence, incidence, and disability-adjusted life years for oral conditions for 195 countries, 1990–2015: A systematic analysis for the global burden of diseases, injuries, and risk factors. J Dent Res 2017;96:380–387.
2. Kassebaum NJ, Bernabé E, Dahiya M, Bhandari B, Murray CJL, Marcenes W. Global burden of severe periodontitis in 1990–2010: a systematic review and meta-regression. J Dent Res 2014;93:1045–1053.
3. Listl S, Galloway J, Mossey PA, Marcenes W. Global economic impact of dental diseases. J Dent Res 2015;94: 1355–1361.
4. Tonetti MS, Jepsen S, Jin L, Otomo-Corgel J. Impact of the global burden of periodontal diseases on health, nutrition and wellbeing of mankind: A call for global action. J Clin Periodontol 2017;44:456–462.
5. Genco RJ, Borgnakke WS. Risk factors for periodontal disease. Periodontology 2000 2013;62:59–94.
6. Li X, Kolltveit KM, Tronstad L, Olsen I. Systemic diseases caused by oral infection. Clin Microbiol Rev 2000;13:547–558.
7. Caton JG, Armitage G, Berglundh T, et al. A new classification scheme for periodontal and peri-implant diseases and conditions – Introduction and key changes from the 1999 classification. J Clin Periodontol 2018;45(Suppl 20):S1–S8.
8. Eke PI, Page RC, Wei L, Thornton-Evans G, Genco RJ. Update of the case definitions for population-based surveillance of periodontitis. J Periodontol 2012;83:1449–1454.
9. Network EtQaTOhRE. Reporting guidelines for main study types. Oxford: Centre for Statistics in Medicine (CSM), NDORMS, University of Oxford, 2019.
10. FAIRsharing Oe-RC, University of Oxford. Minimum Information for Biological and Biomedical Investigations. Oxford: University of Oxford, 2019.
11. Rosner AL. Evidence-based medicine: Revisiting the pyramid of priorities. J Bodywork Movement Ther 2012;16: 42–49.
12. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews. Collaboration, 2019.
13. Hill AB. The environment and disease: association or causation? Proc R Soc Med 1965;58:295–300.
14. Atkins D, Best D, Briss PA, et al. Grading quality of evidence and strength of recommendations. Br Med J (Clin Res Ed) 2004;328:1490.
15. Meader N, King K, Llewellyn A, et al. A checklist designed to aid consistency and reproducibility of GRADE assessments: development and pilot validation. Syst Rev 2014; 3:82.
16. Schünemann H, Hill S, Guyatt G, Akl EA, Ahmed F. The GRADE approach and Bradford Hill’s criteria for causation. J Epidemiol Community Health 2011;65:392.
