Jump to: Page Content, Site Navigation, Site Search,
You are seeing this message because your web browser does not support basic web standards. Find out more about why this message is appearing and what you can do to make your experience on this site better.
Matthew Hotopf Gulf War Research Unit, Guy's, King's College, and
St Thomas's School of Medicine, King's College London, London
SE5 8AZ
Correspondence to: M
Hotopf m.hotopf{at}iop.kcl.ac.uk
| |
Abstract |
|---|
|
|
|---|
Objectives:
To explore the relation between ill
health after the Gulf war and vaccines received before or during the conflict. To test the hypothesis that such ill health is limited to
military personnel who received multiple vaccines during deployment and
that pesticide use modifies any effect.
Vaccines have been implicated as a possible cause of ill health in
Gulf war veterans. Rook and Zumla hypothesised that the symptoms
reported by veterans may be due to a shift in their T cell cytokine
profiles from Th1 to Th2.1 They proposed that such a shift
could be due to the regimen of vaccinations given to veterans and that
this could lead to symptoms akin to those of chronic fatigue syndrome.
In particular, they suggested that four aspects of the vaccination
programme given to UK military personnel would increase the likelihood
that they suffered long term health consequences. The first was that
for UK (but not US) service personnel pertussis was used as an adjuvant
to stimulate the immune response to anthrax vaccine. The second was
that multiple vaccines were given simultaneously. This reflected the
need to keep the personnel up to date with routine vaccines; to protect them from infectious diseases such as cholera and typhoid, which were
potential health hazards during deployment; and to protect them from
the threat of biological warfare agents We have previously reported on a large (n=3284) cohort study of male
Gulf war veterans who were compared with non-deployed service personnel
and veterans of peacekeeping duties in Bosnia.2 We found
increased rates of ill health for all health outcomes in those who
served in the Gulf. Among many other associations between exposures and
health outcomes we found that servicemen who reported having multiple
vaccines had a slightly increased risk of reporting multiple symptoms
(odds ratio for seven or more vaccines 1.9). We also showed that
pertussis vaccine was weakly associated with an increased risk of
symptoms in service personnel who had their vaccine records (1.3).
These two findings provide weak support for the first two of Rook and
Zumla's hypothesised features of vaccine toxicity.1
We now report additional analyses to examine their second two
hypotheses Our original paper described the definition of the
cohorts.2 For this study we used only servicemen who
served in the Gulf (n=3284). A comprehensive questionnaire was sent to
members of this cohort, which was selected randomly from the target
population of 53 462 UK military personnel who went to the Gulf. Using
three mailings, we obtained a response rate of 70.4%. The
questionnaire contained several measures of current health status,
including a checklist of 50 symptoms and 39 medical disorders, the
general health questionnaire (a measure of psychiatric
morbidity)3, a fatigue questionnaire,4 and
two subscales of the SF-36 (a health status questionnaire) The main exposure data we used were self reported vaccines. Our
questionnaire included details about whether the serviceman had his
vaccine record, how many and which vaccines he received in the two
months before deployment, and how many and which vaccines he received
during deployment. In the original paper we showed that those who still
had their vaccine records were considerably more likely to report
having received pertussis at a level which closely matched the Ministry
of Defence's own estimate. Because recall bias is a major problem in
studies of Gulf war illness, for these analyses we used only the
records of veterans who reported that they still had their vaccine
records (n=923). We asked service personnel to indicate whether they
recalled being exposed to personal pesticides (for example, creams,
sprays, or flea collars) or pesticides in their clothing or bedding. We
also asked whether they had been exposed to a range of traumatic
events, including witnessing someone dying, seeing maimed or seriously
injured soldiers, and suffering combat related
injuries.
Table 1.
Design:
Cross sectional study of Gulf war veterans followed for six to eight years after deployment.
Setting:
UK armed forces.
Participants:
Military personnel who served in the
Gulf and who still had their vaccine records.
Main outcome measures:
Multisymptom illness as
classified by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention; fatigue;
psychological distress; post-traumatic stress reaction; health
perception; and physical functioning.
Results:
The response rate for the original
survey was 70.4% (n=3284). Of these, 28% (923) had vaccine records.
Receipt of multiple vaccines before deployment was associated with only one of the six health outcomes (post-traumatic stress reaction). By
contrast five of the six outcomes (all but post-traumatic stress reaction) were associated with multiple vaccines received during deployment. The strongest association was for the multisymptom illness
(odds ratio 5.0; 95% confidence interval 2.5 to 9.8).
Conclusion:
Among veterans of the Gulf war there is a specific relation between multiple vaccinations given during deployment and later ill health. Multiple vaccinations in themselves do not seem
to be harmful but combined with the "stress" of deployment they may
be associated with adverse health outcomes. These results imply that
every effort should be made to maintain routine vaccines during peacetime.
![]()
Introduction
Top
Abstract
Introduction
Methods
Results
Discussion
References
namely, plague and anthrax.
The third aspect was that many of the vaccines were given after the
personnel were deployed. Rook and Zumla suggested that deployment was a
stress which would in itself lead to increased circulating
corticosteroids, and this too would influence cytokine profiles.1 Finally, they speculated that there might have
been an interaction between the vaccine regimen and
pesticides
especially organophosphate pesticides
used in the Gulf to
cause a Th2 promoting effect.
namely, that multiple vaccines given at the time of
deployment would be more likely to be associated with subsequent symptoms than those given before deployment. As the supposed mechanism for this putative effect was "stress," we also tested the
hypothesis that the reporting of multiple stressful exposures during
deployment would act as an effect modifier. We determined whether there
was an interaction between reported pesticide use and the effect of multiple vaccines. Finally, we determined whether there was any association between vaccinations and other diseases known to be associated with Th2 shifts
that is, the atopic illnesses: eczema, asthma, and hay fever.
![]()
Methods
Top
Abstract
Introduction
Methods
Results
Discussion
References
health
perception and physical functioning.5 Four outcomes
(psychiatric morbidity, fatigue, health perception, and physical
functioning) were therefore available. In addition we created two more
outcomes
an approximation of the CDC multisymptom illness
("multisymptom illness")6 and an approximation
of post-traumatic stress disorder ("post-traumatic stress
reaction"). Participants were asked whether they had suffered from a
number of medical conditions in the past year. These including asthma,
hay fever, and eczema and psoriasis.
We used logistic regression analysis to model the risk of ill health,
defined as binary outcomes with increasing levels of vaccine exposure,
controlling for the following potential confounders: age, officer
status, service (Royal Navy, Army, Royal Air Force), and education. We
used multiple regression to model the risk of ill health defined as
continuous outcomes, including the same potential confounders.
Likelihood ratio tests for trend were used to determine the strength of
associations and effect modifiers. We performed additional analyses
controlling for several other potential confounders. These confounders
included all vaccines received; years in military service; reported
side effects to vaccines; and date of deployment.
| |
Results |
|---|
|
|
|---|
Details on the response rate, differences between responders and non-responders, and basic sociodemography are presented in our previous paper.2 In all, 70.4% of Gulf veterans responded, and responders were more likely to be older, currently in service, and to have attended the Ministry of Defence's assessment programme for Gulf war veterans with symptoms. We included only those responders with vaccination records (n=923; 28% of responders). We compared those with and without records of their vaccines and found no differences in educational status, rank, age, or health outcomes. The only difference of note was that those with records were more likely to have been reservists (for example, in the territorial army). Further analyses indicated that not seeing active service was not associated with any of the outcomes we used.
Table 1 shows the association between individual vaccines and the CDC syndrome according to whether the vaccines were given before or after deployment. The table shows firstly that the pattern of vaccines given before deployment was different from that given after deployment, with more "routine" vaccines and fewer biological warfare vaccines being received before deployment. The table gives odds ratios for the association between each vaccine and the multisymptom illness. Because receipt of each individual vaccine was not independent, we also put all vaccines into the same model. The only vaccines to be associated with the outcome were tetanus and cholera when they were given during deployment. This, however, represented a relatively small group of veterans with records (3.8% and 3.1% respectively).
There was no relation between the number of vaccines received before deployment and the numbers received during deployment (table 2). Receipt of multiple vaccines either before or during deployment was not associated with age, education, or rank. Those in the army were more likely to receive multiple vaccines after deployment than Naval or Air Force personnel (P=0.07). There was an association between receipt of multiple vaccines both before and during deployment and being in the medical corps. In total 34.5% of those who received multiple vaccines before deployment were deployed between August and December 1990, whereas 70.3% of those receiving multiple vaccines after deployment were deployed during this time.
|
Table 3 shows the association between multiple vaccines and all six
health outcomes, depending on whether the vaccines were received before
or during deployment. For only one health outcome (post-traumatic
stress reaction) was there any association with receipt of multiple
vaccines before deployment. For receipt of multiple vaccines after
deployment, however, the situation was reversed
five of the six
outcomes (all except post-traumatic stress reaction) were associated.
The effects were particularly striking for the multisymptom
illness.
|
|
We used a series of additional analyses to determine whether the
association between multiple vaccines during deployment could be
accounted for by possible confounders. Firstly, we hypothesised that
the effect might be due to the influence of individual vaccines. We
therefore controlled for all vaccines received simultaneously (table
4). This did not affect the relation. Secondly, we thought that those
most likely to receive multiple vaccines simultaneously would be the
service personnel who had only recently joined the forces as those with
more experience and previous deployments would be less likely to need
new vaccines. If previous experience of deployment was protective of
the health effects of going to the Gulf this could account for the
relation; however adjustment for years in the military made no
difference. We also controlled for the experience of side effects to
vaccines, and this led to a reduction in the odds ratios, but the
relation still remained. We controlled for the month of deployment and
total duration of deployment to the Gulf
clearly those who were
deployed early and stayed late were more likely to receive vaccines
during deployment and may have been at higher risk of ill health
because of their more prolonged service experience. This, however,
increased the effect size. We did additional analyses to control for
smoking and alcohol consumption, but these potential confounders had no effect on any of the trends reported. Finally, we controlled for the
total number of stressful events reported. This led to a loss of the
association between vaccines after deployment and being classified as a
case on the general health questionnaire (
2=2.1; P=0.14)
and a reduction in the association between post-traumatic stress
reaction and vaccines before deployment to marginal significance (
2=3.62; P=0.06).
No interaction terms were found for relations between multiple vaccines
after deployment and the number of traditional combat stressors
(
2=2.64; df=1; P=0.10) or self reported pesticide use
(
2=0.2; df=1; P=0.66).
Finally, table 5 shows the association between vaccines and atopic conditions. There was no association between vaccination before deployment and any of these outcomes. There was, however, an association between vaccines after deployment and asthma. The total number of sufferers was small so the confidence intervals are wide, and the result is of only marginal significance. There was no such association for the other atopic conditions.
|
| |
Discussion |
|---|
|
|
|---|
Our findings provide partial support for the hypothesis of Rook and Zumla.1 Multiple vaccinations in military personnel in the Gulf war were associated with subsequent ill health only in servicemen who received vaccines after deployment. Traditional stresses of war, however, did not modify the effect of multiple vaccines, and there was no interaction between vaccines and the use of pesticides.
Methodological concerns
It is necessary to consider some general limitations of this
study. Firstly, we limited the sample to a group of servicemen who had
kept their vaccine records. Most exposures we have reported on
previously have relied entirely on self reports from servicemen and are
thus prone to recall bias. We reasoned that the group with vaccine
records would be able to give a more accurate picture of the vaccines
they had received and, because timing of vaccines was crucial to the
question under study, we limited the analyses to this group. They may
have been an unusual group, but we could not detect any differences
between them and the other servicemen, including their health outcomes.
Analysis of our entire sample of veterans (not reported) did not show
such a clear cut pattern
multiple vaccines were associated with ill
health no matter when they were given.
which may indicate more
accurate reporting by them as well as more vaccines required for
occupational needs, such as hepatitis B. Other potential confounders
such as years of previous service in the military and the
individual vaccines received
did not substantially alter our estimates
of effect, but reports of side effects after vaccination led to a
reduction in the association. Initial symptoms could "sensitise" individuals to later symptoms or perhaps initial
symptoms indicated differences in biological response. Alternatively,
there may be a general reporting bias whereby those who experience
side effects also report more symptoms at follow up.
The reliability of ascertainment of vaccine history requires some
comment. We were asking veterans to report on vaccines they had
received six to eight years before. We did not have their actual
records but asked them to transfer details from their records to our
questionnaire. Thus it is possible that our measures of total vaccines
received are inaccurate. Recall bias may have affected our results. The
difference in effects we found between multiple vaccines given before
the conflict as opposed to vaccines given during deployment to such
generalised and non-specific complaints of ill health, however, is
difficult to explain on the basis of recall bias alone. Our previous
paper showed that practically all exposures were associated with nearly
all outcomes2
a general non-specific pattern which could
be expected if recall bias played a part. In this paper, the
absence of an association with vaccines before deployment is in
itself remarkable.
Possible mechanisms
If bias and confounding are not considered important explanations,
what pathways could link multiple vaccines given during deployment to
subsequent ill health? Firstly, Rook and Zumla's hypothesis may be
correct.1 We have not as yet, however, performed the
immunological investigations that would test this directly. Animal
models have also failed to find any behavioural consequences of high
dose multiple vaccines.7
which are usually self limiting
gain new salience in
settings of stress, such as being deployed to the Gulf.
We failed to find any interaction between vaccines and either
traditional military stressors or pesticide use. The lack of an
association with military stressors does not necessarily indicate that
there is no interaction between stress and vaccines. Such military
stressors may be less important for trained service personnel than the
general stress associated with deployment, which includes change of
climate, living conditions, diet, sleep-wake pattern, and physical
activity as well as fears over personal safety and separation from
one's family. The measurement of pesticide use was crude and relied on
self report. In addition we may not have had sufficient statistical
power to detect an interaction term.
Implications
What are the implications of our findings for future conflicts? It
would be folly to allow service personnel to be committed to a modern
battlefield without all necessary means of protection against endemic
infection and biological weapons. The main such protection is
vaccination. Our findings are compatible with a link between multiple
vaccines given at the time of deployment and subsequent illness. They
also suggest a measured intervention
with every effort made to ensure
that soldiers either maintain routine vaccinations (including
biological warfare vaccines) or at least that even in the inevitable
crisis atmosphere of deployment, early vaccination with as long a gap
as possible before the actual stress of deployment
would be prudent.
The critical constituents of this "stress" require urgent study.
Finally, our results should be viewed only in the narrow context
of service personnel deployed to the Gulf war. The combination of
multiple vaccines before deployment seems safe, and this study provides
no evidence that vaccine regimens currently used in civilians are
harmful.
|
What is already known on this topic
Military personnel who served in the Gulf war have higher rates of non-specific symptoms than other military populations Multiple vaccines may be weakly associated with this outcome What this study addsThere was a specific association between the timing of multiple vaccines and ill health: personnel who received multiple vaccines before deployment were not at increased risk, whereas those who had received them during deployment were Vaccines, however, are only one of the many exposures implicated Pesticides do not seem to interact with vaccines to cause ill health |
| |
Acknowledgments |
|---|
We are grateful to Mr Nick Blatchley and Dr Martin Prince for their comments on an earlier draft.
Contributors: MH was responsible for framing the hypotheses, analysing the results, and writing the paper and is its guarantor. AD and SW were principal investigators for the study. CU was the study coordinator. LH and KI assisted in study design, data collection, and writing up.
| |
Footnotes |
|---|
Funding: United States Department of Defence.
Competing interests: None declared.
| |
References |
|---|
|
|
|---|
| 1. | Rook GAW, Zumla A. Gulf war syndrome: is it due to a systemic shift in cytokine balance towards a Th2 profile? Lancet 1997; 349: 1831-1833[CrossRef][Medline]. |
| 2. | Unwin C, Blatchley N, Coker W, Ferry S, Hotopf M, Hull L, et al. Health of UK servicemen who served in the Persian Gulf War. Lancet 1999; 353: 169-178[CrossRef][Medline]. |
| 3. | Goldberg D. The detection of psychiatric illness by questionnaire. London: Oxford University Press, 1972. |
| 4. | Chalder T, Berelowitz C, Pawlikowska T. Development of a fatigue scale. J Psychosomatic Res 1993; 37: 147-154[CrossRef][Medline]. |
| 5. | Stewart AD, Hays RD, Ware JE. The MOS short-form general health survey. Medical Care 1988; 26: 724-732[Medline]. |
| 6. | Fukuda K, Nisenbaum R, Stewart G, Thompson WW, Robin L, Washko RM, et al. Chronic multisymptom illness affecting air force veterans of the gulf war. JAMA 1998; 2809: 981-988. |
| 7. | Griffiths GD, Hornby RJ, Stevens DJ, Scott L, Upshall D. Consequence of multiple vaccination with pyridostigmine
pretreatment in the guinea pig a multi-parameter study. Conference on
federally sponsored Gulf war veteran's illnesses research.
Pentagon City, June 1999: No 165.
|
| 8. | Wessely S, Hotopf M, Sharpe M. Chronic fatigue and its syndromes. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1998. |
(Accepted 7 February 2000)
Read all Rapid Responses
What can you learn from this BMJ paper? Read Leanne Tite's Paper+