Tim-3 Negatively Regulates IL-12 Expression by Monocytes in HCV Infection

T cell immunoglobulin and mucin domain-containing protein 3 (Tim-3) is a newly identified negative immunomodulator that is up-regulated on dysfunctional T cells during viral infections. The expression and function of Tim-3 on human innate immune responses during HCV infection, however, remains poorly characterized. In this study, we report that Tim-3 is constitutively expressed on human resting CD14+ monocyte/macrophages (M/MØ) and functions as a cap to block IL-12, a key pro-inflammatory cytokine linking innate and adaptive immune responses. Tim-3 expression is significantly reduced and IL-12 expression increased upon stimulation with Toll-like receptor 4 (TLR4) ligand - lipopolysaccharide (LPS) and TLR7/8 ligand - R848. Notably, Tim-3 is over-expressed on un-stimulated as well as TLR-stimulated M/MØ, which is inversely associated with the diminished IL-12 expression in chronically HCV-infected individuals when compared to healthy subjects. Up-regulation of Tim-3 and inhibition of IL-12 are also observed in M/MØ incubated with HCV-expressing hepatocytes, as well as in primary M/MØ or monocytic THP-1 cells incubated with HCV core protein, an effect that mimics the function of complement C1q and is reversible by blocking the HCV core/gC1qR interaction. Importantly, blockade of Tim-3 signaling significantly rescues HCV-mediated inhibition of IL-12, which is primarily expressed by Tim-3 negative M/MØ. Tim-3 blockade reduces HCV core-mediated expression of the negative immunoregulators PD-1 and SOCS-1 and increases STAT-1 phosphorylation. Conversely, blocking PD-1 or silencing SOCS-1 gene expression also decreases Tim-3 expression and enhances IL-12 secretion and STAT-1 phosphorylation. These findings suggest that Tim-3 plays a crucial role in negative regulation of innate immune responses, through crosstalk with PD-1 and SOCS-1 and limiting STAT-1 phosphorylation, and may be a novel target for immunotherapy to HCV infection

A systematic review of economic analyses of telehealth services using real time video communication

Background: Telehealth is the delivery of health care at a distance, using information and communication technology. The major rationales for its introduction have been to decrease costs, improve efficiency and increase access in health care delivery. This systematic review assesses the economic value of one type of telehealth delivery - synchronous or real time video communication - rather than examining a heterogeneous range of delivery modes as has been the case with previous reviews in this area. Methods A systematic search was undertaken for economic analyses of the clinical use of telehealth, ending in June 2009. Studies with patient outcome data and a non-telehealth comparator were included. Cost analyses, non-comparative studies and those where patient satisfaction was the only health outcome were excluded. Results 36 articles met the inclusion criteria. 22(61%) of the studies found telehealth to be less costly than the non-telehealth alternative, 11(31%) found greater costs and 3 (9%) gave the same or mixed results. 23 of the studies took the perspective of the health services, 12 were societal, and one was from the patient perspective. In three studies of telehealth to rural areas, the health services paid more for telehealth, but due to savings in patient travel, the societal perspective demonstrated cost savings. In regard to health outcomes, 12 (33%) of studies found improved health outcomes, 21 (58%) found outcomes were not significantly different, 2(6%) found that telehealth was less effective, and 1 (3%) found outcomes differed according to patient group. The organisational model of care was more important in determining the value of the service than the clinical discipline, the type of technology, or the date of the study. Conclusion Delivery of health services by real time video communication was cost-effective for home care and access to on-call hospital specialists, showed mixed results for rural service delivery, and was not cost-effective for local delivery of services between hospitals and primary care