Measurement of Th1/Th2 serum cytokines by flow cytometry in classical Hodgkin lymphoma

O linfoma de Hodgkin clássico (LHC) é uma neoplasia com distúrbio na produção de citocinas. Estudos demonstram que o padrão anormal das citocinas no linfonodo acometido pela lesão contribui não somente com a proliferação das células malignas H-RS, como também com o característico infiltrado hiper-reativo que compõe o tecido no LHC. Esta disfunção pode ser observada tanto no quadro clínico dos pacientes, como nas características histopatológicas: sintomas B, deficiência na resposta imune celular, bandas de colágeno e eosinofilia. As concentrações séricas das citocinas Th1 (IL-2, TNF, INF-&#947;) e Th2 (IL-4, IL-5, IL-10) foram estudadas em 45 pacientes com LHC, ao diagnóstico, e em 34 doadores saudáveis, por citometria de fluxo (CBA - cytometric beads array). Houve aumento das concentrações das citocinas TNF (p<0,01), INF-&#947; (p<0,01), IL-4 (p=0,01), IL-5 (p<0,01) e IL-10 (p<0,01) dos pacientes quando comparados com o grupo controle. Não foi evidenciada diferença em relação a IL-2. Ao correlacionarmos as concentrações das citocinas Th1/Th2 com as variáveis clínico-laboratoriais dos pacientes, observou-se que níveis elevados da IL-10 (Th2) estão correlacionados com as variáveis que implicam em pior prognóstico: estádios III/IV (p=0,01), presença de sintomas B (p=0,04), hemoglobina < 10,5g/dL (p=0+,01), linfócitos <600 mm³ (p=0,01) e, de acordo com o IPI, os pacientes de alto risco (p=0,01). Por outro lado, níveis séricos elevados da IL-2 (Th1) foram encontrados em estádio I/II, quando comparados com III/IV (p=0,03), o que indica que a IL-2 diminui com a progressão da doença. Os resultados sugerem que a IL-10 possa estar regulando negativamente a resposta imune citotóxica (Th1) pela inibição da IL-2. Há uma possível associação entre progressão da doença e níveis elevados da IL-10. Esse estudo evidenciou que a utilização do CBA é factível na detecção das citocinas, e que as alterações encontradas podem estar envolvidas na biologia do LHC.Classical Hodgkin lymphoma (CHL) is a malignancy with an abnormal or unbalanced secretion/production of cytokines, which might support the growth of H-RS cells, their surrounding reactive bystander cells and may be responsible for the typical clinical and histopathologic features of CHL: systemic B symptoms, an apparent defect in cell-mediated immune response, tumor fibrosis and eosinophilic infiltrate. Serum concentrations of IL-2, IL-4, IL5, IL-10, TNF and IFN-&#947; (Th1/Th2) were measured in 45 patients at diagnosis of classical Hodgkin lymphoma and in 34 healthy controls by cytometric beads array (CBA). Levels of TNF (p<0.01), INF-&#947;(p<0.01), IL-4 (p=0.01), IL-5 (p<0.01) e IL-10 (p<0.01) were significantly higher in patients compared to the control group. No difference was observed for IL-2 between the two groups. On correlating Th1/Th2 cytokine concentrations with clinical risk factors, elevated IL-10 (Th2) levels are associated with variables that suggest worse prognoses including III/IV stage (p=0.01), B-symptoms (p=0.04), hemoglobin < 10.5g/dL (p=0.01), lymphocytes < 600/mm³ (p=0.01) and according to the seven-factored international prognostic score (IPI), a subset of patients with a particularly high risk of failure (p=0.01). Furthermore, the serum levels of IL-2 (Th1) were significantly higher in a group of I/II stage patients compared to III/IV patients (p=0.03) which implies that, the levels of IL-2 might decrease with disease progression. The elevated IL-10 levels in a subset of patients with poor clinical risk factors might down regulate a Th1 immune response by inhibiting IL-2 production causing survival disadvantage by suppression of the cytotoxic immune response against the tumor. This suggests an association between progression of CHL and higher levels of the IL-10 cytokine. This study showed that measurement of serum cytokines using the CBA methodology is highly reproducible, and that changes in concentrations seem to be involved in the biology of this diseas

Guidance on Noncorticosteroid Systemic Immunomodulatory Therapy in Noninfectious Uveitis : Fundamentals Of Care for UveitiS (FOCUS) Initiative

Supplemental material available at www.aaojournal.org. Supported by AbbVie, Inc., and the Fundamentals of Care for Uveitis Initiative National Faculty. This manuscript was developed subsequent to an AbbVie-sponsored literature review of noninfectious, nonanterior uveitis. The meeting was conducted to understand the available literature regarding the management of patients with noninfectious, nonanterior uveitis. The program involved a total of 139 experts from 28 countries, who were selected for participation by AbbVie. However, AbbVie was not involved in the development of the manuscript. The authors maintained complete control over the content and this manuscript reflects the opinions of the authors. AbbVie selected the discussion participants and reviewed the final manuscript draft for scientific accuracy, but the authors determined the final content. All authors made substantial contributions to the article or critically revised it for important intellectual content and approved the final manuscript. AbbVie provided funding to invited participants, including honoraria for their attendance at the meetings. Travel to and from the meetings was reimbursed. No payments were made to the authors for the development of this manuscript. Dhinakaran Sambandan, PhD, and Shula Sarner, PhD, of Lucid Partners, Burleighfield House, Buckinghamshire, United Kingdom, provided medical writing and editorial support to the authors in the development of this manuscript; financial support for these services was provided by AbbVie. AbbVie reviewed the manuscript, but was not involved in the methodology, data collection and analysis, or completion of this manuscript.Peer reviewedPublisher PD

Guidance on noncorticosteroid systemic immunomodulatory therapy in noninfectious uveitis: fundamentals of care for uveitis (focus) initiative

Topic: An international, expert-led consensus initiative to develop systematic, evidence-based recommendations for the treatment of noninfectious uveitis in the era of biologics. Clinical Relevance: The availability of biologic agents for the treatment of human eye disease has altered practice patterns for the management of noninfectious uveitis. Current guidelines are insufficient to assure optimal use of noncorticosteroid systemic immunomodulatory agents. Methods: An international expert steering committee comprising 9 uveitis specialists (including both ophthalmologists and rheumatologists) identified clinical questions and, together with 6 bibliographic fellows trained in uveitis, conducted a Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses protocol systematic reviewof the literature (English language studies from January 1996 through June 2016; Medline [OVID], the Central Cochrane library, EMBASE,CINAHL,SCOPUS,BIOSIS, andWeb of Science). Publications included randomized controlled trials, prospective and retrospective studies with sufficient follow-up, case series with 15 cases or more, peer-reviewed articles, and hand-searched conference abstracts from key conferences. The proposed statements were circulated among 130 international uveitis experts for review.Atotal of 44 globally representativegroupmembersmet in late 2016 to refine these guidelines using a modified Delphi technique and assigned Oxford levels of evidence. Results: In total, 10 questions were addressed resulting in 21 evidence-based guidance statements covering the following topics: when to start noncorticosteroid immunomodulatory therapy, including both biologic and nonbiologic agents; what data to collect before treatment; when to modify or withdraw treatment; how to select agents based on individual efficacy and safety profiles; and evidence in specific uveitic conditions. Shared decision-making, communication among providers and safety monitoring also were addressed as part of the recommendations. Pharmacoeconomic considerations were not addressed. Conclusions: Consensus guidelines were developed based on published literature, expert opinion, and practical experience to bridge the gap between clinical needs and medical evidence to support the treatment of patients with noninfectious uveitis with noncorticosteroid immunomodulatory agents

Rationale, study design, and analysis plan of the Alveolar Recruitment for ARDS Trial (ART): Study protocol for a randomized controlled trial

Background: Acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) is associated with high in-hospital mortality. Alveolar recruitment followed by ventilation at optimal titrated PEEP may reduce ventilator-induced lung injury and improve oxygenation in patients with ARDS, but the effects on mortality and other clinical outcomes remain unknown. This article reports the rationale, study design, and analysis plan of the Alveolar Recruitment for ARDS Trial (ART). Methods/Design: ART is a pragmatic, multicenter, randomized (concealed), controlled trial, which aims to determine if maximum stepwise alveolar recruitment associated with PEEP titration is able to increase 28-day survival in patients with ARDS compared to conventional treatment (ARDSNet strategy). We will enroll adult patients with ARDS of less than 72 h duration. The intervention group will receive an alveolar recruitment maneuver, with stepwise increases of PEEP achieving 45 cmH(2)O and peak pressure of 60 cmH2O, followed by ventilation with optimal PEEP titrated according to the static compliance of the respiratory system. In the control group, mechanical ventilation will follow a conventional protocol (ARDSNet). In both groups, we will use controlled volume mode with low tidal volumes (4 to 6 mL/kg of predicted body weight) and targeting plateau pressure &lt;= 30 cmH2O. The primary outcome is 28-day survival, and the secondary outcomes are: length of ICU stay; length of hospital stay; pneumothorax requiring chest tube during first 7 days; barotrauma during first 7 days; mechanical ventilation-free days from days 1 to 28; ICU, in-hospital, and 6-month survival. ART is an event-guided trial planned to last until 520 events (deaths within 28 days) are observed. These events allow detection of a hazard ratio of 0.75, with 90% power and two-tailed type I error of 5%. All analysis will follow the intention-to-treat principle. Discussion: If the ART strategy with maximum recruitment and PEEP titration improves 28-day survival, this will represent a notable advance to the care of ARDS patients. Conversely, if the ART strategy is similar or inferior to the current evidence-based strategy (ARDSNet), this should also change current practice as many institutions routinely employ recruitment maneuvers and set PEEP levels according to some titration method.Hospital do Coracao (HCor) as part of the Program 'Hospitais de Excelencia a Servico do SUS (PROADI-SUS)'Brazilian Ministry of Healt

Rationale, study design, and analysis plan of the Alveolar Recruitment for ARDS Trial (ART): Study protocol for a randomized controlled trial

Background: Acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) is associated with high in-hospital mortality. Alveolar recruitment followed by ventilation at optimal titrated PEEP may reduce ventilator-induced lung injury and improve oxygenation in patients with ARDS, but the effects on mortality and other clinical outcomes remain unknown. This article reports the rationale, study design, and analysis plan of the Alveolar Recruitment for ARDS Trial (ART). Methods/Design: ART is a pragmatic, multicenter, randomized (concealed), controlled trial, which aims to determine if maximum stepwise alveolar recruitment associated with PEEP titration is able to increase 28-day survival in patients with ARDS compared to conventional treatment (ARDSNet strategy). We will enroll adult patients with ARDS of less than 72 h duration. The intervention group will receive an alveolar recruitment maneuver, with stepwise increases of PEEP achieving 45 cmH(2)O and peak pressure of 60 cmH2O, followed by ventilation with optimal PEEP titrated according to the static compliance of the respiratory system. In the control group, mechanical ventilation will follow a conventional protocol (ARDSNet). In both groups, we will use controlled volume mode with low tidal volumes (4 to 6 mL/kg of predicted body weight) and targeting plateau pressure <= 30 cmH2O. The primary outcome is 28-day survival, and the secondary outcomes are: length of ICU stay; length of hospital stay; pneumothorax requiring chest tube during first 7 days; barotrauma during first 7 days; mechanical ventilation-free days from days 1 to 28; ICU, in-hospital, and 6-month survival. ART is an event-guided trial planned to last until 520 events (deaths within 28 days) are observed. These events allow detection of a hazard ratio of 0.75, with 90% power and two-tailed type I error of 5%. All analysis will follow the intention-to-treat principle. Discussion: If the ART strategy with maximum recruitment and PEEP titration improves 28-day survival, this will represent a notable advance to the care of ARDS patients. Conversely, if the ART strategy is similar or inferior to the current evidence-based strategy (ARDSNet), this should also change current practice as many institutions routinely employ recruitment maneuvers and set PEEP levels according to some titration method.13Hospital do Coracao (HCor) as part of the Program 'Hospitais de Excelencia a Servico do SUS (PROADI-SUS)'Brazilian Ministry of Healt

Management of coronary disease in patients with advanced kidney disease

BACKGROUND Clinical trials that have assessed the effect of revascularization in patients with stable coronary disease have routinely excluded those with advanced chronic kidney disease. METHODS We randomly assigned 777 patients with advanced kidney disease and moderate or severe ischemia on stress testing to be treated with an initial invasive strategy consisting of coronary angiography and revascularization (if appropriate) added to medical therapy or an initial conservative strategy consisting of medical therapy alone and angiography reserved for those in whom medical therapy had failed. The primary outcome was a composite of death or nonfatal myocardial infarction. A key secondary outcome was a composite of death, nonfatal myocardial infarction, or hospitalization for unstable angina, heart failure, or resuscitated cardiac arrest. RESULTS At a median follow-up of 2.2 years, a primary outcome event had occurred in 123 patients in the invasive-strategy group and in 129 patients in the conservative-strategy group (estimated 3-year event rate, 36.4% vs. 36.7%; adjusted hazard ratio, 1.01; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.79 to 1.29; P=0.95). Results for the key secondary outcome were similar (38.5% vs. 39.7%; hazard ratio, 1.01; 95% CI, 0.79 to 1.29). The invasive strategy was associated with a higher incidence of stroke than the conservative strategy (hazard ratio, 3.76; 95% CI, 1.52 to 9.32; P=0.004) and with a higher incidence of death or initiation of dialysis (hazard ratio, 1.48; 95% CI, 1.04 to 2.11; P=0.03). CONCLUSIONS Among patients with stable coronary disease, advanced chronic kidney disease, and moderate or severe ischemia, we did not find evidence that an initial invasive strategy, as compared with an initial conservative strategy, reduced the risk of death or nonfatal myocardial infarction

Health status after invasive or conservative care in coronary and advanced kidney disease

BACKGROUND In the ISCHEMIA-CKD trial, the primary analysis showed no significant difference in the risk of death or myocardial infarction with initial angiography and revascularization plus guideline-based medical therapy (invasive strategy) as compared with guideline-based medical therapy alone (conservative strategy) in participants with stable ischemic heart disease, moderate or severe ischemia, and advanced chronic kidney disease (an estimated glomerular filtration rate of &lt;30 ml per minute per 1.73 m2 or receipt of dialysis). A secondary objective of the trial was to assess angina-related health status. METHODS We assessed health status with the Seattle Angina Questionnaire (SAQ) before randomization and at 1.5, 3, and 6 months and every 6 months thereafter. The primary outcome of this analysis was the SAQ Summary score (ranging from 0 to 100, with higher scores indicating less frequent angina and better function and quality of life). Mixed-effects cumulative probability models within a Bayesian framework were used to estimate the treatment effect with the invasive strategy. RESULTS Health status was assessed in 705 of 777 participants. Nearly half the participants (49%) had had no angina during the month before randomization. At 3 months, the estimated mean difference between the invasive-strategy group and the conservative-strategy group in the SAQ Summary score was 2.1 points (95% credible interval, 120.4 to 4.6), a result that favored the invasive strategy. The mean difference in score at 3 months was largest among participants with daily or weekly angina at baseline (10.1 points; 95% credible interval, 0.0 to 19.9), smaller among those with monthly angina at baseline (2.2 points; 95% credible interval, 122.0 to 6.2), and nearly absent among those without angina at baseline (0.6 points; 95% credible interval, 121.9 to 3.3). By 6 months, the between-group difference in the overall trial population was attenuated (0.5 points; 95% credible interval, 122.2 to 3.4). CONCLUSIONS Participants with stable ischemic heart disease, moderate or severe ischemia, and advanced chronic kidney disease did not have substantial or sustained benefits with regard to angina-related health status with an initially invasive strategy as compared with a conservative strategy

Health-status outcomes with invasive or conservative care in coronary disease

BACKGROUND In the ISCHEMIA trial, an invasive strategy with angiographic assessment and revascularization did not reduce clinical events among patients with stable ischemic heart disease and moderate or severe ischemia. A secondary objective of the trial was to assess angina-related health status among these patients. METHODS We assessed angina-related symptoms, function, and quality of life with the Seattle Angina Questionnaire (SAQ) at randomization, at months 1.5, 3, and 6, and every 6 months thereafter in participants who had been randomly assigned to an invasive treatment strategy (2295 participants) or a conservative strategy (2322). Mixed-effects cumulative probability models within a Bayesian framework were used to estimate differences between the treatment groups. The primary outcome of this health-status analysis was the SAQ summary score (scores range from 0 to 100, with higher scores indicating better health status). All analyses were performed in the overall population and according to baseline angina frequency. RESULTS At baseline, 35% of patients reported having no angina in the previous month. SAQ summary scores increased in both treatment groups, with increases at 3, 12, and 36 months that were 4.1 points (95% credible interval, 3.2 to 5.0), 4.2 points (95% credible interval, 3.3 to 5.1), and 2.9 points (95% credible interval, 2.2 to 3.7) higher with the invasive strategy than with the conservative strategy. Differences were larger among participants who had more frequent angina at baseline (8.5 vs. 0.1 points at 3 months and 5.3 vs. 1.2 points at 36 months among participants with daily or weekly angina as compared with no angina). CONCLUSIONS In the overall trial population with moderate or severe ischemia, which included 35% of participants without angina at baseline, patients randomly assigned to the invasive strategy had greater improvement in angina-related health status than those assigned to the conservative strategy. The modest mean differences favoring the invasive strategy in the overall group reflected minimal differences among asymptomatic patients and larger differences among patients who had had angina at baseline