38 research outputs found

    IL-23 receptor and IL-12 receptor expression is restricted to distinct cell types in the IL-23R-GFP reporter mouse

    Full text link
    Les maladies inflammatoires de l'intestin (MII) sont caractĂ©risĂ©es par des rĂ©ponses immunitaires incontrĂŽlĂ©es dans l'intestin. Des Ă©tudes gĂ©nĂ©tiques ont associĂ© un polymorphisme dans le gĂšne de l'IL23R Ă  la rĂ©sistance aux MII. IL23R code pour la protĂ©ine de l’IL-23r, une sous-unitĂ© du rĂ©cepteur Ă  l’IL-23 (IL-23R). Ce rĂ©cepteur appartient Ă  la famille de l’IL-12R, contenant plusieurs rĂ©cepteurs hĂ©tĂ©rodimĂ©riques. D’ailleurs, IL-12R et IL-23R partagent la sous-unitĂ© IL12Rb1. NĂ©anmoins, ces deux rĂ©cepteurs favorisent des rĂ©ponses immunitaires distinctes (Th1 vs Th17). Ce mĂ©moire caractĂ©rise les dynamiques d’expression cellulaires de l’IL-23R et l’IL-12R, afin d’élucider leurs rĂŽles dans l’inflammation. Nous avons Ă©tabli qu’IL-23R et IL-12R ne sont jamais co-exprimĂ©s, malgrĂ© qu’ils partagent la sous-unitĂ© IL-12RÎČ1. Parmi les cellules de rates de souris, la protĂ©ine IL-23r est trouvĂ©e dans certaines cellules T TCRγΎ ou T CD4+, quelques cellules B et des cellules Lti-like. La protĂ©ine IL-12RÎČ2 est exprimĂ©e par quelques cellules B. L’analyse de l’expression de l’IL-23R et l’IL-12R dans diffĂ©rents organes rĂ©vĂ©la que la plus grande proportion de cellules exprimant l’IL-23R se retrouve dans la lamina propria de l'intestin grĂȘle, alors que les cellules exprimant l’IL-12RÎČ2 ont Ă©tĂ© retrouvĂ©es en proportion Ă©quivalente dans tous les organes lymphoĂŻdes. Ces observations appuient les Ă©tudes gĂ©nĂ©tiques suggĂ©rant un rĂŽle prĂ©dominant de l’IL23R dans les intestins. Finalement, des cultures in vitro suggĂšrent que l’IL-23R ou l’IL-12R avaient des rĂ©actions croisĂ©es Ă  l’IL-12 ou l’IL-23. L’étude de l’IL-23R dans les MII devrait donc ĂȘtre complĂ©mentĂ©e par l’étude de l’IL-12R, car les deux rĂ©cepteurs pourraient avoir des rĂŽles complĂ©mentaires.Inflammatory bowel diseases (IBD) are characterised by uncontrolled immune responses in the gut. Genome-wide association studies (GWAS) have identified a protective polymorphism for IBD in the IL23R gene. IL23R codes for the IL-23r protein, one of the two subunits of IL-23R. IL-23R belongs to the IL-12R family, which contains many heterodimeric receptors. For example, both IL-12R and IL-23R share the IL-12RÎČ1 subunit. Nevertheless, IL-12R and IL-23R are associated with different immune processes (Th1 vs. Th17). This thesis characterizes the cellular patterns of expression of both IL-23R and IL-12R, to further elucidate their roles in inflammation. We established that IL-23R and IL-12R were never co-expressed together, even though they share the IL-12RÎČ2 subunit. Analysis of murine splenocytes revealed that IL-23R is expressed by some TCRγΎ T-cells, a few B-cells, CD4+ T-cells and several Lti-like cells. IL-12R protein was found in a few B-cells. The analysis of IL-23R and IL-12R expression in different organs revealed that the lamina propria of the small intestine was the organ containing the largest proportion of IL-23r+ cells. IL-12R+ cells were found in constant numbers throughout the organs. Finally, in vitro cultures showed that IL-23R and IL-12R had crossed reaction to IL-12 and IL-23. Study of IL-23R in IBD should always be accompanied by IL-12R analysis, because both receptors could have complementary roles

    Oral rehydration versus intravenous therapy for treating dehydration due to gastroenteritis in children: a meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials

    Get PDF
    BACKGROUND: Despite treatment recommendations from various organizations, oral rehydration therapy (ORT) continues to be underused, particularly by physicians in high-income countries. We conducted a systematic review of randomised controlled trials (RCTs) to compare ORT and intravenous therapy (IVT) for the treatment of dehydration secondary to acute gastroenteritis in children. METHODS: RCTs were identified through MEDLINE, EMBASE, CENTRAL, authors and references of included trials, pharmaceutical companies, and relevant organizations. Screening and inclusion were performed independently by two reviewers in order to identify randomised or quasi-randomised controlled trials comparing ORT and IVT in children with acute diarrhea and dehydration. Two reviewers independently assessed study quality using the Jadad scale and allocation concealment. Data were extracted by one reviewer and checked by a second. The primary outcome measure was failure of rehydration. We analyzed data using standard meta-analytic techniques. RESULTS: The quality of the 14 included trials ranged from 0 to 3 (Jadad score); allocation concealment was unclear in all but one study. Using a random effects model, there was no significant difference in treatment failures (risk difference [RD] 3%; 95% confidence intervals [CI]: 0, 6). The Mantel-Haenzsel fixed effects model gave a significant difference between treatment groups (RD 4%; 95% CI: 2, 5) favoring IVT. Based on the four studies that reported deaths, there were six in the IVT groups and two in ORT. There were no significant differences in total fluid intake at six and 24 hours, weight gain, duration of diarrhea, or hypo/hypernatremia. Length of stay was significantly shorter for the ORT group (weighted mean difference [WMD] -1.2 days; 95% CI: -2.4,-0.02). Phlebitis occurred significantly more often with IVT (number needed to treat [NNT] 33; 95% CI: 25,100); paralytic ileus occurred more often with ORT (NNT 33; 95% CI: 20,100). These results may not be generalizable to children with persistent vomiting. CONCLUSION: There were no clinically important differences between ORT and IVT in terms of efficacy and safety. For every 25 children (95% CI: 20, 50) treated with ORT, one would fail and require IVT. The results support existing practice guidelines recommending ORT as the first course of treatment in appropriate children with dehydration secondary to gastroenteritis

    The Dichotomous Pattern of IL-12R and IL-23R Expression Elucidates the Role of IL-12 and IL-23 in Inflammation

    Get PDF
    IL-12 and IL-23 cytokines respectively drive Th1 and Th17 type responses. Yet, little is known regarding the biology of these receptors. As the IL-12 and IL-23 receptors share a common subunit, it has been assumed that these receptors are co-expressed. Surprisingly, we find that the expression of each of these receptors is restricted to specific cell types, in both mouse and human. Indeed, although IL-12RÎČ2 is expressed by NK cells and a subset of γΎ T cells, the expression of IL-23R is restricted to specific T cell subsets, a small number of B cells and innate lymphoid cells. By exploiting an IL-12- and IL-23-dependent mouse model of innate inflammation, we demonstrate an intricate interplay between IL-12RÎČ2 NK cells and IL-23R innate lymphoid cells with respectively dominant roles in the regulation of systemic versus local inflammatory responses. Together, these findings support an unforeseen lineage-specific dichotomy in the in vivo role of both the IL-12 and IL-23 pathways in pathological inflammatory states, which may allow more accurate dissection of the roles of these receptors in chronic inflammatory diseases in humans

    Effect of angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor and angiotensin receptor blocker initiation on organ support-free days in patients hospitalized with COVID-19

    Get PDF
    IMPORTANCE Overactivation of the renin-angiotensin system (RAS) may contribute to poor clinical outcomes in patients with COVID-19. Objective To determine whether angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitor or angiotensin receptor blocker (ARB) initiation improves outcomes in patients hospitalized for COVID-19. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS In an ongoing, adaptive platform randomized clinical trial, 721 critically ill and 58 non–critically ill hospitalized adults were randomized to receive an RAS inhibitor or control between March 16, 2021, and February 25, 2022, at 69 sites in 7 countries (final follow-up on June 1, 2022). INTERVENTIONS Patients were randomized to receive open-label initiation of an ACE inhibitor (n = 257), ARB (n = 248), ARB in combination with DMX-200 (a chemokine receptor-2 inhibitor; n = 10), or no RAS inhibitor (control; n = 264) for up to 10 days. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES The primary outcome was organ support–free days, a composite of hospital survival and days alive without cardiovascular or respiratory organ support through 21 days. The primary analysis was a bayesian cumulative logistic model. Odds ratios (ORs) greater than 1 represent improved outcomes. RESULTS On February 25, 2022, enrollment was discontinued due to safety concerns. Among 679 critically ill patients with available primary outcome data, the median age was 56 years and 239 participants (35.2%) were women. Median (IQR) organ support–free days among critically ill patients was 10 (–1 to 16) in the ACE inhibitor group (n = 231), 8 (–1 to 17) in the ARB group (n = 217), and 12 (0 to 17) in the control group (n = 231) (median adjusted odds ratios of 0.77 [95% bayesian credible interval, 0.58-1.06] for improvement for ACE inhibitor and 0.76 [95% credible interval, 0.56-1.05] for ARB compared with control). The posterior probabilities that ACE inhibitors and ARBs worsened organ support–free days compared with control were 94.9% and 95.4%, respectively. Hospital survival occurred in 166 of 231 critically ill participants (71.9%) in the ACE inhibitor group, 152 of 217 (70.0%) in the ARB group, and 182 of 231 (78.8%) in the control group (posterior probabilities that ACE inhibitor and ARB worsened hospital survival compared with control were 95.3% and 98.1%, respectively). CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE In this trial, among critically ill adults with COVID-19, initiation of an ACE inhibitor or ARB did not improve, and likely worsened, clinical outcomes. TRIAL REGISTRATION ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT0273570

    COVID-19 symptoms at hospital admission vary with age and sex: results from the ISARIC prospective multinational observational study

    Get PDF
    Background: The ISARIC prospective multinational observational study is the largest cohort of hospitalized patients with COVID-19. We present relationships of age, sex, and nationality to presenting symptoms. Methods: International, prospective observational study of 60 109 hospitalized symptomatic patients with laboratory-confirmed COVID-19 recruited from 43 countries between 30 January and 3 August 2020. Logistic regression was performed to evaluate relationships of age and sex to published COVID-19 case definitions and the most commonly reported symptoms. Results: ‘Typical’ symptoms of fever (69%), cough (68%) and shortness of breath (66%) were the most commonly reported. 92% of patients experienced at least one of these. Prevalence of typical symptoms was greatest in 30- to 60-year-olds (respectively 80, 79, 69%; at least one 95%). They were reported less frequently in children (≀ 18 years: 69, 48, 23; 85%), older adults (≄ 70 years: 61, 62, 65; 90%), and women (66, 66, 64; 90%; vs. men 71, 70, 67; 93%, each P < 0.001). The most common atypical presentations under 60 years of age were nausea and vomiting and abdominal pain, and over 60 years was confusion. Regression models showed significant differences in symptoms with sex, age and country. Interpretation: This international collaboration has allowed us to report reliable symptom data from the largest cohort of patients admitted to hospital with COVID-19. Adults over 60 and children admitted to hospital with COVID-19 are less likely to present with typical symptoms. Nausea and vomiting are common atypical presentations under 30 years. Confusion is a frequent atypical presentation of COVID-19 in adults over 60 years. Women are less likely to experience typical symptoms than men

    Oral rehydration versus intravenous therapy for treating dehydration due to gastroenteritis in children: a meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials

    No full text
    Abstract Background Despite treatment recommendations from various organizations, oral rehydration therapy (ORT) continues to be underused, particularly by physicians in high-income countries. We conducted a systematic review of randomised controlled trials (RCTs) to compare ORT and intravenous therapy (IVT) for the treatment of dehydration secondary to acute gastroenteritis in children. Methods RCTs were identified through MEDLINE, EMBASE, CENTRAL, authors and references of included trials, pharmaceutical companies, and relevant organizations. Screening and inclusion were performed independently by two reviewers in order to identify randomised or quasi-randomised controlled trials comparing ORT and IVT in children with acute diarrhea and dehydration. Two reviewers independently assessed study quality using the Jadad scale and allocation concealment. Data were extracted by one reviewer and checked by a second. The primary outcome measure was failure of rehydration. We analyzed data using standard meta-analytic techniques. Results The quality of the 14 included trials ranged from 0 to 3 (Jadad score); allocation concealment was unclear in all but one study. Using a random effects model, there was no significant difference in treatment failures (risk difference [RD] 3%; 95% confidence intervals [CI]: 0, 6). The Mantel-Haenzsel fixed effects model gave a significant difference between treatment groups (RD 4%; 95% CI: 2, 5) favoring IVT. Based on the four studies that reported deaths, there were six in the IVT groups and two in ORT. There were no significant differences in total fluid intake at six and 24 hours, weight gain, duration of diarrhea, or hypo/hypernatremia. Length of stay was significantly shorter for the ORT group (weighted mean difference [WMD] -1.2 days; 95% CI: -2.4,-0.02). Phlebitis occurred significantly more often with IVT (number needed to treat [NNT] 33; 95% CI: 25,100); paralytic ileus occurred more often with ORT (NNT 33; 95% CI: 20,100). These results may not be generalizable to children with persistent vomiting. Conclusion There were no clinically important differences between ORT and IVT in terms of efficacy and safety. For every 25 children (95% CI: 20, 50) treated with ORT, one would fail and require IVT. The results support existing practice guidelines recommending ORT as the first course of treatment in appropriate children with dehydration secondary to gastroenteritis.</p
    corecore