Oral tolerance inhibits pulmonary eosinophilia in a cockroach allergen induced model of asthma: a randomized laboratory study

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Antigen desensitization through oral tolerance is becoming an increasingly attractive treatment option for allergic diseases. However, the mechanism(s) by which tolerization is achieved remain poorly defined. In this study we endeavored to induce oral tolerance to cockroach allergen (CRA: a complex mixture of insect components) in order to ameliorate asthma-like, allergic pulmonary inflammation.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>We compared the pulmonary inflammation of mice which had received four CRA feedings prior to intratracheal allergen sensitization and challenge to mice fed PBS on the same time course. Respiratory parameters were assessed by whole body unrestrained plethysmography and mechanical ventilation with forced oscillation. Bronchoalveolar lavage fluid (BAL) and lung homogenate (LH) were assessed for cytokines and chemokines by ELISA. BAL inflammatory cells were also collected and examined by light microscopy.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>CRA feeding prior to allergen sensitization and challenge led to a significant improvement in respiratory health. Airways hyperreactivity measured indirectly via enhanced pause (Penh) was meaningfully reduced in the CRA-fed mice compared to the PBS fed mice (2.3 ± 0.4 vs 3.9 ± 0.6; p = 0.03). Directly measured airways resistance confirmed this trend when comparing the CRA-fed to the PBS-fed animals (2.97 ± 0.98 vs 4.95 ± 1.41). This effect was not due to reduced traditional inflammatory cell chemotactic factors, Th2 or other cytokines and chemokines. The mechanism of improved respiratory health in the tolerized mice was due to significantly reduced eosinophil numbers in the bronchoalveolar lavage fluid (43300 ± 11445 vs 158786 ± 38908; p = 0.007) and eosinophil specific peroxidase activity in the lung homogenate (0.59 ± 0.13 vs 1.19 ± 0.19; p = 0.017). The decreased eosinophilia was likely the result of increased IL-10 in the lung homogenate of the tolerized mice (6320 ± 354 ng/mL vs 5190 ± 404 ng/mL, p = 0.02).</p> <p>Conclusion</p> <p>Our results show that oral tolerization to CRA can improve the respiratory health of experimental mice in a CRA-induced model of asthma-like pulmonary inflammation by reducing pulmonary eosinophilia.</p

Effectiveness of manual therapies: the UK evidence report

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>The purpose of this report is to provide a succinct but comprehensive summary of the scientific evidence regarding the effectiveness of manual treatment for the management of a variety of musculoskeletal and non-musculoskeletal conditions.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>The conclusions are based on the results of systematic reviews of randomized clinical trials (RCTs), widely accepted and primarily UK and United States evidence-based clinical guidelines, plus the results of all RCTs not yet included in the first three categories. The strength/quality of the evidence regarding effectiveness was based on an adapted version of the grading system developed by the US Preventive Services Task Force and a study risk of bias assessment tool for the recent RCTs.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>By September 2009, 26 categories of conditions were located containing RCT evidence for the use of manual therapy: 13 musculoskeletal conditions, four types of chronic headache and nine non-musculoskeletal conditions. We identified 49 recent relevant systematic reviews and 16 evidence-based clinical guidelines plus an additional 46 RCTs not yet included in systematic reviews and guidelines.</p> <p>Additionally, brief references are made to other effective non-pharmacological, non-invasive physical treatments.</p> <p>Conclusions</p> <p>Spinal manipulation/mobilization is effective in adults for: acute, subacute, and chronic low back pain; migraine and cervicogenic headache; cervicogenic dizziness; manipulation/mobilization is effective for several extremity joint conditions; and thoracic manipulation/mobilization is effective for acute/subacute neck pain. The evidence is inconclusive for cervical manipulation/mobilization alone for neck pain of any duration, and for manipulation/mobilization for mid back pain, sciatica, tension-type headache, coccydynia, temporomandibular joint disorders, fibromyalgia, premenstrual syndrome, and pneumonia in older adults. Spinal manipulation is not effective for asthma and dysmenorrhea when compared to sham manipulation, or for Stage 1 hypertension when added to an antihypertensive diet. In children, the evidence is inconclusive regarding the effectiveness for otitis media and enuresis, and it is not effective for infantile colic and asthma when compared to sham manipulation.</p> <p>Massage is effective in adults for chronic low back pain and chronic neck pain. The evidence is inconclusive for knee osteoarthritis, fibromyalgia, myofascial pain syndrome, migraine headache, and premenstrual syndrome. In children, the evidence is inconclusive for asthma and infantile colic.</p