Guillain-Barré syndrome: a century of progress

In 1916, Guillain, Barré and Strohl reported on two cases of acute flaccid paralysis with high cerebrospinal fluid protein levels and normal cell counts — novel findings that identified the disease we now know as Guillain–Barré syndrome (GBS). 100 years on, we have made great progress with the clinical and pathological characterization of GBS. Early clinicopathological and animal studies indicated that GBS was an immune-mediated demyelinating disorder, and that severe GBS could result in secondary axonal injury; the current treatments of plasma exchange and intravenous immunoglobulin, which were developed in the 1980s, are based on this premise. Subsequent work has, however, shown that primary axonal injury can be the underlying disease. The association of Campylobacter jejuni strains has led to confirmation that anti-ganglioside antibodies are pathogenic and that axonal GBS involves an antibody and complement-mediated disruption of nodes of Ranvier, neuromuscular junctions and other neuronal and glial membranes. Now, ongoing clinical trials of the complement inhibitor eculizumab are the first targeted immunotherapy in GBS

Genome-wide association study identifies six new loci influencing pulse pressure and mean arterial pressure.

Numerous genetic loci have been associated with systolic blood pressure (SBP) and diastolic blood pressure (DBP) in Europeans. We now report genome-wide association studies of pulse pressure (PP) and mean arterial pressure (MAP). In discovery (N = 74,064) and follow-up studies (N = 48,607), we identified at genome-wide significance (P = 2.7 × 10(-8) to P = 2.3 × 10(-13)) four new PP loci (at 4q12 near CHIC2, 7q22.3 near PIK3CG, 8q24.12 in NOV and 11q24.3 near ADAMTS8), two new MAP loci (3p21.31 in MAP4 and 10q25.3 near ADRB1) and one locus associated with both of these traits (2q24.3 near FIGN) that has also recently been associated with SBP in east Asians. For three of the new PP loci, the estimated effect for SBP was opposite of that for DBP, in contrast to the majority of common SBP- and DBP-associated variants, which show concordant effects on both traits. These findings suggest new genetic pathways underlying blood pressure variation, some of which may differentially influence SBP and DBP

History of clinical transplantation

The emergence of transplantation has seen the development of increasingly potent immunosuppressive agents, progressively better methods of tissue and organ preservation, refinements in histocompatibility matching, and numerous innovations is surgical techniques. Such efforts in combination ultimately made it possible to successfully engraft all of the organs and bone marrow cells in humans. At a more fundamental level, however, the transplantation enterprise hinged on two seminal turning points. The first was the recognition by Billingham, Brent, and Medawar in 1953 that it was possible to induce chimerism-associated neonatal tolerance deliberately. This discovery escalated over the next 15 years to the first successful bone marrow transplantations in humans in 1968. The second turning point was the demonstration during the early 1960s that canine and human organ allografts could self-induce tolerance with the aid of immunosuppression. By the end of 1962, however, it had been incorrectly concluded that turning points one and two involved different immune mechanisms. The error was not corrected until well into the 1990s. In this historical account, the vast literature that sprang up during the intervening 30 years has been summarized. Although admirably documenting empiric progress in clinical transplantation, its failure to explain organ allograft acceptance predestined organ recipients to lifetime immunosuppression and precluded fundamental changes in the treatment policies. After it was discovered in 1992 that long-surviving organ transplant recipient had persistent microchimerism, it was possible to see the mechanistic commonality of organ and bone marrow transplantation. A clarifying central principle of immunology could then be synthesized with which to guide efforts to induce tolerance systematically to human tissues and perhaps ultimately to xenografts

Genetic variants in novel pathways influence blood pressure and cardiovascular disease risk.

Blood pressure is a heritable trait influenced by several biological pathways and responsive to environmental stimuli. Over one billion people worldwide have hypertension (≥140 mm Hg systolic blood pressure or  ≥90 mm Hg diastolic blood pressure). Even small increments in blood pressure are associated with an increased risk of cardiovascular events. This genome-wide association study of systolic and diastolic blood pressure, which used a multi-stage design in 200,000 individuals of European descent, identified sixteen novel loci: six of these loci contain genes previously known or suspected to regulate blood pressure (GUCY1A3-GUCY1B3, NPR3-C5orf23, ADM, FURIN-FES, GOSR2, GNAS-EDN3); the other ten provide new clues to blood pressure physiology. A genetic risk score based on 29 genome-wide significant variants was associated with hypertension, left ventricular wall thickness, stroke and coronary artery disease, but not kidney disease or kidney function. We also observed associations with blood pressure in East Asian, South Asian and African ancestry individuals. Our findings provide new insights into the genetics and biology of blood pressure, and suggest potential novel therapeutic pathways for cardiovascular disease prevention

Antiinflammatory Therapy with Canakinumab for Atherosclerotic Disease

Background: Experimental and clinical data suggest that reducing inflammation without affecting lipid levels may reduce the risk of cardiovascular disease. Yet, the inflammatory hypothesis of atherothrombosis has remained unproved. Methods: We conducted a randomized, double-blind trial of canakinumab, a therapeutic monoclonal antibody targeting interleukin-1β, involving 10,061 patients with previous myocardial infarction and a high-sensitivity C-reactive protein level of 2 mg or more per liter. The trial compared three doses of canakinumab (50 mg, 150 mg, and 300 mg, administered subcutaneously every 3 months) with placebo. The primary efficacy end point was nonfatal myocardial infarction, nonfatal stroke, or cardiovascular death. RESULTS: At 48 months, the median reduction from baseline in the high-sensitivity C-reactive protein level was 26 percentage points greater in the group that received the 50-mg dose of canakinumab, 37 percentage points greater in the 150-mg group, and 41 percentage points greater in the 300-mg group than in the placebo group. Canakinumab did not reduce lipid levels from baseline. At a median follow-up of 3.7 years, the incidence rate for the primary end point was 4.50 events per 100 person-years in the placebo group, 4.11 events per 100 person-years in the 50-mg group, 3.86 events per 100 person-years in the 150-mg group, and 3.90 events per 100 person-years in the 300-mg group. The hazard ratios as compared with placebo were as follows: in the 50-mg group, 0.93 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.80 to 1.07; P = 0.30); in the 150-mg group, 0.85 (95% CI, 0.74 to 0.98; P = 0.021); and in the 300-mg group, 0.86 (95% CI, 0.75 to 0.99; P = 0.031). The 150-mg dose, but not the other doses, met the prespecified multiplicity-adjusted threshold for statistical significance for the primary end point and the secondary end point that additionally included hospitalization for unstable angina that led to urgent revascularization (hazard ratio vs. placebo, 0.83; 95% CI, 0.73 to 0.95; P = 0.005). Canakinumab was associated with a higher incidence of fatal infection than was placebo. There was no significant difference in all-cause mortality (hazard ratio for all canakinumab doses vs. placebo, 0.94; 95% CI, 0.83 to 1.06; P = 0.31). Conclusions: Antiinflammatory therapy targeting the interleukin-1β innate immunity pathway with canakinumab at a dose of 150 mg every 3 months led to a significantly lower rate of recurrent cardiovascular events than placebo, independent of lipid-level lowering. (Funded by Novartis; CANTOS ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT01327846.