Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
Show: 20 | 50 | 100
Results 1 - 20 de 22
Filter
1.
Br J Haematol ; 2024 Jun 13.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-38867615

ABSTRACT

Immune responses to primary COVID-19 vaccination were investigated in 58 patients with follicular lymphoma (FL) as part of the PETReA trial of frontline therapy (EudraCT 2016-004010-10). COVID-19 vaccines (BNT162b2 or ChAdOx1) were administered before, during or after cytoreductive treatment comprising rituximab (depletes B cells) and either bendamustine (depletes CD4+ T cells) or cyclophosphamide-based chemotherapy. Blood samples obtained after vaccine doses 1 and 2 (V1, V2) were analysed for antibodies and T cells reactive to the SARS-CoV-2 spike protein using the Abbott Architect and interferon-gamma ELISpot assays respectively. Compared to 149 healthy controls, patients with FL exhibited lower antibody but preserved T-cell responses. Within the FL cohort, multivariable analysis identified low pre-treatment serum IgA levels and V2 administration during induction or maintenance treatment as independent determinants of lower antibody and higher T-cell responses, and bendamustine and high/intermediate FLIPI-2 score as additional determinants of a lower antibody response. Several clinical scenarios were identified where dichotomous immune responses were estimated with >95% confidence based on combinations of predictive variables. In conclusion, the immunogenicity of COVID-19 vaccines in FL patients is influenced by multiple disease- and treatment-related factors, among which B-cell depletion showed differential effects on antibody and T-cell responses.

3.
Toxicol Sci ; 197(1): 38-52, 2023 12 21.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-37788119

ABSTRACT

In vitro preclinical drug-induced liver injury (DILI) risk assessment relies largely on the use of hepatocytes to measure drug-specific changes in cell function or viability. Unfortunately, this does not provide indications toward the immunogenicity of drugs and/or the likelihood of idiosyncratic reactions in the clinic. This is because the molecular initiating event in immune DILI is an interaction of the drug-derived antigen with MHC proteins and the T-cell receptor. This study utilized immune cells from drug-naïve donors, recently established immune cell coculture systems and blinded compounds with and without DILI liabilities to determine whether these new methods offer an improvement over established assessment methods for the prediction of immune-mediated DILI. Ten blinded test compounds (6 with known DILI liabilities; 4 with lower DILI liabilities) and 5 training compounds, with known T-cell-mediated immune reactions in patients, were investigated. Naïve T-cells were activated with 4/5 of the training compounds (nitroso sulfamethoxazole, vancomycin, Bandrowski's base, and carbamazepine) and clones derived from the priming assays were activated with drug in a dose-dependent manner. The test compounds with DILI liabilities did not stimulate T-cell proliferative responses during dendritic cell-T-cell coculture; however, CD4+ clones displaying reactivity were detected toward 2 compounds (ciprofloxacin and erythromycin) with known liabilities. Drug-responsive T-cells were not detected with the compounds with lower DILI liabilities. This study provides compelling evidence that assessment of intrinsic drug immunogenicity, although complex, can provide valuable information regarding immune liabilities of some compounds prior to clinical studies or when immune reactions are observed in patients.


Subject(s)
Chemical and Drug Induced Liver Injury , Hepatocytes , Humans , Cells, Cultured , Hepatocytes/metabolism , Coculture Techniques , Chemical and Drug Induced Liver Injury/etiology , Chemical and Drug Induced Liver Injury/metabolism , Risk Assessment
5.
Ecol Evol ; 8(11): 5765-5776, 2018 Jun.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-29938091

ABSTRACT

Foraging behavior is a critical adaptation by insects to obtain appropriate nutrients from the environment for development and fitness. Bumble bees (Bombus spp.) form annual colonies which must rapidly increase their worker populations to support rearing reproductive individuals before the end of the season. Therefore, colony growth and reproduction should be dependent on the quality and quantity of pollen resources in the surrounding landscape. Our previous research found that B. impatiens foraging preferences to different plant species were shaped by pollen protein:lipid nutritional ratios (P:L), with foragers preferring pollen species with a ~5:1 P:L ratio. In this study, we placed B. impatiens colonies in three different habitats (forest, forest edge, and valley) to determine whether pollen nutritional quality collected by the colonies differed between areas that may differ in resource abundance and diversity. We found that habitat did not influence the collected pollen nutritional quality, with colonies in all three habitats collecting pollen averaging a 4:1 P:L ratio. Furthermore, there was no difference in the nutritional quality of the pollen collected by colonies that successfully reared reproductives and those that did not. We found however, that "nutritional intake," calculated as the colony-level intake rate of nutrient quantities (protein, lipid, and sugar), was strongly related to colony growth and reproductive output. Therefore, we conclude that B. impatiens colony performance is a function of the abundance of nutritionally appropriate floral resources in the surrounding landscape. Because we did not comprehensively evaluate the nutrition provided by the plant communities in each habitat, it remains to be determined how B. impatiens polylectic foraging strategies helps them select among the available pollen nutritional landscape in a variety of plant communities to obtain a balance of key macronutrients.

7.
BMJ ; 346: f1705, 2013 Mar 18.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-23507538
10.
BMJ ; 346: f2870, 2013 May 07.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-23653135
11.
BMJ ; 347: f5269, 2013 Aug 28.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-23985312
12.
BMJ ; 344: e1374, 2012 Feb 29.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-22378927
13.
BMJ ; 346: e8664, 2012 Jan 02.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-23284160
14.
BMJ ; 345: e6069, 2012 Sep 19.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-22993394
15.
BMJ ; 345: e7355, 2012 Oct 31.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-23114076
16.
BMJ ; 345: e4956, 2012 Jul 24.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-22833582
17.
BMJ ; 344: e2705, 2012 Apr 18.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-22514218
18.
BMJ ; 344: e68, 2012 Jan 11.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-22236602
19.
BMJ ; 342: d3650, 2011 Jun 15.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-21677006
20.
BMJ ; 343: d7328, 2011 Nov 16.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-22088398
SELECTION OF CITATIONS
SEARCH DETAIL