Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
Mostrar: 20 | 50 | 100
Resultados 1 - 3 de 3
Filtrar
Mais filtros

Base de dados
Ano de publicação
Tipo de documento
Assunto da revista
País de afiliação
Intervalo de ano de publicação
1.
Nat Immunol ; 25(3): 418-431, 2024 Mar.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-38225437

RESUMO

After a century of using the Bacillus Calmette-Guérin (BCG) vaccine, our understanding of its ability to provide protection against homologous (Mycobacterium tuberculosis) or heterologous (for example, influenza virus) infections remains limited. Here we show that systemic (intravenous) BCG vaccination provides significant protection against subsequent influenza A virus infection in mice. We further demonstrate that the BCG-mediated cross-protection against influenza A virus is largely due to the enrichment of conventional CD4+ effector CX3CR1hi memory αß T cells in the circulation and lung parenchyma. Importantly, pulmonary CX3CR1hi T cells limit early viral infection in an antigen-independent manner via potent interferon-γ production, which subsequently enhances long-term antimicrobial activity of alveolar macrophages. These results offer insight into the unknown mechanism by which BCG has persistently displayed broad protection against non-tuberculosis infections via cross-talk between adaptive and innate memory responses.


Assuntos
Vacina BCG , Vírus da Influenza A , Infecções por Orthomyxoviridae , Animais , Camundongos , Administração Intravenosa , Vacina BCG/imunologia , Células T de Memória , Imunidade Treinada , Vacinação , Infecções por Orthomyxoviridae/imunologia , Infecções por Orthomyxoviridae/prevenção & controle
3.
Future Virol ; 2021 Dec.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-35145560

RESUMO

Aim: To evaluate the efficacy and safety of lopinavir-ritonavir (LPV/r) therapy in treating hospitalized COVID-19 patients. Materials & methods: Data from randomized and observational studies were included in meta-analyses. Primary outcomes were length of stay, time for SARS-CoV-2 test conversion, mortality, incidence of mechanical ventilation, time to body temperature normalization and incidence of adverse events. Results: Twenty-four studies (n = 10,718) were included. LPV/r demonstrated no significant benefit over the control groups in all efficacy outcomes. The use of LPV/r was associated with a significant increase in the odds of adverse events. Conclusion: Given the lack of efficacy and increased incidence of adverse events, the clinical use of LPV/r in hospitalized COVID-19 patients is not recommended.

SELEÇÃO DE REFERÊNCIAS
DETALHE DA PESQUISA