Refine
Year of publication
- 2019 (3) (remove)
Document Type
- Article (3)
Language
- English (3)
Has Fulltext
- yes (3)
Is part of the Bibliography
- no (3)
Keywords
Institute
- Medizin (3) (remove)
Filoviruses infect a wide range of cell types with the exception of lymphocytes. The intracellular proteins cathepsin B and L, two-pore channel 1 and 2, and bona fide receptor Niemann–Pick Disease C1 (NPC1) are essential for the endosomal phase of cell entry. However, earlier steps of filoviral infection remain poorly characterized. Numerous plasma membrane proteins have been implicated in attachment but it is still unclear which ones are sufficient for productive entry. To define a minimal set of host factors required for filoviral glycoprotein-driven cell entry, we screened twelve cell lines and identified the nonlymphocytic cell line SH-SY5Y to be specifically resistant to filovirus infection. Heterokaryons of SH-SY5Y cells fused to susceptible cells were susceptible to filoviruses, indicating that SH-SY5Y cells do not express a restriction factor but lack an enabling factor critical for filovirus entry. However, all tested cell lines expressed functional intracellular factors. Global gene expression profiling of known cell surface entry factors and protein expression levels of analyzed attachment factors did not reveal any correlation between susceptibility and expression of a specific host factor. Using binding assays with recombinant filovirus glycoprotein, we identified cell attachment as the step impaired in filovirus entry in SH-SY5Y cells. Individual overexpression of attachment factors T-cell immunoglobulin and mucin domain 1 (TIM-1), Axl, Mer, or dendritic cell-specific intercellular adhesion molecule-3-grabbing non-integrin (DC-SIGN) rendered SH-SY5Y cells susceptible to filovirus glycoprotein-driven transduction. Our study reveals that a lack of attachment factors limits filovirus entry and provides direct experimental support for a model of filoviral cell attachment where host factor usage at the cell surface is highly promiscuous.
Objective: Biologics have an important role in the treatment of juvenile idiopathic arthritis (JIA). Long‐term safety data are limited. Direct comparison of different agents regarding occurrence of adverse events (AEs), especially of rare events, requires large quantities of patient years. In this analysis, long‐term safety with regard to AE of special interest (AESI) was compared between different biologics.
Methods: Patients with nonsystemic JIA were selected from the German BIKER registry. Safety assessments were based on AE reports. Number of AEs, serious AEs, and 25 predefined AESIs, including medically important infection, uveitis, inflammatory bowel disease, cytopenia, hepatic events, anaphylaxis, depression, pregnancy, malignancy, and death, were analyzed. Event rates and relative risks were calculated using AEs reported after first dose through 70 days after last dose.
Results: A total of 3873 patients entered the analysis with 7467 years of exposure to biologics. The most common AESIs were uveitis (n = 231) and medically important infections (n = 101). Cytopenia and elevation of transaminases were more frequent with tocilizumab (risk ratio [RR] 8.0, 95% confidence interval [CI] 4.2‐15, and RR 4.7, 95% CI 1.8‐12.2, respectively). Anaphylactic events were associated with intravenous route of administration. In patients ever exposed to biologics, eight malignancies were reported. Six pregnancies have been documented in patients with tumor necrosis factor inhibitors. No death occurred in this patient cohort during observation.
Conclusion: Surveillance of pharmacotherapy as provided by the BIKER registry is an import approach, especially for long‐term treatment of children. Overall, tolerance was acceptable. Differences between biologics were noted and should be considered in daily patient care.
Background: Available data on the incidence and outcome of invasive fungal diseases (IFD) in children with hematological malignancies or after allogeneic hematopoietic stem cell transplantation (HSCT) are mostly based on monocenter, retrospective studies or on studies performed prior to the availability of newer triazoles or echinocandins.
Procedure: We prospectively collected clinical data on incidence, diagnostic procedures, management and outcome of IFD in children treated for hematological malignancies or undergoing HSCT in three major European pediatric cancer centers.
Results: A total of 304 children (median age 6.0 years) who underwent 360 therapies (211 chemotherapy treatments, 138 allogeneic HSCTs and/or 11 investigational chemotherapeutic treatments) were included in the analysis. Nineteen children developed proven/probable IFD, mostly due to Aspergillus (n = 10) and Candida spp. (n = 5), respectively. In patients receiving chemotherapy, 11 IFDs occurred, all during induction or re-induction therapy. None of these patients died due to IFD, whereas IFD was lethal in 3 of the 8 HSCT recipients with IFD. Significant differences among centers were observed with regard to the use of imaging diagnostics and the choice, initiation and duration of antifungal prophylaxis.
Conclusion: This prospective multicenter study provides information on the current incidence and outcome of IFD in the real life setting. Practice variation between the centers may help to ultimately improve antifungal management in children at highest risk for IFDs.