36 resultados para Terminological definition


Relevância:

20.00% 20.00%

Publicador:

Resumo:

An attractive treatment of cancer consists in inducing tumor-eradicating CD8(+) CTL specific for tumor-associated Ags, such as NY-ESO-1 (ESO), a strongly immunogenic cancer germ line gene-encoded tumor-associated Ag, widely expressed on diverse tumors. To establish optimal priming of ESO-specific CTL and to define critical vaccine variables and mechanisms, we used HLA-A2/DR1 H-2(-/-) transgenic mice and sequential immunization with immunodominant DR1- and A2-restricted ESO peptides. Immunization of mice first with the DR1-restricted ESO(123-137) peptide and subsequently with mature dendritic cells (DCs) presenting this and the A2-restriced ESO(157-165) epitope generated abundant, circulating, high-avidity primary and memory CD8(+) T cells that efficiently killed A2/ESO(157-165)(+) tumor cells. This prime boost regimen was superior to other vaccine regimes and required strong Th1 cell responses, copresentation of MHC class I and MHC class II peptides by the same DC, and resulted in upregulation of sphingosine 1-phosphate receptor 1, and thus egress of freshly primed CD8(+) T cells from the draining lymph nodes into circulation. This well-defined system allowed detailed mechanistic analysis, which revealed that 1) the Th1 cytokines IFN-gamma and IL-2 played key roles in CTL priming, namely by upregulating on naive CD8(+) T cells the chemokine receptor CCR5; 2) the inflammatory chemokines CCL4 (MIP-1beta) and CCL3 (MIP-1alpha) chemoattracted primed CD4(+) T cells to mature DCs and activated, naive CD8(+) T cells to DC-CD4 conjugates, respectively; and 3) blockade of these chemokines or their common receptor CCR5 ablated priming of CD8(+) T cells and upregulation of sphingosine 1-phosphate receptor 1. These findings provide new opportunities for improving T cell cancer vaccines.

Relevância:

20.00% 20.00%

Publicador:

Resumo:

The Commission on Classification and Terminology and the Commission on Epidemiology of the International League Against Epilepsy (ILAE) have charged a Task Force to revise concepts, definition, and classification of status epilepticus (SE). The proposed new definition of SE is as follows: Status epilepticus is a condition resulting either from the failure of the mechanisms responsible for seizure termination or from the initiation of mechanisms, which lead to abnormally, prolonged seizures (after time point t1 ). It is a condition, which can have long-term consequences (after time point t2 ), including neuronal death, neuronal injury, and alteration of neuronal networks, depending on the type and duration of seizures. This definition is conceptual, with two operational dimensions: the first is the length of the seizure and the time point (t1 ) beyond which the seizure should be regarded as "continuous seizure activity." The second time point (t2 ) is the time of ongoing seizure activity after which there is a risk of long-term consequences. In the case of convulsive (tonic-clonic) SE, both time points (t1 at 5 min and t2 at 30 min) are based on animal experiments and clinical research. This evidence is incomplete, and there is furthermore considerable variation, so these time points should be considered as the best estimates currently available. Data are not yet available for other forms of SE, but as knowledge and understanding increase, time points can be defined for specific forms of SE based on scientific evidence and incorporated into the definition, without changing the underlying concepts. A new diagnostic classification system of SE is proposed, which will provide a framework for clinical diagnosis, investigation, and therapeutic approaches for each patient. There are four axes: (1) semiology; (2) etiology; (3) electroencephalography (EEG) correlates; and (4) age. Axis 1 (semiology) lists different forms of SE divided into those with prominent motor systems, those without prominent motor systems, and currently indeterminate conditions (such as acute confusional states with epileptiform EEG patterns). Axis 2 (etiology) is divided into subcategories of known and unknown causes. Axis 3 (EEG correlates) adopts the latest recommendations by consensus panels to use the following descriptors for the EEG: name of pattern, morphology, location, time-related features, modulation, and effect of intervention. Finally, axis 4 divides age groups into neonatal, infancy, childhood, adolescent and adulthood, and elderly.

Relevância:

20.00% 20.00%

Publicador:

Resumo:

BACKGROUND: While reduction of DUP (Duration of Untreated Psychosis) is a key goal in early intervention strategies, the predictive value of DUP on outcome has been questioned. We planned this study in order to explore the impact of three different definition of "treatment initiation" on the predictive value of DUP on outcome in an early psychosis sample. METHODS: 221 early psychosis patients aged 18-35 were followed-up prospectively over 36 months. DUP was measured using three definitions for treatment onset: Initiation of antipsychotic medication (DUP1); engagement in a specialized programme (DUP2) and combination of engagement in a specialized programme and adherence to medication (DUP3). RESULTS: 10% of patients never reached criteria for DUP3 and therefore were never adequately treated over the 36-month period of care. While DUP1 and DUP2 had a limited predictive value on outcome, DUP3, based on a more restrictive definition for treatment onset, was a better predictor of positive and negative symptoms, as well as functional outcome at 12, 24 and 36 months. Globally, DUP3 explained 2 to 5 times more of the variance than DUP1 and DUP2, with effect sizes falling in the medium range according to Cohen. CONCLUSIONS: The limited predictive value of DUP on outcome in previous studies may be linked to problems of definitions that do not take adherence to treatment into account. While they need replication, our results suggest effort to reduce DUP should continue and aim both at early detection and development of engagement strategies.

Relevância:

20.00% 20.00%

Publicador:

Resumo:

OBJECTIVE: There is currently no guideline regarding the management of neurogenic detrusor overactivity (NDO) refractory to intra-detrusor botulinum toxin injections. The primary objective of the present study was to find a consensus definition of failure of botulinum toxin intra-detrusor injections for NDO. The secondary objective was to report current trends in the managment of NDO refractory to botulinum toxin. METHODS: A survey was created, based on data drawn from current literature, and sent via e-mail to all the experts form the Group for research in neurourology in french language (GENULF) and from the comittee of neurourology of the French urological association (AFU). The experts who did not answer to the first e-mail were contacted again twice. Main results from the survey are presented and expressed as numbers and proportions. RESULTS: Out of the 42 experts contacted, 21 responded to the survey. Nineteen participants considered that the definition of failure should be a combination of clinical and urodynamics criteria. Among the urodynamics criteria, the persistence of a maximum detrusor pressure>40cm H2O was the most supported by the experts (18/21, 85%). According to the vast majority of participants (19/21, 90.5%), the impact of injections on urinary incontinence should be included in the definition of failure. Regarding the management, most experts considered that the first line treatment in case of failure of a first intra-detrusor injection of Botox(®) 200 U should be a repeat injection of Botox(®) at a higher dosage (300 U) (15/20, 75%), regardless of the presence or not of urodynamics risk factors of upper tract damage (16/20, 80%). CONCLUSION: This work has provided a first overview of the definition of failure of intra-detrusor injections of botulinum toxin in the management of NDO. For 90.5% of the experts involved, the definition of failure should be clinical and urodynamic and most participants (75%) considered that, in case of failure of a first injection of Botox(®) 200 U, repeat injection of Botox(®) 300 U should be the first line treatment. Level of proof 4.