Les hépatopathies auto-immunes et leurs traitements [Auto-immune liver diseases and their treatment]

There are three main types of auto-immune liver disease, auto-immune hepatitis, primary biliary cirrhosis and primary sclerosing cholangitis. In the case of auto-immune hepatitis, prednisone therapy, with or without azathioprine, can improve quality of life and halt progression to cirrhosis. If there is no response or if the therapy is poorly tolerated, mycophenolate mofetil or cyclosporin should be considered. Ursodeoxycholic acid (UDCA), at a dosage of 13 to 15 mg/kg/day slows the progression of fibrosis in patients with primary biliary cirrhosis. Pruritus may be treated with cholestyramine, rifampicin or opiate antagonists. Ursodeoxycholic acid at a dosage of 20 to 30 mg/kg/day will slow the evolution of fibrosis.

Eladeb : un outil d'auto-évaluation des besoins

Eladeb est un instrument d'auto-évaluation des difficultés psychosociales et des besoins d'aide de patients psychiatriques. Basé sur une procédure de tri de cartes figuratives, l'outil se démarque des questionnaires et entretiens structurés présents dans l'évaluation psychométrique clinique, en proposant une activité ludique qui laisse aussi un large espace de dialogue pour l'expression qualitative des difficultés et des besoins. Les expériences conduites sur le terrain montrent qu'il est bien accepté par les patients et les professionnels. Après une brève présentation de l'instrument, cet article expose une vignette clinique ainsi que le témoignage de son utilisation dans le cadre d'une fonda~ion spécialisée dans le suivi de patients psychiatriques.

Role of defensins and cathelicidin LL37 in auto-immune and auto-inflammatory diseases.

Defensins and cathelicidins are anti-microbial peptides (AMPs) that act as natural antibiotics and are part of the innate immune defence in many species. We consider human defensins and LL37, the only human member of the cathelicidin family. In particular, we refer to the human alpha-defensins called human neutrophil peptides (HNP1 through 4), which are produced by neutrophils, HD5 and HD6, mainly expressed in Paneth cells of intestine, the human beta-defensins HBD1, HBD2 and HBD3, synthesized by epithelial cells and LL37, which is located in granulocytes, but is also produced by epithelial cells of the skin, lungs, and gut. In the last years, the study of AMPs activity and regulation has allowed to understand the important role of these peptides not only in the innate defence mechanisms against bacteria, viruses, fungi, but also in the regulation of immune cell activation and migration. Complementary studies have disclosed a role for AMPs in modulating many physiological processes that involve non-immune cells, such as activation of wound healing, angiogenesis, cartilage remodeling. Due to the pleiotropic tasks of these peptides, many of them are now being discovered to contribute to immune pathology of chronic diseases that affect skin, gut, joints; this is supported by many examples of immune-mediated pathologies in which their expression is disregulated. In this article we review the current literature that suggests a role for human defensins and LL37 in pathogenic mechanisms of several chronic diseases that are considered of auto-immune or auto-inflammatory origin.

Market-Based Instruments for ecosystem services: institutional innovation or renovation?

Recent years have seen widespread experimentation with market-based instruments (MBIs) for the provision of environmental goods and ecosystem services. However, little attention has been paid to their design or to the effects of the underlying pro-market narrative on environmental policy instruments. The purpose of this article is to analyze the emergence and dissemination of the term "market-based instruments" applied to the provision of environmental services and to assess to what extent the instruments associated are genuinely innovative. The recommendation to develop markets can lead in practice to a variety of institutional forms, as we show it based on the example of payments for environmental services (PES) and biodiversity offsets, two very different mechanisms that are both presented in the literature as MBIs. Our purpose is to highlight the gap between discourse and practice in connection with MBIs.