The Role of IL-6 in Adenosine-Mediated Pulmonary Fibrosis

Adenosine is a purinergic signaling molecule that regulates various aspects of inflammation and has been implicated in the pathogenesis of chronic lung diseases. Previous studies have demonstrated that adenosine up-regulates IL-6 production through the engagement of the A2B adenosine receptor in various cell types, including alveolar macrophages. IL-6 is elevated in mouse models and humans with chronic lung disease, suggesting a potential role in disease progression. Furthermore, chronic elevation of adenosine in the lungs of adenosine deaminase deficient (Ada-/-) mice leads to the development of pulmonary inflammation, alveolar destruction, and fibrosis, in conjunction with IL-6 elevation. Thus, it was hypothesized that IL-6 contributes to pulmonary inflammation and fibrosis in this model. To test this hypothesis, Ada/IL-6 double knockout mice (Ada/IL-6-/-) were generated to assess the consequences of genetically removing IL-6 on adenosine-dependent pulmonary injury. Ada/IL-6-/- mice exhibited a significant reduction in inflammation, alveolar destruction, and pulmonary fibrosis. Next, Ada-/- mice were treated systematically with IL-6 neutralizing antibodies to test the efficacy of blocking IL-6 on chronic lung disease. These treatments were associated with decreased pulmonary inflammation, alveolar destruction, and fibrosis. To determine the role of IL-6 in a second model of pulmonary fibrosis, wild type mice and IL-6-/- mice were subjected to intraperitoneal injections of bleomycin twice a week for four weeks. Results demonstrated that IL-6-/- mice developed reduced pulmonary fibrosis. To examine a therapeutic approach in this model, wild type mice exposed to bleomycin were treated with IL-6 neutralizing antibodies. Similar results were observed as with Ada-/- mice, namely diminished pulmonary inflammation and fibrosis. In both models, elevations in IL-6 were associated with increased phosphorylated STAT-3 in the nuclei of numerous cell types in the airways, including type II alveolar epithelial cells (AEC). Genetic removal and neutralization of IL-6 in both models was associated with decreased STAT-3 activation in type II AEC. The mechanism of activation in these cells that lack the membrane bound IL-6Ra suggests IL-6 trans-signaling may play a role in regulating fibrosis. Characterization of this mechanism demonstrated that the soluble IL-6Ra (sIL-6Ra) is upregulated in both models during chronic conditions. In vitro studies in MLE-12 alveolar epithelial cells confirmed that IL-6, in combination with the sIL-6Ra, activates STAT-3 and TWIST in association with enhancement of epithelial-to-mesenchymal transition, which can contribute to fibrosis. Similarly, patients with idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis demonstrated a similar pattern of increased IL-6 expression, STAT-3 activation, and sIL-6Ra increases. These findings demonstrate that adenosine-dependent elevations in IL-6 contribute to the development and progression of pulmonary inflammation and fibrosis. The implications from these studies are that adenosine and/or IL-6 neutralizing agents represent novel therapeutic targets for the treatment of pulmonary disorders where fibrosis is a detrimental component.

Are Intensive Family Preservation Services Useful?: A Study in the United Kingdom

This evaluation of the first year of an Intensive Family Preservation Service in England is based on the analysis of eighty-six families: fifty-seven families who received the service and a comparison group of twenty-nine families who did not. The study considered whether the program was fulfilling its objectives of reducing the number of children and young people in the public care system; offering a safe, supportive service for children who need protection; integrating the program into family support services as a whole, and improving family functioning. The findings were complex to interpret. Child protection was improved but there was not a reduction in the number of children needing out of home care (indeed there was an increase) meaning that short term savings in costs could not be made. Nor were there lasting improvements in the children’s behavior. There were instead a number of more subtle, arguably more sensitive outcomes: parents’ capacity to tolerate their child’s behavior was greater and overall family functioning was better for most families who received the service. Also families were, on the whole, able to make better use of follow up services.