Interleukin-12 (IL-12, p70) a heterodimeric cytokine of p40 and p35 subunits, important for Th1-type immune responses, has been attributed a prominent role in multiple sclerosis (MS) and its animal model, experimental autoimmune encephalomyelitis (EAE). Recently, the related heterodimeric cytokine, IL-23, composed of the same p40 subunit as IL-12 and a unique p19 subunit, was shown to be involved in Th1 responses and EAE. We investigated whether astrocytes and microglia, CNS cells with antigen-presenting cell (APC) function can present antigen to myelin basic protein (MBP)-reactive T cells, and whether this presentation is blocked with antibodies against IL-12/IL-23p40. Interferon (IFN)-ctreated APC induced proliferation of MBP-reactive T cells. Anti-IL-12/IL-23p40 antibodies blocked this proliferation.These results support and extend our previous observation that astrocytes and microglia produce IL-12/IL-23p40. Moreover, we show that stimulated astrocytes and microglia produce biologically active IL-12p70. Because IL-12 and IL-23 share p40, we wanted to determine whether astrocytes also express IL-12p35 and IL-23p19, as microglia were already shown to express them. Astrocytes expressed IL-12p35 mRNA constitutively, and IL-23 p19 after stimulation. Thus, astrocytes, under inflammatory conditions, express all subunits of IL-12/IL-23. Their ability to present antigen to encephalitogenic T cells can be blocked by neutralizing anti-IL-12/IL-23p40 antibodies.

In the wake of the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) pandemic, an increasing number of patients with neurological disorders, including Guillain-Barré syndrome (GBS), have been reported following this infection. It remains unclear, however, if these cases are coincidental or not, as most publications were case reports or small regional retrospective cohort studies. The International GBS Outcome Study is an ongoing prospective observational cohort study enrolling patients with GBS within 2 weeks from onset of weakness. Data from patients included in this study, between 30 January 2020 and 30 May 2020, were used to investigate clinical and laboratory signs of a preceding or concurrent SARS-CoV-2 infection and to describe the associated clinical phenotype and disease course. Patients were classified according to the SARS-CoV-2 case definitions of the European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control and laboratory recommendations of the World Health Organization. Forty-nine patients with GBS were included, of whom eight (16%) had a confirmed and three (6%) a probable SARS-CoV-2 infection. Nine of these 11 patients had no serological evidence of other recent preceding infections associated with GBS, whereas two had serological evidence of a recent Campylobacter jejuni infection. Patients with a confirmed or probable SARS-CoV-2 infection frequently had a sensorimotor variant 8/11 (73%) and facial palsy 7/11 (64%). The eight patients who underwent electrophysiological examination all had a demyelinating subtype, which was more prevalent than the other patients included in the same time window [14/30 (47%), P = 0.012] as well as historical region and age-matched control subjects included in the International GBS Outcome Study before the pandemic [23/44 (52%), P = 0.016]. The median time from the onset of infection to neurological symptoms was 16 days (interquartile range 12–22). Patients with SARS-CoV-2 infection shared uniform neurological features, similar to those previously described in other post-viral GBS patients. The frequency (22%) of a preceding SARS-CoV-2 infection in our study population was higher than estimates of the contemporaneous background prevalence of SARS-CoV-2, which may be a result of recruitment bias during the pandemic, but could also indicate that GBS may rarely follow a recent SARS-CoV-2 infection. Consistent with previous studies, we found no increase in patient recruitment during the pandemic for our ongoing International GBS Outcome Study compared to previous years, making a strong relationship of GBS with SARS-CoV-2 unlikely. A case-control study is required to determine if there is a causative link or not.

Animal models of autoimmune diseases have greatly improved our current understanding of the pathogenesis of human autoimmunity and have provided the potential for therapies based on manipulation of the immune system. In our laboratory, we have investigated the immunopathogenesis of autoimmune diseases of the nervous system and muscle. We have developed immune-based approaches for the suppression of experimental autoimmune encephalomyelitis (EAE), a model for multiple sclerosis (MS), and experimental autoimmune neuritis (EAN), a model for the Guillain-Barré syndrome (GBS). These approaches included induction of peripheral tolerance, immunotoxin targeting of activated T cells, and cytokine manipulations. In addition, we identified the antigen and characterized immunopathologically an autoimmune inflammatory disease of skeletal muscle, experimental autoimmune myositis (EAM), a model for the human inflammatory muscle disease polymyositis.

No abstract

Background: There has been no report about outcome of pitavastatin versus atorvastatin therapy in high-risk patients with hypercholesterolemia. Methods: Hypercholesterolemic patients with one or more risk factors for atherosclerotic diseases (n = 664, age = 65, male = 54%, diabetes = 76%, primary prevention = 74%) were randomized to receive pitavastatin 2 mg/day (n = 332) or atorvastatin 10 mg/day (n = 332). Follow-up period was 240 weeks. The primary end point was a composite of cardiovascular death, sudden death of unknown origin, nonfatal myocardial infarction, nonfatal stroke, transient ischemic attack, or heart failure requiring hospitalization. The secondary end point was a composite of the primary end point plus clinically indicated coronary revascularization for stable angina. Results: The mean low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) level at baseline was 149 mg/dL. The mean LDL-C levels at 1 year were 95 mg/dL in the pitavastatin group and 94 mg/dL in the atorvastatin group. There were no differences in LDL-C levels between both groups, however, pitavastatin significantly reduced the risk of the primary end point, compared to atorvastatin (pitavastatin = 2.9% and atorvastatin = 8.1%, HR, 0.366; 95% CI 0.170-0.787; P = 0.01 by multivariate Cox regression) as well as the risk of the secondary end point (pitavastatin = 4.5% and atorvastatin = 12.9%, HR = 0.350; 95%CI = 0.189-0.645, P = 0.001). The results for the primary and secondary end points were consistent across several prespecified subgroups. There were no differences in incidence of adverse events between the statins. Conclusion: Pitavastatin therapy compared with atorvastatin more may prevent cardiovascular events in hypercholesterolemic patients with one or more risk factors for atherosclerotic diseases despite similar effects on LDL-C levels.