Levamisole can reduce the high serum tumour necrosis factor-? level to a normal level in patients with erosive oral lichen planus

Sun, Aihua; Chia, Jean-San; Wang, J. T.; Chiang, Chun-Pin

doi:10.1111/j.1365-2230.2006.02343.x

Cited by 21 publications

(19 citation statements)

References 10 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…It accentuated the increase in the polymorphonuclear cells and the decrease in lymphocytes with no effect on monocytes. This result could be interpreted on the basis that levamisole as well as DDB may exert inhibitory effects on TNF-a secretion (Sun et al, 2007;El-Bahy et al, 2011;Kaya et al, 2011). Levamisole was found to enhance the immune response toward T helper 1 development by inducing IFN-c (Szeto et al, 2000).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 94%

“…This result may be interpreted on the basis that levamisole has an inhibitory effect on TNF-a secretion (Sun et al, 2007;Kaya et al, 2011), as well as on the basis that levamisole enhances the immune response toward T helper 1 development by inducing IFN-c (Szeto et al, 2000). On the other hand, co-administration of DDB could restore the bone marrow nucleated cell count to the normal value (Hassanein et al, 2004).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…In this concern, IFN-c inhibits the growth and differentiation of erythroid precursor cells and mediates hemopoietic suppression (Felli et al, 2005). Thus, the observed modulatory effects of levamisole and DDB as well as the discrepancy among them regarding LPS-induced hematotoxicity could be explained by inhibition of TNF-a, as well as induction in IFN-c, by levamisole (Sun et al, 2007;Kaya et al, 2011) and by the decreased TNF-a and the down-regulated expression of NF-kB by DDB (El-Bahy et al, 2011).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Impact of certain immunomodulators on LPS-induced hematotoxicity

et al. 2015

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The present study aimed to explore the extent to which immunomodulators may protect against Klebsiella pneumonia lipopolysaccharide (K pn LPS) toxicity. Two immunomodulators (levamisole and DDB) were utilized in the present work. The study was carried out on male Sprague Dawley rats, and animals were divided into four groups: One group was injected with saline intraperitoneally (i.p.) and served as a control group. The other three groups were subcutaneously daily injected with repetitive doses of K pn LPS (10, 10, 20, 20 and 40 lg/kg, i.p., for 5 consecutive days). Two of these K pn LPS-injected groups were daily cotreated with either levamisole (3 mg/kg, for 5 consecutive days, p.o) or DDB (6 mg/kg, for 5 consecutive days, p.o). At the end of the experiment, the effects of the given treatment were evaluated as regarding relative spleen and thymus weights, certain hematological changes (total and differential white blood cells count (WBCs), red blood cells count (RBCs), platelet count (PLAT), hemoglobin content (Hb), bone marrow cell count, as well as the histopathological changes in each of the spleen, thymus and bone marrow. The obtained results revealed that K pn LPS induced body weight loss, splenomegaly, thymic atrophy, leukopenia and lymphocytopenia. Each of bone marrow cells count and reticulocytes and eosinophil percentages were noticeably decreased after 5 days of K pn LPS administration. Each of the utilized drugs potentiated LPS-induced lymphocytopenia and increased segmented cells. However, DDB coadministration prior to K pn LPS injection could prevent the drop in bone marrow nucleated cells count, total WBCs, reticulocytes count and eosinophils differential count restoring them to their normal ranges. The histopathological examination of thymus, spleen and bone marrow of rats treated with either of the two utilized immunomodulators confirmed the above-mentioned results. Finally, the study reveals that DDB co-administration exerts more pronounced modulatory effect on LPS-induced hematotoxicity.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 94%

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Impact of certain immunomodulators on LPS-induced hematotoxicity

et al. 2015

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…A recent clinical trial of levamisole measured serum tumor necrosis factor levels as the sole outcome in patients with oral lichen planus rather than symptom control – when did you last see a serum tumor necrosis factor walk into your clinic? [9] An international database of systematic reviews protocols has been set up called PROSPERO with the aim of a providing a “one stop shop” for prospectively registering all systematic reviews in health and social care http://www.crd.york.ac.uk/Prospero/(accessed September 13 th , 2013).…”

Section: Advantages Of Ebdmentioning

confidence: 99%

Strengths and limitations of evidence-based dermatology

Williams

2014

Indian J Dermatol

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The need for understanding and reflecting on evidence-based dermatology (EBD) has never been greater given the exponential growth of new external evidence to inform clinical practice. Like any other branch of medicine, dermatologists need to acquire new skills in constructing answerable questions, efficiently searching electronic bibliographic databases, and critically appraising different types of studies. Secondary summaries of evidence in the form of systematic reviews (SR), that is, reviews that are conducted in a systematic, unbiased and explicit manner, reside at the top of the evidence hierarchy, because they are less prone to bias than traditional expert reviews. In addition to providing summaries of the best external evidence, systematic reviews and randomized controlled trials (RCTs) are also powerful ways of identifying research gaps and ultimately setting the agenda of future clinical research in dermatology. But like any paradigm, EBD can have its limitations. Wrong application, misuse and overuse of EBD can have serious consequences. For example, mindless pooling together of data from dissimilar studies in a meta-analysis may render it a form of reductionism that does not make any sense. Similarly, even highly protocolised study designs such as SRs and RCTs are still susceptible to some degree of dishonesty and bias. Over-reliance on randomized controlled trials (RCT) may be inappropriate, as RCTs are not a good source for picking up rare but important adverse effects such as lupus syndrome with minocycline. A common criticism leveled against SRs is that these frequently conclude that there is lack of sufficient evidence to inform current clinical practice, but arguably, such a perception is grounded more on the interpretation of the SRs than anything else. The apparent absence of evidence should not paralyze the dermatologist to adopt a state of therapeutic nihilism. Poor primary data and an SR based on evidence that is not up-to-date are also limitations that can only improve with better primary studies and updated reviews such as those done by the Cochrane Collaboration. Most dermatologists are interested in integrating the best external evidence with the care of individual patients and have been practicing good EBD without realizing it.

show abstract

“…Levamisole is an immunomodulator that can modulate T‐cell‐mediated immunity (Sun et al , 1994, 2002, 2005, 2007). Our previous studies found that levamisole can also modulate the abnormal serum interleukin (IL)‐6, IL‐8, tumor necrosis factor (TNF)‐α, anti‐basal cell antibody (anti‐BCA), and anti‐nuclear antibody (ANA) levels to normal in patients with OLP or erosive OLP (EOLP) (Sun et al , 1994, 2002, 2005, 2007).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%