Risk Factors and Changes of Peripheral NK and T Cells in Pulmonary Interstitial Fibrosis of Patients with Rheumatoid Arthritis.

Objective: The absolute and relative changes of peripheral NK and T subsets are unclear in rheumatoid arthritis (RA) associated with pulmonary interstitial fibrosis (RA-ILD). To investigate the clinical risk factors, especially the changes of lymphocyte subsets, in RA-ILD in order to make early diagnosis and achieve prevention of the pulmonary interstitial lesions. Methods: A total of 100 RA and 100 RA-ILD patients were enrolled. Rheumatoid factor, anti-cyclic citrulline peptide antibody, erythrocyte sedimentation rate, immunoglobulin, and C-reactive protein were examined. The percentage and absolute number of NK, T, B, Treg, Th1, Th2, and Th17 cells in peripheral blood were determined by flow cytometry. Results: RA-ILD is more common in older and male RA patients and/or those with higher autoantibody titers. Flow cytometry showed that the absolute and relative numbers of CD56+ NK cells were significantly higher in RA-ILD (280.40 ± 180.51 cells/µl vs. 207.66 ± 148.57 cells/µl; 16.62 ± 8.56% vs. 12.11 ± 6.47%), whereas the proportion of T cells and CD4+ T cells was lower in peripheral blood of RA-ILD patients (69.82 ± 9.30%; 39.44 ± 9.87 cells/µl) than that in RA patients (74.45 ± 8.72%; 43.29 ± 9.10 cells/µl). Conclusions: The occurrence of RA-ILD is closely related to the older male patients with high titer of various self-antibodies. Imbalance of CD3-CD56+ NK cells and T cells with other subsets were found in RA-ILD patients, which, together with older age, male, and high levels of autoantibodies should be considered as risk factors of pulmonary interstitial lesions.

The Proportion of Regulatory T Cells in Patients with Ankylosing Spondylitis: A Meta-Analysis.

OBJECTIVE: Accumulating evidence indicates that regulatory T cells (Tregs) may be involved in the pathogenesis of ankylosing spondylitis (AS). As different markers have been used to identify Tregs, some studies on the proportions of Tregs in AS patients have generated considerable controversy. To clarify the status of Tregs in such patients, we determine the proportion changes of peripheral Tregs during development of the disease, with different cellular markers. METHODS: We systematically searched Embase, PubMed, Cochrane, Web of Knowledge, FDA.gov, and Clinical Trials.gov for the studies reporting the proportion of Tregs in AS patients. Using the PRISMA guidelines, we performed a random-effects meta-analysis of the frequencies of peripheral Tregs defined in different ways. Inconsistency was evaluated using the I-squared index (I 2), and publication bias was assessed by examining funnel plot asymmetry using the Begger and Egger tests. RESULTS: A total 29 studies involving 1732 participants were included in the meta-analysis. Their conclusions of using the diversity of Tregs surface markers were inconsistent with each other. No significant difference in the proportions of Tregs was evident regardless of the definitions used [-0.709, (-1.455, 0.037, p = 0.063), I 2 = 97.3%]. Six studies used "single CD25-positive" cells as Tregs, which revealed a significant increase in AS patients compared with healthy blood donors [0.736, (0.138, 1.334), p = 0.016, I 2 = 80.7%]. Notably, the proportions of "CD4+CD25+FOXP3+," "CD4+CD25highCD127low/-," or "CD4+CD25+CD127low" T cells were lower in AS patients [-2.856, (-4.645, -1.066), p = 0.002; -1.812, (-2.648, -0.977), p < 0.001; -1.12, (-1.605, -0.635), p < 0.001]. Tregs defined as "CD25high," "CD25bright," "CD25bright/highCD127low/-," "CD4+FOXP3+," "CD4+CD25highFOXP3+," and "CD4+CD25+CD127-" did not differ in proportion between AS patients and healthy blood donors. CONCLUSIONS: The levels of Tregs varied based on the cellular identification markers used. The proportions of CD4+CD25+FOXP3+Tregs, CD4+CD25highCD127low/-, or CD4+CD25+CD127low in blood of AS patients were significantly decreased as compared with those in healthy blood donors, and our findings lend support to the idea that the Treg status of AS patients is important. And we recommend the above as the best definition of Tregs when evaluating the status of such patients.

Cetuximab for esophageal cancer: an updated meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.

BACKGROUND: Increasing evidence indicates that cetuximab (CET) combined with chemoradiotherapy may be effective for patients with esophageal cancer. However, the recent results are still contradictory and no consensus has yet been reached on this issue. To evaluate the clinical effects and safety of CET, we conducted an updated meta-analysis by retrieving published data up to June 2018. METHODS: A comprehensive literature search was performed in several electronic databases, including PubMed, Embase, the Cochrane Library, CNKI database and Chinese Biomedicine Database using subject terms and free terms. Pooled odds ratios (ORs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated to determine the efficiency and safety of CET. RESULTS: This meta-analysis included 10 randomized controlled trials (RCTs). Five RCTs reported localized esophageal cancer and other five RCTs reported metastatic esophageal cancer. For these patients with localized esophageal cancer, CET could not significantly improve the response rate, overall survival and progression-free survival (PFS, 1-5 years). But CET treatment might increase the incidences of diarrhea (OR = 2.07; CI = 1.01-4.25) and rash (OR = 16.91; CI = 3.20-89.42). For other patients with metastatic esophageal cancer, the addition of CET significantly increased the response rate (OR = 3.34; CI = 1.90-5.88), disease control rate (OR = 2.92; CI = 1.49-5.71) and 2-year overall survival (OR = 2.78; CI = 1.20-6.46) compared with the control group. However, CET could not improve the 1-year overall survival and might make patients with metastatic esophageal cancer more susceptible to rash (OR = 5.50; CI = 2.14-14.14). No significant differences in other adverse effects were found between the two groups. CONCLUSIONS: Our findings suggested that adding CET to multimodal therapy significantly improved response rate and disease control rate for patients with metastatic esophageal cancer rather than patients with localized esophageal cancer. CET might be a safe therapeutic choice, but CET failed to significantly improve the overall survival and PFS for patients with localized or metastatic esophageal cancer.