4.1 Article

Determination of urine tumor necrosis factor, IL-6, IL-8, and serum IL-6 in patients with hemorrhagic fever with renal syndrome

Journal

BRAZILIAN JOURNAL OF INFECTIOUS DISEASES
Volume 16, Issue 6, Pages 527-530

Publisher

CONTEXTO
DOI: 10.1016/j.bjid.2012.10.002

Keywords

Hemorrhagic fever with renal syndrome; Interleukins; Tumor necrosis factor

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Objective: The aim of this study was to explore the role of cytokines in the pathogenesis of hemorrhagic fever with renal syndrome (HFRS). Methods: Double-antibody sandwich ELISA was used to determine serum interleukin (IL)-6, urine tumor necrosis factor (TNF), IL-6, and IL-8 levels in 56 patients with HFRS. Results: Serum IL-6, urine TNF, IL-6, and IL-8 concentrations in HFRS patients were significantly higher than those in the control group (p < 0.001). The concentrations increased at fever stage, then continued to increase during the hypotension stage and peaked at the oliguria stage. The concentrations of serum IL-6, urine TNF, IL-6, and IL-8 increased according to the severity of the disease, and differed greatly among different types of the disease. Serum IL-6 had remarkable relationships with serum specific antibodies. It was positively related to serum beta 2-microglobulin (beta 2-MG), blood ureanitrogen (BUN), and creatinine (Cr). Significant positive relationships were also found both between urine IL-6 and TNF, and between IL-6 and IL-8 (r = 0.5768, p < 0.05; r = 0.3760, p < 0.01). Conclusion: TNF, IL-6, and IL-8 were activated during the course of the disease. IL-6 was associated with the immunopathological lesions caused by the hyperfunction of the humoral immune response. IL-6, IL-8 and TNF were involved in renal immune impairment. Determining them might, to a certain extent, be useful in predicting the prognosis and outcome of patients with HFRS. (C) 2012 Elsevier Editora Ltda. All rights reserved.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.1
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available