4.5 Article

Can sPD-1 and sPD-L1 Plasma Concentrations Predict Treatment Response among Patients with Extraparenchymal Neurocysticercosis?

期刊

PATHOGENS
卷 12, 期 9, 页码 -

出版社

MDPI
DOI: 10.3390/pathogens12091116

关键词

neurocysticercosis; Taenia solium; treatment; biomarker; PD-1/PD-L1

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The presence of soluble forms of PD-1 and PD-L1 in plasma of patients with EP-NC was found to be associated with treatment response. Higher levels of these markers before treatment were correlated with poor treatment response, and the ratio of sPD-1/sPD-L1 showed high sensitivity and specificity in predicting treatment response.
Extraparenchymal neurocysticercosis (EP-NC) is a chronic, potentially life-threatening disease that responds poorly to initial anthelmintic drug therapy. A depressed specific reactivity of peripheral lymphocytes and an increased level of specific Tregs accompanies EP-NC. The immune checkpoint pathway PD-1 and its ligand PD-L1 downregulates effector T cells, causing specific immune suppression in chronic diseases. This study explored whether their soluble forms, sPD-1/sPD-L1, are present in plasma among patients with EP-NC and if their levels could be associated with treatment response. A total of 21 patients with vesicular EP-NC and 22 healthy controls were included. Patients received standard treatment and were followed for six months to assess treatment response by assessing changes in cyst volume determined with 3D MRI. The presence of both sPD-1 and sPD-L1 was more frequently detected among patients with EP-NC than in healthy controls and had higher concentrations. Among patients, higher pre-treatment levels of both markers were associated with a poor treatment response, and the sensitivity and specificity of the sPD-1/sPD-L1 ratio for predicting any response to treatment were high. Our results are consistent with the presence of lymphocyte exhaustion and open new research perspectives to improve the prognosis of patients with this severe disease.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据