4.8 Article

CD4+CD28-T lymphocytes contribute to early atherosclerotic damage in rheumatoid arthritis patients

期刊

CIRCULATION
卷 109, 期 22, 页码 2744-2748

出版社

LIPPINCOTT WILLIAMS & WILKINS
DOI: 10.1161/01.CIR.0000131450.66017.B3

关键词

arthritis, rheumatoid; cells; endothelium; vasodilation

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background - Peripheral blood expansion of an unusual CD4+ T-cell subset lacking surface CD28 has been suggested to predispose rheumatoid arthritis ( RA) patients to develop more aggressive disease. However, the potential association between CD4+ CD28(null) T cells and early atherosclerotic changes in RA has never been investigated. Methods and Results - The number of circulating CD4 + CD28(null) cells was evaluated in 87 RA and 33 control subjects who also underwent evaluation of carotid artery intima-media thickness (IMT) and endothelial function via flow-mediated vasodilation (FMV). Patients had higher IMT and lower FMV compared with control subjects. The frequency of CD4 + CD28(null) cells was significantly higher in patients than in control subjects. Twenty patients with persistent expansion of circulating CD4 + CD28(null) cells had more marked increase of carotid artery IMT and stronger decrease of brachial artery FMV. Blockade of tumor necrosis factor-alpha led to a partial reappearance of the CD28 molecule on the CD4 + cell surface. Conclusions - Circulating CD4 + CD28(null) lymphocytes are increased in RA. Patients with persistent CD4 + CD28(null) cell expansion show preclinical atherosclerotic changes, including arterial endothelial dysfunction and carotid artery wall thickening, more significantly than patients without expansion. These findings suggest a contribution of this cell subset in atheroma development in RA. Moreover, the demonstration that tumor necrosis factor-alpha blockade is able to reverse, at least in part, the CD28 deficiency on the CD4+ cell surface may be of interest for possible innovative therapeutic strategies in cardiovascular diseases.

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

4.8
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