4.3 Review

Pathogenesis of the immune reconstitution inflammatory syndrome in HIV-infected patients

期刊

CURRENT OPINION IN INFECTIOUS DISEASES
卷 25, 期 3, 页码 312-320

出版社

LIPPINCOTT WILLIAMS & WILKINS
DOI: 10.1097/QCO.0b013e328352b664

关键词

antiretroviral therapy; HIV/AIDS; immune reconstitution; immune reconstitution inflammatory syndrome; pathogenesis

资金

  1. French National Institute for Medical Research (INSERM)
  2. Agence Nationale pour la Recherche sur le Sida et les hepatites virales (ANRS)
  3. French Academy of Medicine
  4. Toulouse University Hospital
  5. European Federation of Immunological Societies (EFIS)

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Purpose of review The immune reconstitution inflammatory syndrome (IRIS) is an important clinical complication in HIV-infected patients initiating antiretroviral therapy. This review focuses on the latest literature pertaining to the pathogenesis of IRIS. Recent findings The clinical manifestations of IRIS are heterogeneous due to the variety of opportunistic infections that are associated with this inflammatory syndrome. However, the disproportionate inflammation is a defining hallmark for which common mechanisms are suspected. Lymphopenia-induced proliferation in the context of systemic immune activation, presence of high antigenic exposure and a wider availability of interleukin-7 contribute to the exacerbated immune response underlying IRIS. Defect in pathogen clearance by phagocytes might favor high pathogen burden, which in turn is thought to activate both innate immune cells and pathogen-specific T cells upon correction of the CD4 T-cell lymphopenia, predisposing to IRIS. This common scenario might be further invigorated by functional impairments among regulatory T cells. Summary Further insight into the cellular mechanisms driving IRIS is urgently needed. Understanding the relative contribution of distinct effector and regulatory T-cell subsets, and innate immune components to IRIS is required to inspire future therapeutic approaches.

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

4.3
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