Kooperativer Bibliotheksverbund

In: Infection and Immunity, American Society for Microbiology, Vol. 82, No. 11 ( 2014-11), p. 4824-4833

Abstract: Pneumonia caused by Streptococcus pneumoniae is a major cause of death and an economic burden worldwide. S. pneumoniae is an intermittent colonizer of the human upper respiratory tract, and the ability to control asymptomatic colonization determines the likelihood of developing invasive disease. Recognition of S. pneumoniae by resident macrophages via Toll-like receptor 2 (TLR-2) and the macrophage receptor with collagenous structure (MARCO) and the presence of interleukin-17 (IL-17)-secreting CD4 + T cells are required for macrophage recruitment and bacterial clearance. Despite the fact that the primary cellular effectors needed for bacterial clearance have been identified, much of the underlying regulatory mechanisms are unknown. Herein, we demonstrate that the small, noncoding RNA microRNA-155 (mir-155) is critical for the effective clearance of S. pneumoniae . Our studies show that mir-155-deficient mice maintain the ability to prevent acute invasive pneumococcal infection but have significantly higher bacterial burdens following colonization, independently of macrophage recognition by TLR-2, MARCO expression, or bactericidal capacity. The observed defects in bacterial clearance parallel reduced IL-17A and gamma interferon CD4 + T-cell responses in vivo , lower IL-17A mRNA levels in the nasopharynx, and a reduced capacity to induce Th17 cell polarization. Given that knockout mice are also limited in the capacity to generate high-titer S. pneumoniae -specific antibodies, we conclude that mir-155 is a critical mediator of the cellular effectors needed to clear primary and secondary S. pneumoniae colonizations.

Type of Medium: Online Resource

ISSN: 0019-9567 , 1098-5522

URL: Article

DOI: 10.1128/IAI.02251-14

Language: English

Publisher: American Society for Microbiology

Publication Date: 2014

detail.hit.zdb_id: 1483247-1

In: Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society, American Meteorological Society, Vol. 103, No. 8 ( 2022-08), p. S11-S142

Type of Medium: Online Resource

ISSN: 0003-0007 , 1520-0477

URL: Article

DOI: 10.1175/BAMS-D-22-0092.1

Language: Unknown

Publisher: American Meteorological Society

Publication Date: 2022

detail.hit.zdb_id: 2029396-3

detail.hit.zdb_id: 419957-1

In: Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society, American Meteorological Society, Vol. 101, No. 8 ( 2020-08-01), p. S9-S128

Type of Medium: Online Resource

ISSN: 0003-0007 , 1520-0477

URL: Article

DOI: 10.1175/BAMS-D-20-0104.1

Language: Unknown

Publisher: American Meteorological Society

Publication Date: 2020

detail.hit.zdb_id: 2029396-3

detail.hit.zdb_id: 419957-1

In: Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society, American Meteorological Society, Vol. 102, No. 8 ( 2021-08-01), p. S11-S142

Type of Medium: Online Resource

ISSN: 0003-0007 , 1520-0477

URL: Article

DOI: 10.1175/BAMS-D-21-0098.1

Language: Unknown

Publisher: American Meteorological Society

Publication Date: 2021

detail.hit.zdb_id: 2029396-3

detail.hit.zdb_id: 419957-1

In: Neurosurgery, Ovid Technologies (Wolters Kluwer Health), Vol. 65, No. 2 ( 2009-08), p. 410-

Type of Medium: Online Resource

ISSN: 0148-396X

URL: Article

DOI: 10.1227/01.neu.0000358699.96078.4e

Language: English

Publisher: Ovid Technologies (Wolters Kluwer Health)

Publication Date: 2009

detail.hit.zdb_id: 1491894-8

In: Poultry Science, Elsevier BV, Vol. 101, No. 2 ( 2022-02), p. 101605-

Type of Medium: Online Resource

ISSN: 0032-5791

URL: Article

DOI: 10.1016/j.psj.2021.101605

Language: English

Publisher: Elsevier BV

Publication Date: 2022

detail.hit.zdb_id: 2016331-9

SSG: 22

In: Developmental & Comparative Immunology, Elsevier BV, Vol. 31, No. 1 ( 2007-1), p. 52-60

Type of Medium: Online Resource

ISSN: 0145-305X

URL: Article

DOI: 10.1016/j.dci.2006.04.001

Language: English

Publisher: Elsevier BV

Publication Date: 2007

detail.hit.zdb_id: 1497538-5

In: Blood, American Society of Hematology, Vol. 124, No. 21 ( 2014-12-06), p. 19-19

Abstract: Introduction: For physically fit CLL pts with low comorbidity burden FCR is the standard frontline regimen in advanced CLL. The CLL10 study, an international phase III study evaluated the efficacy and tolerance of BR in comparison to FCR in frontline therapy of fit pts without del(17p). Methods and Patients: 158 sites in five countries (Germany, Austria, Switzerland, Denmark and Czech Republic) registered 688 CLL pts for central screening including immunophenotyping, FISH, comorbidity burden and renal function. 564 CLL pts with CIRS score ≤ 6, creatinine clearance 〉 70 ml/min and without del(17p) were enrolled between 10/2008 and 6/2011. Pts were randomly assigned 1:1 to receive 6 courses of FCR (N= 284; F 25mg/m2 i.v. d1–3, C 250 mg/m2 i.v. d1–3, R 375 mg/m2 i.v. d 0 at first cycle and 500 mg/m2 d1 all subsequent cycles; q 28 days) or BR (N=280; B 90mg/m² i.v. d1+2, R 375 mg/m2 i.v. d 0 at first cycle and 500 mg/m2 d1 all subsequent cycles; q 28 days). A general prophylactic use of antibiotics or growth factors was not recommended. Three patients (2 FCR, 1 BR) were excluded because of deferred treatment. The median CIRS score was 2. There was no difference in median age (61.6 years (yrs) for all pts), but a significantly higher proportion of pts ≥ 70 yrs was included in the BR arm (22% vs 14%, p=0.020). Binet A was present in 22%, Binet B in 38 % and Binet C in 40 %. Unmutated IGHV status was not balanced between both groups (68% in BR versus 55% in FCR arm; p=0.003). All other characteristics showed no differences. The mean number of administered FCR courses was 5.27 courses vs 5.41 BR course (p=0.017). Results: The median observation time for all patients was 35.9 months (mo). 547 pts (FCR 274 ; BR 273) were evaluable for response and all pts (282 FCR ; 279 BR) included for progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) analysis. The overall response rate in both arms was 97.8% (p=1.0). The complete response (CR) rate according to IWCLL and confirmed by central bone marrow immunohistology was 40.7% with FCR compared to 31.5% with BR (p=0.026). Four-colour-flow MRD data from peripheral blood (sensitivity 10-4) were available from 355 pts (185 FCR; 170 BR) at final staging. In the FCR arm 74.1% and 62.9% in the BR arm respectively of all evaluated pts were MRD negative (p=0.024). Bone marrow samples, available in 129 FCR and 98 BR pts, were MRD negative in 58.1% and 31.6% of pts, respectively (p 〈 0.001). At 12 mo follow-up 58.2% of the pts in the FCR arm (46/79) were still MRD negative in comparison to 26.3% (20/76) after BR (p 〈 0.001). At 18 mo there were 53.8% (35/65) MRD negative cases versus 24.6% (16/65; p=0.006). Median PFS was 53.7 mo in the FCR arm and 43.2 mo in the BR arm (HR=1.589, 95% CI 1.25-2.079; p=0.001). While PFS was statistically not significant different between both arm in pts with mutated IGHV, pts with unmutated IGHV status had a median time to progression of 43.9 mo after FCR compared to 34.0 mo after BR (p=0.015). Physically fit subgroups (CIRS max 3, only one CIRS item, age 〈 65 yrs) benefited most from FCR therapy. The difference in PFS was statistically not significant between both arms in pts ≥ 65 years, CIRS 4-6 or 〉 1 CIRS item. Multivariate analysis identified treatment arm, age ≥ 65 yrs, male sex, high serum TK, del(11q), absence of del(13q) and IGHV status as independent prognostic factors for PFS. No difference in OS was observed (at 36 mo 90.6% for FCR vs 92.2% for BR; HR=1.030, 95% CI 0.618-1.717; p=0.910). For OS male gender, age ≥ 60 yrs, high serum TK and IGHV status were assessed as independent prognostic factors. Severe neutropenia was more often observed in the FCR arm (87.7% vs 67.8%, p 〈 0.001), but no significant difference in the incidence of anemia (14.2% vs. 12.0%; p=0.46) or thrombocytopenia (22.4% vs 16.5%; p=0.096) was documented. Severe infections occurred significantly more frequent (39.8% vs 25.4%, p=0.001) in the FCR arm during treatment phase until 6 months follow-up, especially in older pts (48.4% vs 26.8%; p=0.001). Treatment related mortality was 3.9% (FCR) and 2.1% (BR), respectively. Conclusion: The final analysis of the CLL10 study shows that FCR remains the standard therapy in very fit CLL patients, because it yields higher CR rates, more MRD negativity and longer PFS in comparison to BR. However, in elderly fit pts high toxicity rates and infection rates result into dose reductions leading to similar efficacy between both arms. Elderly fit pts or pts with previous infections might benefit from BR as alternative regimen. Disclosures Eichhorst: Roche: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding, Travel grant Other; Mundipharma: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding, Travel grant, Travel grant Other; GSK: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Janssen: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Gilead: Consultancy. Off Label Use: The Combination of Bendamustine and Rituximab is not approved for frontline chemoimmunotherapy of CLL. Fink:Celgene: Other. Maurer:Mundipharma: Travel grant Other. Kiehl:Roche: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Gregor:Roche: Consultancy, Honoraria; Mundipharma: Consultancy, Honoraria. Trneny:Roche: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Novartis: Research Funding; Janssen: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Fischer:Roche: Other. Döhner:Roche: Research Funding. Kneba:Roche: Consultancy, Research Funding; Mundipharma: Consultancy, Research Funding. Wendtner:Mundipharma: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Hoffmann-La Roche: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding. Klapper:Hoffmann-La Roche: Research Funding; Takeda/Millenium: Research Funding. Kreuzer:Roche: Consultancy, Research Funding; Mundipharma: Consultancy, Research Funding. Stilgenbauer:Roche: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Mundipharma: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding. Böttcher:Roche: Honoraria, Research Funding, Travel grant Other. Hallek:Roche: Consultancy, Research Funding; Mundipharma: Consultancy, Research Funding.

Type of Medium: Online Resource

ISSN: 0006-4971 , 1528-0020

URL: Article

DOI: 10.1182/blood.V124.21.19.19

Language: English

Publisher: American Society of Hematology

Publication Date: 2014

detail.hit.zdb_id: 1468538-3

detail.hit.zdb_id: 80069-7

In: Blood, American Society of Hematology, Vol. 128, No. 22 ( 2016-12-02), p. 4382-4382

Abstract: Introduction: FCR is still the standard frontline regimen for physically fit CLL pts without TP53 alteration. The international phase III CLL10 study demonstrated the inferiority of BR in comparison to FCR in this population. In order to evaluate long-term outcome and toxicity we performed an updated analysis after extended observation time. Methods and Patients: 561 pts were randomized as previously published (Eichhorst B et al., Lancet Oncol 2016). 282 and 279 pts were randomized to receive either 6 courses of FCR or BR respectively. After the end of treatment pts were followed 3-monthly for 2 years (yrs) and 6-monthly for 3 yrs, and afterwards annually until progressive disease (PD). After PD annual visits were documented either within the study or within the registry of the GCLLSG. Health related quality of life (HRQOL) was evaluated by using the EORTC C30 questionnaire, which was completed at baseline, after 3, 6 and 12 months and then annually until year 5. Results: After a median observation time of 58.2 months (mo) (range, 0 - 88 mo), the median progression-free survival (PFS) for FCR was 57.6 mo versus (vs) 42.3 mo for the BR arm [Hazard ratio (HR)=1.593 (95% confidence interval (CI), 1.271-1.996); p 〈 0.0001]. While PFS was statistically significant different in younger pts [≤ 65 years (yrs)] (median PFS 57.6 vs 38.2 mo.; p 〈 0.0001), the difference was statistically not significant in elderly pts [ 〉 65 yrs] (57.6 vs 42.3; p=0.134). Richter transformation (RT) was assessed as PD and occurred in 5 pts (1.8%) after FCR and 8 pts (2.9%) after BR. 77 (27.3%) pts following FCR and 108 (38.7%) following BR treatment received at least one subsequent therapy. BR was the most common second line therapy after prior FCR (42 pts), while BR re-exposure after frontline BR was performed in 31 pts. 33pts switched to FCR after BR first line therapy. So far, only 3 pts after FCR and 2 pts after BR received kinase inhibitors. 51 pts (18.1%) of the FCR arm and 54 (19.4%) pts of the BR arm deceased so far. Main cause of death in the FCR arm were secondary malignancies (14 pts; 5.0%), followed by CLL including RT (11 pts incl. 2 RT; 3.9%), infections (7 pts; 2.5%) and concomitant diseases (6 pts; 2.1%). In the BR arm CLL was the most common cause of death (15 pts incl. 6 pts with RT; 5.4%) followed by infections (12 pts; 4.3%) and concomitant disease and secondary malignancies (10 pts each; 4.3% each). Other causes of deaths were distributed similarly (incl. adverse events to frontline or relapse treatment or unknown). No differences in overall survival (OS) were observed (OS at 5 yrs, 80.9% for FCR vs 80.1% for BR; HR=1.108, 95% CI 0.755-1.627; p=0.599). The difference in OS for younger pts was statistically not significant (OS at 5-yrs 85.6% for FCR vs 81.1% for BR; p=0.119). Otherwise, 5-yrs OS was 78.8% for pts 〉 65 yrs receiving BR and 70.9% for those receiving FCR (p=0.238). Multivariate analysis identified treatment arm, male sex, high serum thymidine kinase (TK), del(11q) and unmuated IGHV status, but not age as independent prognostic factors for PFS. For OS only high serum TK and unmutated IGHV status were assessed as independent prognostic factors. Secondary neoplasia was documented in 49 (17.6%) of 279 FCR treated pts and 35 (12.5%) of 278 BR treated pts. No difference in the incidence rate of secondary solid tumors was observed between both arms (for FCR 28 (10.0%) and for BR 25 (9.1%)). Secondary MDS and/or AML occurred more frequently after FCR therapy (12 [4.3%] vs 2 [0.7%] ), particularly in pts 〉 65 yrs (6 [7.0%] vs 1 [0.9%] ). 540 of 561 pts (96.3%) were evaluable for HRQOL analysis, 272 pts of the FCR and 268 pts of the BR arm. No differences between both arms were detected with respect to global health status or any functional or symptom scale. As compared to an age- and sex-matched normal population functional scale values were impaired mostly during treatment phase and symptom scales also during follow-up. However, after the end of therapy and during follow-up global health status was improved. Conclusion: Long-term follow-up data of the CLL10 study confirm the superiority of FCR regimen in young (≤ 65 yrs) and fit CLL patients. However, importantly these data support the recommendation of using BR in fit elderly pts. This particular group of pts had both a very good outcome after BR and compared to FCR a decreased risk of secondary MDS and/or AML. Disclosures Eichhorst: Novartis: Consultancy; Gilead: Consultancy, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Abbvie: Consultancy, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Janssen: Consultancy, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Celgene: Speakers Bureau; Roche: Consultancy, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Mundipharma: Consultancy, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau. Bahlo:F. Hoffman-La Roche: Honoraria, Other: Travel grant. Maurer:Mundipharma: Other: Travel grants. Kiehl:Roche: Consultancy, Other: Travel grants, Speakers Bureau. Fischer:Roche: Other: travel grants. Kneba:Amgen: Research Funding; Roche: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: Travel grants, Research Funding; Gilead: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: Travel grants, Research Funding; AbbVie: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: Travel grants; Glaxo-SmithKline: Other: Travel grants; Janssen-Cilag: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: Travel grants. Wendtner:Hoffmann-La Roche, Mundipharma, Janssen, Gilead, Abbvie, Servier, Morphosys: Consultancy, Other: Travle grants, Research Funding. Klapper:Roche, Novartis, Amgen, Takeda: Research Funding. Kreuzer:Roche Pharma GmbH and Mundipharma GmbH: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Gilead Sciences: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau. Böttcher:Celgene: Research Funding; Hoffmann-LaRoche: Honoraria, Other: Travel grants, Research Funding; AbbVie: Honoraria, Research Funding. Stilgenbauer:GSK: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: Travel grants , Research Funding; AbbVie: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: Travel grants, Research Funding; Amgen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: Travel grants, Research Funding; Novartis: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: Travel grants , Research Funding; Genzyme: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: Travel grants , Research Funding; Gilead: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: Travel grants , Research Funding; Hoffmann-La Roche: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: Travel grants , Research Funding; Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: Travel grants , Research Funding; Genentech: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: Travel grants , Research Funding; Mundipharma: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: Travel grants , Research Funding; Pharmacyclics: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: Travel grants , Research Funding; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: Travel grants , Research Funding; Sanofi: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: Travel grants , Research Funding; Boehringer Ingelheim: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: Travel grants , Research Funding. Fink:Celgene: Research Funding; Roche: Honoraria, Other: Travel grants; Mundipharma: Other: Travel grants; AbbVie: Other: Travel grants. Hallek:Celgene: Research Funding; Roche: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Gilead: Research Funding; AbbVie: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Genentech: Consultancy, Honoraria; GSK: Research Funding; Mundipharma: Research Funding; Janssen: Research Funding.

Type of Medium: Online Resource

ISSN: 0006-4971 , 1528-0020

URL: Article

DOI: 10.1182/blood.V128.22.4382.4382

Language: English

Publisher: American Society of Hematology

Publication Date: 2016

detail.hit.zdb_id: 1468538-3

detail.hit.zdb_id: 80069-7

In: Journal of Neurosurgery: Spine, Journal of Neurosurgery Publishing Group (JNSPG), Vol. 11, No. 2 ( 2009-08), p. 157-169

Abstract: The objective of this systematic review was to use evidence-based medicine to examine the efficacy of cervical laminoplasty in the treatment of cervical spondylotic myelopathy (CSM). Methods The National Library of Medicine and Cochrane Database were queried using MeSH headings and keywords relevant to cervical laminoplasty and CSM. Abstracts were reviewed and studies meeting the inclusion criteria were selected. The guidelines group assembled an evidentiary table summarizing the quality of evidence (Classes I–III). Disagreements regarding the level of evidence were resolved through an expert consensus conference. The group formulated recommendations that contained the degree of strength based on the Scottish Intercollegiate Guidelines network. Validation was done through peer review by the Joint Guidelines Committee of the American Association of Neurological Surgeons and Congress of Neurological Surgeons. Results Cervical laminoplasty has improved functional outcome in the setting of CSM or ossification of the posterior longitudinal ligament. Using the Japanese Orthopaedic Association scale score, ~ 55–60% average recovery rate has been observed (Class III). The functional improvement observed after laminoplasty may be limited by duration of symptoms, severity of stenosis, severity of myelopathy, and poorly controlled diabetes as negative risk factors (Class II). There is conflicting evidence regarding age, with 1 study citing it as a negative risk factor, and another not demonstrating this result. Conclusions Cervical laminoplasty is recommended for the treatment of CSM or ossification of the posterior longitudinal ligament (Class III).

Type of Medium: Online Resource

ISSN: 1547-5654

URL: Article

DOI: 10.3171/2009.1.SPINE08726

Language: Unknown

Publisher: Journal of Neurosurgery Publishing Group (JNSPG)

Publication Date: 2009