Archive

Posts Tagged ‘immune response’

Crohn’s and Autoimmunity

August 18th, 2005 alank Comments off

I’ve just returned from Copenhagen, Denmark, where I attended the 8th International Colloquium on Paratuberculosis (at considerable personal expense: Copenhagen is EXPENSIVE!)

Current thinking among researchers in the field is that MAP itself is mostly not the culprit in the tissue damage. MAP’s role is to initiate an inflammatory response in the bowel, through some unknown process/antigen/inflammatory-pathway. This immune response results in inflammation of bowel tissue, whereby the cells of the intestine physically separate, to allow immune cells, primarily macrophages and CD4 + CD8 T-cells, to reach the site of infection. This leads to “leaky gut” syndrome , which permits the contents of the bowel (most accurately described as being similar to the contents of a sewer), to leak through the bowel wall, resulting in a *massive* inflammatory response against the many microbes present in the fecal stream.

At this point, the inflammatory process becomes self re-inforcing, with consequent runaway production of inflammatory cytokines such as Tumor Necrosis Factor alpha (TNF-alpha), various Interleukins, Interleukin-antagonists, etc.

In some patients, this results in granuloma formation, as the massively overstimulated immune system tries to contain the original MAP infection, present inside macrophages, which are unable to kill the “phagocytosed” (i.e. “eaten”) MAP, which have immune evasion techniques to avoid being killed by macrophages. The infected macrophage goes into overdrive, producing copious quantities of inflammatory cytokines, which cause it to be surrounded by a layer of CD4 T-cells, and then another layer of CD8 T-cells: a granuloma is formed, which contains the mycobacterial infection and cuts off the flow of inflammatory cytokines, but also has the unfortunate consequence of causing significant permanent scarring, thus leading to stenosis/narrowing of the bowel, and eventually strictures.

In other patients, for reasons unknown (although possibly related to the failure of the Th1 inflammatory response), this granuloma formation does not take place. Instead, the flood of antigens from the bowel contents infects the bowel “transmurally”, i.e. through the entire thickness of the bowel, leading to all kinds of scarring, and in some unfortunates, the formation of fistulas, as well as all manner of secondary infections. It is this sub-group of patients that responds best to treatment with wide-spectrum antobiotics, since it is secondary microbial infections that are primarily responsible for the tissue damage, with these secondary non-mycobacterial microbes being susceptible to non-mycobacterial antibiotic treatment.

Is Crohn’s Disease an immunodeficiency?

July 6th, 2005 alank Comments off

There is an established body of clinical research which backs up the claims that GM-CSF is an effective treatment for a significant proportion of Crohn’s patients.

Treatment of active Crohn’s disease with recombinant human granulocyte-macrophage colony-stimulating factor.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12433518

GM-CSF treatment for Crohn’s disease: a stimulating new therapy?
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12498002

Crohn’s disease: an immunodeficiency?
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12840672

Sargramostim for active Crohn’s disease.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15917384

This therapy does fly in the face of current thinking in regards to how to treat Crohn’s Disease. Most attempts to treat Crohn’s Disease are targetted at suppressing the immune system, not boosting it. Here are a couple of references that discuss the importance of *reducing* GM-CSF levels.

Increased production of granulocyte-macrophage colony-stimulating factor in Crohn’s disease–a possible target for infliximab treatment.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15201577

Infliximab: mechanism of action beyond TNF-alpha neutralization in inflammatory bowel disease.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15201575

How to resolve the apparent paradox, i.e. whether to treat Crohn’s by boosting or by suppressing the immune system? The answer to that probably lies in the fact Crohn’s may be several different diseases presenting the same or a similar profile of symptoms: Crohn’s is not a disease but a SYNDROME. Until we can differentiate between the different underlying disease causes, we’ll be stuck with the current situation of one-size-fits-all therapy. It is to be hoped that the Sargramostim/Leukine/GM-CSF trials will not only seek to treat CD, but also to determine *why* a significant percentage (~40%) of Crohn’s patients experience improvement when their immune systems are so boosted, while the rest experience insignificant change. If some clear indicator can be found that differentiates between the two groups, then that would be a huge leap forward in the clinical treatment of Crohn’s Disease.

Although the mainstream medical community may be surprised by the GM-CSF results, I for one am not. After all, one of the primary effects of Granulocyte-Macrophage Colony-Stimulating-Factor (GM-CSF) is to boost the activity of Macrophages, the key anti-microbial component of the innate immune system. Ineffectiveness of macrophages to phagocytose mycobacteria is the key failure of the immune system that leads to granuloma formation in mycobacterial disease.

MECHANISMS OF BACTERIAL PATHOGENICITY: Bacterial Defense Against Phagocytes
http://textbookofbacteriology.net/antiphago.html

Immune Evasion by bacteria
http://crohn.ie/archive/primer/imunevad.htm

It is quite likely that in the short term, both suppressive and booster therapies will work in relieving Crohn’s Disease symptoms. However, in the longer term, the outcomes would be very different.

1. Therapy which boosts the immune system would ideally result in elimination of the infection causing inflammation.

2. Suppression, on the other hand, would result in a failure of the Th1 immune response, and thus failure to eliminate the causative infection. This would result in the immune system response changing to a Th2 response, mediated by the humoral arm of the immune system, which is
almost always ineffective in controlling mycobacterial infections.