Costimulation and Autoimmune Diabetes in BB Rats

Costimulatory signals regulate T-cell activation. To investigate the role of costimulation in autoimmunity and transplantation, we studied the BB rat model of type 1 diabetes. Diabetes-prone BB (BBDP) rats spontaneously develop disease when 55–120 days of age. We observed that two anti-CD28 monoclonal antibodies (mAb) with different functional activities completely prevented diabetes in BBDP rats. Anti-CD154 mAb delayed diabetes, whereas treatment with CTLA4-Ig or anti-CD80 mAb accelerated disease. Anti-CD86 or anti-CD134L mAbs had no effect. Diabetes resistant BB (BBDR) rats are disease-free, but >95% of them develop diabetes after treatment with polyinosinic-polycytidylic acid and an mAb that depletes Treg cells. In the induced BBDR model, anti-CD154 mAb delayed onset of diabetes, whereas CTLA4-Ig, anti-CD134L or either of the anti-CD28 mAbs had little or no effect. In contrast, blockade of the CD134-CD134L pathway was highly effective for preventing autoimmune recurrence against syngeneic islet grafts in diabetic BBDR hosts. Blockade of the CD40-CD154 pathway was also effective, but less so. These data suggest that the effectiveness of costimulation blockade in the treatment of type 1 diabetes is dependent on both the costimulatory pathway targeted and the mechanism of induction, stage, intensity and duration of the pathogenic process.     

Quantitative study of the immunoglobulin-containing cells in trephine samples of bone marrow

Immunoglobulin (Ig) was demonstrated in paraffin sections of 12 trephine bone marrow biopsies by means of the unlabelled antibody peroxidase-antiperoxidase (PAP) method. The Ig-containing cells, which were counted with the Reichert-Jung (Kontron) MOP-AMO₃ user-controlled image-analyser, were found to constitute approximately 4·2% of all the nucleated cells in the marrow, a figure significantly higher than those reported by previous workers.     

Consensus guidelines on analgesia and sedation in dying intensive care unit patients

Background

Intensivists must provide enough analgesia and sedation to ensure dying patients receive good palliative care. However, if it is perceived that too much is given, they risk prosecution for committing euthanasia. The goal of this study is to develop consensus guidelines on analgesia and sedation in dying intensive care unit patients that help distinguish palliative care from euthanasia.

Methods

Using the Delphi technique, panelists rated levels of agreement with statements describing how analgesics and sedatives should be given to dying ICU patients and how palliative care should be distinguished from euthanasia. Participants were drawn from 3 panels: 1) Canadian Academic Adult Intensive Care Fellowship program directors and Intensive Care division chiefs (N = 9); 2) Deputy chief provincial coroners (N = 5); 3) Validation panel of Intensivists attending the Canadian Critical Care Trials Group meeting (N = 12).

Results

After three Delphi rounds, consensus was achieved on 16 statements encompassing the role of palliative care in the intensive care unit, the management of pain and suffering, current areas of controversy, and ways of improving palliative care in the ICU.

Conclusion

Consensus guidelines were developed to guide the administration of analgesics and sedatives to dying ICU patients and to help distinguish palliative care from euthanasia.