Loading…

Impact of fingolimod on CD4+ T cell subset and cytokine profile of relapsing remitting multiple sclerosis patients

Fingolimod inhibits the egress of lymphocytes from lymphatic tissues and also directly affects their functions by modulation of the sphingosine-1-phosphate receptor 1 (S1P1). Our aim was to evaluate the impact of fingolimod on diverse CD4+ T cell subsets, and cytokines. Sixty-six relapsing remitting...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published in:Journal of neuroimmunology 2019-12, Vol.337, p.577065-577065, Article 577065
Main Authors: Kürtüncü, Murat, Yılmaz, Vuslat, Akçay, Halil İbrahim, Türkoğlu, Recai, Altunrende, Burcu, Çınar, Suzan Adın, Ulusoy, Canan, Gündüz, Tuncay, İçöz, Sema, Kasap, Mithat, Çalışkan, Zeynep, Ötünç, Göktürk, Eraksoy, Mefküre, Tüzün, Erdem
Format: Article
Language:English
Subjects:
Citations: Items that this one cites
Items that cite this one
Online Access:Get full text
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
Description
Summary:Fingolimod inhibits the egress of lymphocytes from lymphatic tissues and also directly affects their functions by modulation of the sphingosine-1-phosphate receptor 1 (S1P1). Our aim was to evaluate the impact of fingolimod on diverse CD4+ T cell subsets, and cytokines. Sixty-six relapsing remitting multiple sclerosis (RRMS) patients were treated with oral fingolimod (0.5 mg) for 6 months, and blood samples were collected at baseline, 3 months, and 6 months. Serum levels of seven cytokines and five chemokines were measured by multiplex immunoassay, and frequencies of peripheral blood mononuclear cell subsets were assessed by flow cytometry, and compared with those of 60 healthy controls. CCL2 (p = 0.039), and CCL5 (p = 0.001) levels were significantly higher in fingolimod-treated patients than healthy controls, whereas end-of-study serum levels of IL-6, IL-8, IL-17A, IL-22, IL-23, TNF-α, CXCL10, and CXCL13 were comparable to the baseline levels. Six months of fingolimod treatment reduced CD3+ T cell (mean ± standard deviation, 72.9% ± 5.5 vs. 60.1% ± 11.1, p 
ISSN:0165-5728
1872-8421
DOI:10.1016/j.jneuroim.2019.577065