Why the study?
Does atorvastatin alter Th1/Th2 polarization in patients with acute myocardial infarction?
Does atorvastatin alter Th1/Th2 polarization in patients with acute myocardial infarction?
Atorvastatin reduces Th1 development in patients with AMI, providing a potential immunological mechanism for its cardioprotective effects.
Atorvastatin-associated Th1 reduction in AMI supports immunomodulatory hypotheses; leaves open clinical relevance pending RCTs.
BACKGROUND: The development of heart failure after acute myocardial infarction (AMI) has been shown to be associated with inflammation, which is positively and negatively regulated by T helper (Th) 1 and Th2 lymphocytes, respectively. Several studies have indicated that statins can improve heart function after AMI. AIMS: To study the effects of atorvastatin on Th polarization in patients with AMI. METHODS: Peripheral blood mononuclear cells were collected from 20 patients with AMI treated with oral atorvastatin (10 mg/d, group AMI-A) and 18 patients with AMI (group AMI-C) who did not receive treatment with statins. Cytokine-producing Th lymphocytes were quantified by 3-color flow cytometry. After in vitro culturing in the presence or absence of atorvastatin (0, 0.3, 1 and 3 micromol/L) for 6 days, cytokine-producing Th lymphocytes were quantified again in AMI-C group. RESULTS: The ratio of IFN-gamma-producing T cells was significantly higher in AMI-C group (17.8% +/- 6.4%) than in the AMI patients treated with oral atorvastatin (AMI-A, 13.1% +/- 4.6%). In vitro culturing with atorvastatin significantly reduced Th1 development in the AMI-C group. There was no significant difference on the frequencies of interleukin (IL)-4-producing T cells between each group. CONCLUSIONS: Atorvastatin can reduce Th1 development but has no effect on Th2 cell-functions in AMI patients. Our findings suggest that atorvastatin can regulate the polarization of Th1/Th2, this may be one of the mechanisms through which atorvastatin improves heart function after AMI.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Cheng et al. (2005) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: