CONICET | Buscador de Institutos y Recursos Humanos

GABRIELA F DE LARRAÑAGA; SILVIA NEGREIRA; SERGIO P HUERNOS; LICINA TESSONE; ALICIA M SAMBUELLI; ANIBAL H GIL; MARICEL I BELLICOSO; E ANTONIO CARRERA SILVA; CARLA V ROTHLIN; PAULA CHAVERO; SILVINA A GONCALVES; ANDREA E ERRASTI; PABLO TIRADO

Lugar:

Chicago

Reunión:

Congreso; Digestive Disease Week (DDW) 2017; 2017

Institución organizadora:

AGA

Resumen:

BACKGROUND: Inflammatory bowel diseases (IBD), ulcerativecolitis (UC) and Crohn´s disease (CD) are associated with an increased risk ofthrombosis. Plasma protein S (PROS1) is an anticoagulant that works as acofactor for activated protein C. PROS1 deficiency increases the risk ofthrombosis. Recent pathophysiological and experimental studies in animalsshowed that PROS1, expressed in T lymphocytes, is also an anti-inflammatoryprotein playing an inhibitory role in innate immunity due to its agonistactivity on tyrosine kinase TAM receptors (TYRO3, AXL and MERTK), Rothlin etal. 2015, Carrera Silva et al. 2013. A decrease in plasma PROS1 could berelated to activity or phenotype of human IBD. AIMS: 1. To investigate whetherthere are differences between PROS1 levels in patients with CD and UC comparedto healthy controls. 2. To study whether there is a relationship between PROS1levels and IBD activity. MATERIAL AND METHODS: free PROS1 (immu- noturburbimetry,Liatest, Stago, France) was determined in 86 IBD pts.: M 38, F 48 (UC: n 54,CD: n 32) and 30 healthy controls (M 18, F 12), mean ages 38.9±16.0, 40.4±15.0and 38.2±12.2 respectively. IBD was classified by activity indexes: CDAI(active CD>150), Mayo score (active UC>2), and Montreal. RESULTS: meanPROS1 levels in CD (91.3±28.5) were significantly lower than in controls (109.6± 23.9, p= 0.0077) and in UC (104.0±28.2, p= 0.048). In active CD (n 20, CDAI:265.9±68.2) PROS1 levels (85.8 ± 24.3) were significantly lower vs. controls (p= 0.0015), while vs. CD in remission (n 12: CDAI: 58.2±43.0) PROS1 levels werelower (100.2±33.5) without achieving significance. In active CD, the differencewith controls was only related with the moderate-severe subgroup (n17, CDAI275.9±69.6, PROS1 84.2±26.0, p= 0.0023) but not with the mild activity subset.PROS1 was lower in active CD vs. active UC as a trend p=0.082. In active UC (n31) PROS1 levels (98.90±27.8) were not different from controls or UC inremission (n=23, PROS1 110.91±27.5). The extent of UC (11 proctitis vs. 43 leftor extensive) did not show significant differences (116.2±24.9 vs. 100.9±28.5). PROS1 levels in CD were lower, although not significantly in the Smalbowell involvement (80.3±15.8) compared with only colon (94.9±31). In CD,inflammatory, stricturing, penetrating behaviors and perianal disease did notshow different PROS1 levels. CONCLUSIONS: 1) PROS1 levels were significantlylower in CD vs. controls and vs. UC. 2) In active CD patients PROS 1 levelswere different from controls, based on a decrease in the moderate-severesubgroup. Future studies will evaluate the impact of circulating PROS1 decreasein active CD patients and the activation of TAM receptors. These findingssuggest that the decrease of PROS1 in CD could contribute to the increased riskof thrombosis and potentially to the inflammatory process of this disease.