PubMed Health⌕ Search

PubMed · 10573732

[Psychoimmunology: a questionable model?].

Abstract

INTRODUCTION: The concept of "psychoimmunology" that had long been supported by clinical observation and common sense, has acquired a sound scientific basis in the last two decades. The discovery of neuro-mediators and cytokines and their receptors shared by the central nervous system and the immune system has prompted research work using reliable methodologies to study the relationship between a 'hard' scientific field, such as immunology, and a 'soft' one, such as the behavioral sciences. CURRENT KNOWLEDGE AND KEY POINTS: The complexity of the studies on stress and immunity lies upon the choice of immunological measurements and the development of reproducible stress protocols. Models of stress in experimental animals may address acute versus chronic stress, and individual versus social stress. In humans, typical situations such as academic exams, and care given to patients with dementia, for instance, have been chosen to study large groups of subjects. The development of self-questionnaires for a reliable evaluation of stress and its consequences has led to more accurate measurements of psychosocial events. In animals, acute stress usually drives the immune response towards a Th2, grossly 'immunosuppressive,' profile. In humans, acute stress associates an endocrine response (characterized by glucocorticoid secretion and hyperprolectinemia) with an immunosuppression. Chronic stress is more likely to induce a range of effects, depending on the capacity of the subject to cope with stress, and on his/her social environment. Among the numerous mediators of the hypothalamo-pituitary cascade, Corticotropin Releasing Hormone is a key factor in the stress-immunity relationship. Several studies in humans have demonstrated the influence of stress on the susceptibility to infections (including HIV infection) and on survival in malignant diseases. In autoimmune diseases, a high prevalence of depression, as well as a particular sensitivity to stressful events, seem to modify the course of conditions such as systemic lupus erythematosus, rhumatoid arthritis or Sjögren's disease. The relationship between stress and diseases is based on the pathogenic model which involves the following chain of events: stressor, reaction to stress, neuro-endocrine changes, abnormalities of the immune response, and occurrence (or aggravation) of a disease. The evolution from health to disease could be associated, at least partially, with a 'passive' immunosuppressive mode of response, mediated by the pituitary-adrenal axis, typically the opposite of an 'active,' immunostimulant mode of response, mediated by adrenergic stimulation. FUTURE PROSPECTS AND PROJECTS: Concept-related problems still remain to be solved: adaptation to stress ('coping'), is both genetically and socially mediated; the significance and interpretation of stress-related abnormalities and their precise involvement in the pathogenesis of diseases may be ambiguous. However, available epidemiological and pathophysiological evidence is currently sufficient to allow physicians in their everyday practice to take stress and depression into account in order to markedly improve the prognosis of many diseases related to immune responses. Prospective studies of neuropsychological intervention, using either pharmacologic or behavioral approaches, should be made to provide the necessary rational to a psychoimmunological management of patients.

Explore related subjects

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

D A Vuitton, B de Wazières, J L Dupond. 1999. [Psychoimmunology: a questionable model?].. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0248-8663(00)80101-0

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related citations

Dissociated long lasting improvements of straight-ahead pointing and line bisection tasks in two hemineglect patients.

In this experiment, we evaluated over a longer time period the previously demonstrated effects of a short prism adaptation on hemispatial neglect. We followed two patients (PE and SA), during a period of 5 days (1 day before and 4 days after the prism adaptation procedure), repeatedly measuring their performances on a straight-ahead pointing task and a line bisection task. We also assessed the comparative temporal evolution of the rightward biased egocentric reference frame (as measured by the straight-ahead demonstration) and a classical neuropsychological symptom of neglect, namely the rightward bias observed on line bisection. Firstly, the results showed that prismatic effect could be maintained for 4 days, on the two tasks (separately straight-ahead for PE, line bisection for SA). This long-term effect implies a very profound action of prism adaptation based on active processes and opens large possibilities for clinical applications. Secondly, no correlation was found between the evolution of the performances on the two tasks, neither for patient PE, nor for patient SA (within-subject double-dissociation). Moreover, a double-dissociation between subjects was demonstrated on long-term effects. A new conception has thus to be found to explain the various symptoms manifested in neglect and more investigations have to be performed in order to establish to what extent they can be considered independent. It can be concluded that elucidating the mechanism through which prism adaptation affects neglect could lead to a better understanding of the neglect syndrome.

Adaptation, Psychological↗

Randomized trial of coordinated psychosocial interventions based on patient self-assessments versus standard care to improve the psychosocial functioning of patients with cancer.

PURPOSE: To determine whether making patient-reported cancer needs, quality-of-life (QOL), and psychosocial information available to the health care team, allowing coordinated specifically targeted psychosocial interventions, resulted in reduced cancer needs, improved QOL, and increased satisfaction with care received. METHODS: Self-reported cancer needs, QOL, and psychosocial information was collected from 450 people with cancer, using standardized questionnaires via a touch-screen computer. For a randomly chosen two thirds, this information was made available to the health care team who coordinated targeted psychosocial interventions. Information from the remaining one third was not seen. Patients were assessed 2 and 6 months after randomization for changes in their cancer needs, QOL, and psychosocial functioning and satisfaction with overall care received. RESULTS: There were no significant differences between the two arms with respect to changes in cancer needs, QOL, or psychosocial functioning between the baseline and follow-up assessments, nor with respect to satisfaction with care. However, for the subgroup of patients who were moderately or severely depressed at baseline, there was a significant reduction in depression for the intervention arm relative to the control arm at the 6-month assessment (P =.001). CONCLUSION: Making patient-reported cancer needs, QOL, and psychosocial data available to the health care team at a single consultation together with coordinated psychosocial interventions does not seem to reduce cancer needs nor improve QOL, psychosocial functioning, or satisfaction with the care received. However, identification of patients with moderate or severe levels of depression may be valuable in reducing subsequent levels of depression.

Adaptation, Psychological↗