Eric Gerstenberger

Effective Dosing of Lipid A Analogue E5564 in Rats Depends on the Timing of Treatment and the Route of Escherichia coli Infection

BACKGROUND E5564, a competitive lipid A antagonist, inhibits endotoxin-stimulated inflammation and is under study in patients with sepsis. METHODS We tested whether clinically relevant variables, including the timing of treatment and the route of infection, influenced the effective dosing of E5564 in Escherichia coli-challenged rats. RESULTS All E5564 doses (0.3, 1.0, 2.0, and 3.0 mg/kg intravascular bolus followed by 10% of the bolus dose infused hourly for 24 h) administered 1 h before intravascular E. coli challenge similarly reduced the risk of death. Delaying the start of E5564 to 1 or 3 h after intravascular E. coli challenge significantly reduced the beneficial effect of the doses tested. However, increasing the dose of E5564 reversed some loss of efficacy for delayed treatment (P=.004, for increasing benefit with increasing dose at 1 h). During intrabronchial or intraperitoneal (extravascular) E. coli challenge, the pattern of effective E5564 dosing was the inverse of that for intravascular E. coli challenge (P=.001, for the interaction)--lower doses of E5564 were beneficial and higher doses were not (0.03, 0.3, 1.0, 2.0, and 3.0 mg/kg bolus followed by infusion) (P=.05, for decreasing benefit with increasing dose at 1 h). CONCLUSION These findings suggest that, for maximal clinical benefit, E5564 should be given early and that dosing should be adjusted upward for intravascular infection and downward for extravascular infection.

Protection with antibody to tumor necrosis factor differs with similarly lethal escherichia coli versus staphylococcus aureus pneumonia in rats

Background Differing factors may alter the effects of antibody to tumor necrosis factor (TNF) in infection and sepsis. The authors tested whether bacteria type or treatment route alters antibody to TNF in a rat model of bacterial pneumonia. Methods Rats (n = 231) received similarly lethal doses of either intratracheal Escherichia coli or Staphylococcus aureus followed by treatment with either intratracheal or intraperitoneal antibody to TNF or control serum. Animals received antibiotics (cefotiam daily dose, 100 mg/kg) starting 4 h after inoculation and were studied for up to 96 h. Results Compared with S. aureus, E. coli increased serum TNF and interleukin-6 concentrations, lung lavage TNF concentrations, neutrophil counts, and alveolar-to-arterial oxygen gradients and decreased circulating neutrophils and lymphocytes (P ≥ 0.05 for all). Compared with controls, with both bacteria, except for lung lavage TNF concentrations (which decreased with intratracheal but not with intraperitoneal antibody to TNF), treatment route did not alter the effects of antibody to TNF on any parameter (P = not significant for all). Antibody to TNF reduced mortality rates (relative risk of death ± SEM) with both E. coli (−1.6 ± 0.6;P = 0.006) and S. aureus (−0.5 ± 0.04;P = 0.185), but these reductions were greater with E. coli than with S. aureus in a trend approaching statistical significance (P = 0.09). Compared with controls, similarly (P = not significant) with both bacteria, antibody to TNF decreased lung lavage and tissue bacteria concentrations (both P < 0.05) and serum TNF concentration (P < 0.09) and increased circulating neutrophils and lymphocytes (both P ≤ 0.01). Compared with S. aureus, with E. coli antibody to TNF decreased alveolar-to-arterial oxygen gradients (P = 0.04) and increased serum interleukin-6 concentrations (P = 0.003). Conclusion Antibody to TNF improved host defense and survival rates with both lethal E. coli and S. aureus pneumonia, but protection was greater with E. coli, where TNF concentrations were higher than with S. aureus. The efficacy of antiinflammatory agents in sepsis may be altered by bacteria type.

Neutrophil Stimulation with Granulocyte Colony-stimulating Factor Worsens Ventilator-induced Lung Injury and Mortality in Rats

Background:Based on the association between the neutrophil and ventilator-induced lung injury, the authors hypothesized that neutrophil inhibition with fucoidin would be beneficial and stimulation with granulocyte colony-stimulating factor (G-CSF) would be harmful in a rat model of lethal ventilator-induced lung injury. Methods:Animals (n = 111) were randomly assigned to be pretreated with fucoidin, G-CSF, or placebo (control) before 4 h of low-tidal-volume (10 ml/kg) or high-tidal-volume (40 ml/kg) mechanical ventilation. Results:All low-volume animals survived. With high volumes, compared with controls, fucoidin did not improve survival (3 of 20 control animals and 5 of 20 fucoidin animals died; P = 0.51) but G-CSF significantly worsened it (18 of 22 animals died; P < 0.001). Circulating neutrophils were increased early with G-CSF and late with fucoidin with low and high tidal volumes (P < 0.05 for each treatment and tidal volume). Fucoidin decreased lung neutrophils, but these were only significant with high tidal volumes, whereas G-CSF increased lung neutrophils but only significantly with low tidal volumes (P ≤ 0.01 for each). Fucoidin did not alter any cardiopulmonary measure significantly. Compared with control, G-CSF increased airway pressures with high tidal volumes and worsened lung edema and arterial oxygen with both tidal volumes (P < 0.05 for each). Conclusions:In this model, neutrophil stimulation by G-CSF increased lung dysfunction and with high tidal volumes worsened survival rates. Extrapolated clinically, neutrophil stimulation either by agents such as G-CSF or conditions such as sepsis may aggravate ventilator-induced lung injury.

Sympathetic blockade in a canine model of gram-negative bacterial peritonitis.

We investigated, in a well-established canine model of human sepsis, the effects of two different techniques of sympathetic blockade during bacterial peritonitis on pain relief, hemodynamics, and survival rate. Twenty-two purpose-bred beagles (12–28 months old, weighing 10–12 kg) were studied. Fourteen animals received an epidural infusion of bupivicaine and morphine, and the other eight received either a celiac plexus block (n = 4) or a sham block (n = 4). Eighteen of the 22 animals received an intraperitoneal challenge of Escherichia coli (1–10 × 109 CFU kg−1 body weight). At comparable doses of intraperitoneal-implanted E. coli (2.5–5 × 109 CFU kg−1 body weight), the addition of sympathetic blockade produced a synergistic decrease in survival times (P = 0.002) and mean left ventricular ejection fraction (P = 0.008), and increase in creatinine levels (P = 0.02). There was also a significant increase in tumor necrosis factor (TNF) levels (P = 0.004) and decrease in blood endotoxin clearance (P = 0.006) associated with sympathetic blockade during sepsis. The celiac plexus-blocked animals had no improvement in pain scores, and subjectively looked clinically worse than animals with sepsis without a celiac plexus block. In contrast, the epidural block was effective in blocking the pain and discomfort associated with low lethality doses of intraperitoneal bacteria reflected by no increase in pain scores compared with animals not receiving bacterial challenge. This study shows that during severe bacterial peritonitis, maintenance of sympathetic tone irrespective of pain relief provided is necessary for clearance of bacterial toxins, control of proinflammatory mediator release, hemodynamic stability, and survival.

Using Secondary Data in Statistical Analysis

Publisher Summary The purpose of this chapter is to review the general concepts and potential limitations of meta analysis. The chapter illustrates the working principles of meta analysis and application of this technique to studies examining the use of anti-inflammatory therapies in sepsis. Meta analysis has evolved as a technique useful for summarizing a large number of clinical trials and for resolving discrepancies raised by these trials. There are many similarities between randomized controlled trials and meta analyses. Both randomized trials and meta analyses are designed to answer a scientifically valid question. Both techniques require that the patients or studies included, the data collected, and the analysis performed be prospectively planned, and that the results obtained be analyzed for factors that may potentially interact with treatment effect. Finally, both techniques deal with populations, not with single individuals.