Alex Dyson1, Mervyn Singer. 1. Bloomsbury Institute of Intensive Care Medicine, Department of Medicine, University College London, London, United Kingdom.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To postulate reasons as to why the benefits seen with novel therapies in animal models of sepsis fail to translate to the clinical setting. DATA SOURCE: MEDLINE searches and relevant book chapters. DATA SUMMARY: Thousands of preclinical trials performed over more than five decades have failed to find more than a handful of drugs and techniques that significantly improve outcomes in clinical sepsis. We review current concepts surrounding the variety of animal models used today, ranging from simple models of acute toxemia to more complex models of abdominal sepsis. Differences between animal and human populations are also examined including species, age, comorbidity, and the use of supportive therapies. Finally, we examine differences between preclinical and clinical trial design, and the potential for experimental and publication bias. CONCLUSIONS: Animal models of sepsis are still too heterogeneous with regard to type of insult, duration, and supportive therapy to be regarded as representative of the human condition. Using standardized animal models may eliminate some of the differences between animal and human studies, allowing a greater degree of translation.
OBJECTIVE: To postulate reasons as to why the benefits seen with novel therapies in animal models of sepsis fail to translate to the clinical setting. DATA SOURCE: MEDLINE searches and relevant book chapters. DATA SUMMARY: Thousands of preclinical trials performed over more than five decades have failed to find more than a handful of drugs and techniques that significantly improve outcomes in clinical sepsis. We review current concepts surrounding the variety of animal models used today, ranging from simple models of acute toxemia to more complex models of abdominal sepsis. Differences between animal and human populations are also examined including species, age, comorbidity, and the use of supportive therapies. Finally, we examine differences between preclinical and clinical trial design, and the potential for experimental and publication bias. CONCLUSIONS: Animal models of sepsis are still too heterogeneous with regard to type of insult, duration, and supportive therapy to be regarded as representative of the human condition. Using standardized animal models may eliminate some of the differences between animal and human studies, allowing a greater degree of translation.
Authors: Chunzhang Cao; Yamei Gao; Yang Li; Toni M Antalis; Francis J Castellino; Li Zhang Journal: J Clin Invest Date: 2010-05-10 Impact factor: 14.808
Authors: Brian D Kubiak; Scott P Albert; Louis A Gatto; Christopher J Vieau; Shreyas K Roy; Kathleen P Snyder; Kristopher G Maier; Gary F Nieman Journal: J Surg Res Date: 2010-11-12 Impact factor: 2.192
Authors: Asada Leelahavanichkul; Yuning Huang; Xuzhen Hu; Hua Zhou; Takayuki Tsuji; Richard Chen; Jeffrey B Kopp; Jürgen Schnermann; Peter S T Yuen; Robert A Star Journal: Kidney Int Date: 2011-08-10 Impact factor: 10.612
Authors: Deyan Luo; Frank M Szaba; Lawrence W Kummer; Lawrence L Johnson; Erik I Tucker; Andras Gruber; David Gailani; Stephen T Smiley Journal: Infect Immun Date: 2011-10-17 Impact factor: 3.441
Authors: Sarah Derde; Steven Thiessen; Chloë Goossens; Thomas Dufour; Greet Van den Berghe; Lies Langouche Journal: J Vis Exp Date: 2017-05-02 Impact factor: 1.355
Authors: Jasmin Herz; Brian G Vassallo; Stephan P Rosshart; Ashli Hunter; Morgan K Wall; Jonathan H Badger; John A McCulloch; Dimitrios G Anastasakis; Aishe A Sarshad; Irina Leonardi; Nicholas Collins; Joshua A Blatter; Seong-Ji Han; Samira Tamoutounour; Svetlana Potapova; Mark B Foster St Claire; Wuxing Yuan; Shurjo K Sen; Matthew S Dreier; Benedikt Hild; Markus Hafner; David Wang; Iliyan D Iliev; Yasmine Belkaid; Giorgio Trinchieri; Barbara Rehermann Journal: Science Date: 2019-08-01 Impact factor: 47.728