Lack of elevation in plasma levels of pro-inflammatory cytokines in common rodent models of pulmonary arterial hypertension: questions of construct validity for human patients.

Translational research depends on the relevance of animal models and how well they replicate human disease. Here, we investigated plasma levels of three important pro-inflammatory cytokines (TNFα, IL-6, and MCP-1), known to be elevated in human pulmonary arterial hypertension (PAH), and systematically assessed their levels in PAH patients compared to five different rodent models of pulmonary hypertension (PH). A consistent immunoassay platform (Luminex xMAP) and source (Millipore) was used to measure all specimens. PAH patients (n = 29) exhibited significant elevations in all three cytokines (median [IQR] pg/mL; TNFα, 7.0 [4.8-11.7]; IL-6, 9.2 [3.8-17.2]; MCP-1, 109 [65-142]) versus healthy participants (n = 20) (median [IQR] pg/mL; TNFα, 3.0 [2.0-3.6]; IL-6, 1.7 [0.5-7.2]; MCP-1, 79 [49-93]. In contrast, mice with PH established after three weeks of hypoxia (n = 18) or SU5416 plus hypoxia (n = 20) showed no significant change in their plasma cytokine levels versus controls (n = 16), based on three to four independent experiments per group. Similarly, plasma cytokine levels were not elevated in rats with PH established three weeks after monocrotaline (n = 23), eight weeks after SU5416 alone (n = 10) or six to eight weeks after SU5416 plus hypoxia (n = 21) versus controls (n = 36 rats), based on three to eight independent experiments per group. Positive biologic control specimens from sepsis patients (n = 9), cecal-ligation and puncture (CLP)-induced septic mice (n = 6), and lipopolysaccharide-induced septic rats (n = 4) showed robust elevations in all three cytokines. This study suggests that animal models commonly used for the development of novel diagnostic and therapeutic approaches for PAH may have limited construct validity with respect to markers of systemic immune activation seen in human patients.

Evaluating mesenchymal stem cell therapy for sepsis with preclinical meta-analyses prior to initiating a first-in-human trial.

Evaluation of preclinical evidence prior to initiating early-phase clinical studies has typically been performed by selecting individual studies in a non-systematic process that may introduce bias. Thus, in preparation for a first-in-human trial of mesenchymal stromal cells (MSCs) for septic shock, we applied systematic review methodology to evaluate all published preclinical evidence. We identified 20 controlled comparison experiments (980 animals from 18 publications) of in vivo sepsis models. Meta-analysis demonstrated that MSC treatment of preclinical sepsis significantly reduced mortality over a range of experimental conditions (odds ratio 0.27, 95% confidence interval 0.18-0.40, latest timepoint reported for each study). Risk of bias was unclear as few studies described elements such as randomization and no studies included an appropriately calculated sample size. Moreover, the presence of publication bias resulted in a ~30% overestimate of effect and threats to validity limit the strength of our conclusions. This novel prospective application of systematic review methodology serves as a template to evaluate preclinical evidence prior to initiating first-in-human clinical studies.

Efficacy and safety of mesenchymal stromal cells in preclinical models of acute lung injury: a systematic review protocol.

BACKGROUND: Acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) in humans is caused by an unchecked proinflammatory response that results in diffuse and severe lung injury, and it is associated with a mortality rate of 35 to 45%. Mesenchymal stromal cells (MSCs; 'adult stem cells') could represent a promising new therapy for this syndrome, since preclinical evidence suggests that MSCs may ameliorate lung injury. Prior to a human clinical trial, our aim is to conduct a systematic review to compare the efficacy and safety of MSC therapy versus controls in preclinical models of acute lung injury that mimic some aspects of the human ARDS. METHODS/DESIGN: We will include comparative preclinical studies (randomized and non-randomized) of acute lung injury in which MSCs were administered and outcomes compared to animals given a vehicle control. The primary outcome will be death. Secondary outcomes will include the four key features of preclinical acute lung injury as defined by the American Thoracic Society consensus conference (histologic evidence of lung injury, altered alveolar capillary barrier, lung inflammatory response, and physiological dysfunction) and pathogen clearance for acute lung injury models that are caused by infection. Electronic searches of MEDLINE, Embase, BIOSIS Previews, and Web of Science will be constructed and reviewed by the Peer Review of Electronic Search Strategies (PRESS) process. Search results will be screened independently and in duplicate. Data from eligible studies will be extracted, pooled, and analyzed using random effects models. Risk of bias will be assessed using the Cochrane risk of bias tool, and individual study reporting will be assessed according to the Animal Research: Reporting of In Vivo Experiments (ARRIVE) guidelines. DISCUSSION: The results of this systematic review will comprehensively summarize the safety and efficacy of MSC therapy in preclinical models of acute lung injury. Our results will help translational scientists and clinical trialists to determine whether sufficient evidence exists to perform a human clinical trial. These results may also guide future acute lung injury preclinical and clinical research.