Harnessing bioengineered myeloid progenitors for precision immunotherapies.

Granulocytes and macrophages are the frontline defenders of the innate immune system. These myeloid cells play a crucial role in not only eliminating pathogens and tumor cells, but also regulating adaptive immune responses. In neonatal sepsis and post-chemotherapy agranulocytosis, the absence of these cells leaves the host highly vulnerable to infections. Beyond replacement to prevent or control neutropenic sepsis, engineered myeloid cells may offer distinct opportunities for cell therapies. For example, the mobility and specific homing capacities of neutrophils to sites of inflammation could be exploited to deliver biocidal agents, or anti-inflammatory healing signals during sepsis, autoimmunity, and organ transplantation. Additionally, myeloid cells can be engineered to express chimeric antigen receptors (CAR), carry chemotherapeutics, or enhance lymphoid tumor killing. However, traditional methods of cell isolation are incapable of providing sufficient cell numbers of these short-lived cells; their propensity for premature activation further complicates their cell engineering. Here, we review current and future biotherapeutic innovations that employ engineered multipotent myeloid progenitors derived from either self-renewing human induced pluripotent stem cells (hiPSC) or primary CD34+ hematopoietic stem-progenitors. We provide a roadmap for solving the challenges of sourcing, cost, and production of engineered myeloid cell therapies.

Substantial heterogeneity of inflammatory cytokine production and its inhibition by a triple cocktail of toll-like receptor blockers in early sepsis.

Introduction: Early sepsis is a life-threatening immune dysregulation believed to feature a "cytokine storm" due to activation of pattern recognition receptors by pathogen and danger associated molecular patterns. However, treatments with single toll-like receptor (TLR) blockers have shown no clinical benefit. We speculated that sepsis patients at the time of diagnosis are heterogeneous in relation to their cytokine production and its potential inhibition by a triple cocktail of TLR blockers. Accordingly, we analyzed inflammatory cytokine production in whole blood assays from early sepsis patients and determined the effects of triple TLR-blockade. Methods: Whole blood of 51 intensive care patients sampled within 24h of meeting Sepsis-3 criteria was incubated for 6h without or with specific TLR2, 4, and 7/8 stimuli or suspensions of heat-killed S. aureus or E. coli bacteria as pan-TLR challenges, and also with a combination of monoclonal antibodies against TLR2 and 4 and chloroquine (endosomal TLR inhibition), subsequent to dose optimization. Concentrations of tumor necrosis factor (TNF), Interleukin(IL)-6, IL-8, IL-10, IL-1α and IL-1ß were measured (multiplex ELISA) before and after incubation. Samples from 11 sex and age-matched healthy volunteers served as controls and for dose-finding studies. Results: Only a fraction of sepsis patient samples revealed ongoing cytokine production ex vivo despite sampling within 24 h of first meeting Sepsis-3 criteria. In dose finding studies, inhibition of TLR2, 4 and endosomal TLRs reliably suppressed cytokine production to specific TLR agonists and added bacteria. However, inflammatory cytokine production ex vivo was only suppressed in the high cytokine producing samples but not in the majority. The suppressive response to TLR-blockade correlated both with intraassay inflammatory cytokine production (r=0.29-0.68; p<0.0001-0.04) and cytokine baseline concentrations (r=0.55; p<0.0001). Discussion: Upon meeting Sepsis-3 criteria for less than 24 h, a mere quarter of patient samples exhibits a strong inflammatory phenotype, as characterized by increased baseline inflammatory cytokine concentrations and a stark TLR-dependent increase upon further ex vivo incubation. Thus, early sepsis patient cohorts as defined by Sepsis-3 criteria are very heterogeneous in regard to inflammation. Accordingly, proper ex vivo assays may be useful in septic individuals before embarking on immunomodulatory treatments.

Immune hyporeactivity to bacteria and multiple TLR-ligands, yet no response to checkpoint inhibition in patients just after meeting Sepsis-3 criteria.

RATIONALE: The immune profile of sepsis patients is incompletely understood and hyperinflammation and hypoinflammation may occur concurrently or sequentially. Immune checkpoint inhibition (ICI) may counter hypoinflammation but effects are uncertain. We tested the reactivity of septic whole blood to bacteria, Toll-like receptor (TLR) ligands and to ICI. METHODS: Whole blood assays of 61 patients' samples within 24h of meeting sepsis-3 criteria and 12 age and sex-matched healthy volunteers. Measurements included pattern/danger-associated molecular pattern (P/DAMP), cytokine concentrations at baseline and in response to TLR 2, 4, and 7/8 ligands, heat-inactivated Staphylococcus aureus or Escherichia coli, E.coli lipopolysaccharide (LPS), concentration of soluble and cellular immune checkpoint molecules, and cytokine concentrations in response to ICI directed against programmed-death receptor 1 (PD1), PD1-ligand 1, or cytotoxic T-lymphocyte antigen 4, both in the absence and presence of LPS. MAIN RESULTS: In sepsis, concentrations of P/DAMPs and inflammatory cytokines were increased and the latter increased further upon incubation ex vivo. However, cytokine responses to TLR 2, 4, and 7/8 ligands, heat-inactivated S. aureus or E. coli, and E. coli LPS were all depressed. Depression of the response to LPS was associated with increased in-hospital mortality. Despite increased PD-1 expression on monocytes and T-cells, and monocyte CTLA-4 expression, however, addition of corresponding checkpoint inhibitors to assays failed to increase inflammatory cytokine concentrations in the absence and presence of LPS. CONCLUSION: Patients first meeting Sepsis-3 criteria reveal 1) depressed responses to multiple TLR-ligands, bacteria, and bacterial LPS, despite concomitant inflammation, but 2) no response to immune checkpoint inhibition.

Reinfusate Heparin Concentrations Produced by Two Autotransfusion Systems.

OBJECTIVES: Cell saver reinfusate ideally should contain low, clinically insignificant heparin concentrations. The American Association of Blood Banks has defined the clinically insignificant threshold as 0.5 IU/mL. Furthermore, there is uncertainty about the meaning of cell saver "heparin elimination rates." These concerns prompted the authors' independent investigation of reinfusate heparin concentrations of devices used in their institution. It was hypothesized that cell saver reinfusates contain clinically insignificant heparin concentrations. DESIGN: Two prospective, pragmatic, sequential, observational, single-center studies. SETTING: University teaching hospital. PARTICIPANTS: A total of 32 and 31 patients for on-pump cardiac surgery were enrolled in the Sorin (Dideco) Electa and Sorin Xtra studies, respectively. INTERVENTIONS: None. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: Postcardiac surgery reinfusate heparin concentrations were measured using a modified anti-Xa chromogenic assay. Heparin concentrations above 0.5 IU/mL were present in 56% (95% confidence interval, 35% to 68%) of Sorin Xtra reinfusates. Heparin concentrations in the Sorin (Dideco) Electa reinfusates were lower than recommended in 29 of 32 reinfusates. Only 3 of 32 Sorin (Dideco) Electa reinfusates (9.4%; 95% confidence interval 3.2% to 24%) exhibited heparin concentrations exceeding 0.5 IU/mL. CONCLUSIONS: Sorin (Dideco) Electa reinfusates contained heparin concentrations below the American Association of Blood Banks recommended threshold in 90.6% of cases, while Sorin Xtra reinfusate heparin concentrations exceeded this recommendation in 56% of cases. Measurement of cell saver reinfusate heparin concentrations necessitates the use of a modified chromogenic assay. Studies explicitly should confirm that such a modification was indeed used. Periodic quality control of reinfusate composition is recommended.