Jinbao Li

INTRODUCTION: Lymphocyte apoptosis and monocyte dysfunction play a pivotal role in sepsis-induced immunosuppression. Programmed death-1 (PD1) and its ligand programmed death ligand-1 (PD-L1) exert inhibitory function by regulating the balance among T cell activation, tolerance, and immunopathology. PD-1 deficiency or blockade has been shown to improve survival in murine sepsis. However, PD-L1 and PD-1 differ in their expression patterns and the role of PD-L1 in sepsis-induced immunosuppression is still unknown. METHODS: Sepsis was induced in adult C57BL/6 male mice via cecal ligation and puncture (CLP). The expression of PD-1 and PD-L1 expression on peripheral T cells, B cells and monocytes were measured 24 hours after CLP or sham surgery. Additionally, the effects of anti-PD-L1 antibody on lymphocyte number, apoptosis of spleen and thymus, activities of caspase-8 and caspase-9, cytokine production, bacterial clearance, and survival were determined. RESULTS: Expression of PD-1 on T cells, B cells and monocytes and PD-L1 on B cells and monocytes were up-regulated in septic animals compared to sham-operated controls. PD-L1 blockade significantly improved survival of CLP mice. Anti-PD-L1 antibody administration prevented sepsis-induced depletion of lymphocytes, increased tumor necrosis factor (TNF)-α and interleukin (IL)-6 production, decreased IL-10 production, and enhanced bacterial clearance. CONCLUSIONS: PD-L1 blockade exerts a protective effect on sepsis at least partly by inhibiting lymphocyte apoptosis and reversing monocyte dysfunction. Anti-PD-L1 antibody administration may be a promising therapeutic strategy for sepsis-induced immunosuppression.

INTRODUCTION: Studies on the role of programmed death-1(PD-1) and its main ligand (PD-L1) during experimental models of sepsis have shown that the PD-1/PD-L1 pathway plays a pathologic role in altering microbial clearance, the innate inflammatory response and accelerated apoptosis in sepsis. However, the expression of PD-1 and PD-L1 and their role during the development of immune suppression in septic patients have not been elucidated. The present study was designed to determine whether the expression of PD-1 and PD-L1 is upregulated in septic shock patients and to explore the role of this pathway in sepsis-induced immunosuppression. METHODS: Nineteen septic shock patients and 22 sex-matched and age-matched healthy controls were prospectively enrolled. Apoptosis in lymphocyte subpopulations and PD-1/PD-L1 expression on peripheral T cells, B cells and monocytes were measured using flow cytometry. Apoptosis of T cells induced by TNFα or T-cell receptor ligation in vitro and effects of anti-PD-L1 antibody administration were measured by flow cytometry. CD14+ monocytes of septic shock patients were purified and incubated with either lipopolysaccharide, anti-PD-L1 antibody, isotype antibody, or a combination of lipopolysaccharide and anti-PD-L1 antibody or isotype antibody. Supernatants were harvested to examine production of cytokines by ELISA. RESULTS: Compared with healthy controls, septic shock induced a marked increase in apoptosis as detected by the annexin-V binding and active caspase-3 on CD4+ T cells, CD8+ T cells and CD19+ B cells. Expression of PD-1 on T cells and of PD-L1 on monocytes was dramatically upregulated in septic shock patients. PD-1/PD-L1 pathway blockade in vitro with anti-PD-L1 antibody decreased apoptosis of T cells induced by TNFα or T-cell receptor ligation. Meanwhile, this blockade potentiated the lipopolysaccharide-induced TNFα and IL-6 production and decreased IL-10 production by monocytes in vitro. CONCLUSIONS: The expression of PD-1 on T cells and PD-L1 on monocytes was upregulated in septic shock patients. The PD-1/PD-L1 pathway might play an essential role in sepsis-induced immunosuppression.

INTRODUCTION: To investigate the effects of G-CSF or GM-CSF therapy in non-neutropenic patients with sepsis. METHODS: A systematic literature search of Medline, Embase and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials was conducted using specific search terms. A manual review of references was also performed. Eligible studies were randomized control trials (RCTs) that compared granulocyte-colony stimulating factor (G-CSF) or granulocyte-macrophage colony stimulating factor (GM-CSF) therapy with placebo for the treatment of sepsis in adults. Main outcome measures were all-cause mortality at 14 days and 28 days after initiation of G-CSF or GM-CSF therapy, in-hospital mortality, reversal rate from infection, and adverse events. RESULTS: Twelve RCTs with 2,380 patients were identified. In regard to 14-day mortality, a total of 9 death events occurred among 71 patients (12.7%) in the treatment group compared with 13 events among 67 patients (19.4%) in the placebo groups. Meta-analysis showed there was no significant difference in 28-day mortality when G-CSF or GM-CSF were compared with placebo (relative risks (RR) = 0.93, 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.79 to 1.11, P = 0.44; P for heterogeneity = 0.31, I2 = 15%). Compared with placebo, G-CSF or GM-CSF therapy did not significantly reduce in-hospital mortality (RR = 0.97, 95% CI: 0.69 to 1.36, P = 0.86; P for heterogeneity = 0.80, I2 = 0%). However, G-CSF or GM-CSF therapy significantly increased the reversal rate from infection (RR = 1.34, 95% CI: 1.11 to 1.62, P = 0.002; P for heterogeneity = 0.47, I2 = 0%). No significant difference was observed in adverse events between groups (RR = 0.93, 95% CI: 0.70 to 1.23, P = 0.62; P for heterogeneity = 0.03, I2 = 58%). Sensitivity analysis by excluding one trial did not significantly change the results of adverse events (RR = 1.05, 95% CI: 0.84 to 1.32, P = 0.44; P for heterogeneity = 0.17, I2 = 36%). CONCLUSIONS: There is no current evidence supporting the routine use of G-CSF or GM-CSF in patients with sepsis. Large prospective multicenter clinical trials investigating monocytic HLA-DR (mHLA-DR)-guided G-CSF or GM-CSF therapy in patients with sepsis-associated immunosuppression are warranted.

BACKGROUND: Ventilator-associated pneumonia (VAP) is common in intensive care units (ICUs). Some evidence indicates that probiotics may reduce the incidence of VAP. Several additional published studies have demonstrated that probiotics are safe and efficacious in preventing VAP in ICUs. We aimed to systematically summarise the results of all available data to generate the best evidence for the prevention of VAP. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the effectiveness and safety of probiotics for preventing VAP. SEARCH METHODS: We searched CENTRAL (2014, Issue 8), MEDLINE (1948 to September week 1, 2014) and EMBASE (2010 to September 2014). SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing probiotics with placebo or another control (excluding RCTs that use probiotics in both study groups) to prevent VAP. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently assessed eligibility and the quality of trials, and extracted data. MAIN RESULTS: We included eight RCTs, with 1083 participants. All studies compared a form of probiotic (Lactobacillus casei rhamnosus; Lactobacillus plantarum; Synbiotic 2000FORTE; Ergyphilus; combination Bifidobacterium longum + Lactobacillus bulgaricus + Streptococcus thermophilus) versus a control group (placebo; glutamine; fermentable fibre; peptide; chlorhexidine). The analysis of all RCTs showed that the use of probiotics decreased the incidence of VAP (odds ratio (OR) 0.70, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.52 to 0.95, low quality evidence). However, the aggregated results were uncertain for ICU mortality (OR 0.84, 95% CI 0.58 to 1.22 very low quality evidence), in-hospital mortality (OR 0.78, 95% CI 0.54 to 1.14, very low quality evidence), incidence of diarrhoea (OR 0.72, 95% CI 0.47 to 1.09, very low quality evidence), length of ICU stay (mean difference (MD) -1.60, 95% CI -6.53 to 3.33, very low quality evidence), duration of mechanical ventilation (MD -6.15, 95% CI -18.77 to 6.47, very low quality evidence) and antibiotic use (OR 1.23, 95% CI 0.51 to 2.96, low quality evidence). Antibiotics for VAP were used for a shorter duration (in days) when participants received probiotics in one small study (MD -3.00, 95% CI -6.04 to 0.04). However, the CI of the estimated effect was too wide to exclude no difference with probiotics. There were no reported events of nosocomial probiotic infections in any included study.The overall methodological quality of the included studies, based on our 'Risk of bias' assessments, was moderate with half of the included studies rated as a 'low' risk of bias; however, we rated four included studies as a 'high' risk of bias across one or more of the domains. The study limitations, differences in probiotics administered and participants, and small sample sizes across the included studies mean that the power to detect a trend of overall effect may be limited and chance findings cannot be excluded.To explore the influence of some potential confounding factors in the studies, we conducted an intention-to-treat (ITT) analysis, which did not change the inference of per-protocol analysis. However, our sensitivity analysis did not indicate a significant difference between groups for instances of VAP. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Evidence suggests that use of probiotics is associated with a reduction in the incidence of VAP. However, the quality of the evidence is low and the exclusion of the one study that did not provide a robust definition of VAP increased the uncertainty in this finding. The available evidence is not clear regarding a decrease in ICU or hospital mortality with probiotic use. Three trials reported on the incidence of diarrhoea and the pooled results indicate no clear evidence of a difference. The results of this meta-analysis do not provide sufficient evidence to draw conclusions on the efficacy and safety of probiotics for the prevention of VAP in ICU patients.