Development and characterization of a fecal-induced peritonitis model of murine sepsis: results from a multi-laboratory study and iterative modification of experimental conditions

Sepsis and obesity: a scoping review of diet-induced obesity murine models

BACKGROUND

Sepsis, the life-threatening host response to infection, is a major cause of mortality. Obesity increases vulnerability to sepsis; however, some degree of obesity may be protective, called the "obesity paradox". This scoping review systematically maps the literature on outcomes associated with diet-induced obesity and sepsis-induced organ injury, focusing on non-transgenic murine models.

METHODS

A literature search of primary articles was conducted from database inception to June 2023. Eligible articles compared diet-induced obesity to non-obese mice in sepsis models involving live pathogens. Two reviewers screened articles and extracted data on obesogenic and sepsis models utilized, and organ injury outcomes, including physiological dysfunction, histological alterations, and biochemical changes.

RESULTS

Seventeen studies met eligibility criteria; 82% used male C57BL/6 mice, and 88% used cecal ligation and puncture to induce sepsis. Most studies used 60% high-fat diets compared to 10-16% fat in controls. Seven (64%) studies reported increased mortality in obese septic mice, one (9%) observed a decrease, and three (37%) found no significant difference. The liver, lungs, and kidneys were the most studied organs. Alanine transaminase results were inconclusive. Myeloperoxidase levels were increased in the livers of two studies and inconclusive in the lungs of obese septic mice. Creatinine and neutrophil gelatinase-associated lipocalin were elevated in obese septic mice.

CONCLUSIONS

There is variability in the methodology and measured outcomes in murine models of diet-induced obesity and sepsis and a lack of studies in female mice. The absence of standardized models has produced conflicting findings on the impact of obesity on sepsis outcomes.

Surviving Sepsis Campaign Research Priorities 2023

OBJECTIVES

To identify research priorities in the management, epidemiology, outcome, and pathophysiology of sepsis and septic shock.

DESIGN

Shortly after publication of the most recent Surviving Sepsis Campaign Guidelines, the Surviving Sepsis Research Committee, a multiprofessional group of 16 international experts representing the European Society of Intensive Care Medicine and the Society of Critical Care Medicine, convened virtually and iteratively developed the article and recommendations, which represents an update from the 2018 Surviving Sepsis Campaign Research Priorities.

METHODS

Each task force member submitted five research questions on any sepsis-related subject. Committee members then independently ranked their top three priorities from the list generated. The highest rated clinical and basic science questions were developed into the current article.

RESULTS

A total of 81 questions were submitted. After merging similar questions, there were 34 clinical and ten basic science research questions submitted for voting. The five top clinical priorities were as follows: 1) what is the best strategy for screening and identification of patients with sepsis, and can predictive modeling assist in real-time recognition of sepsis? 2) what causes organ injury and dysfunction in sepsis, how should it be defined, and how can it be detected? 3) how should fluid resuscitation be individualized initially and beyond? 4) what is the best vasopressor approach for treating the different phases of septic shock? and 5) can a personalized/precision medicine approach identify optimal therapies to improve patient outcomes? The five top basic science priorities were as follows: 1) How can we improve animal models so that they more closely resemble sepsis in humans? 2) What outcome variables maximize correlations between human sepsis and animal models and are therefore most appropriate to use in both? 3) How does sepsis affect the brain, and how do sepsis-induced brain alterations contribute to organ dysfunction? How does sepsis affect interactions between neural, endocrine, and immune systems? 4) How does the microbiome affect sepsis pathobiology? 5) How do genetics and epigenetics influence the development of sepsis, the course of sepsis and the response to treatments for sepsis?

CONCLUSIONS

Knowledge advances in multiple clinical domains have been incorporated in progressive iterations of the Surviving Sepsis Campaign guidelines, allowing for evidence-based recommendations for short- and long-term management of sepsis. However, the strength of existing evidence is modest with significant knowledge gaps and mortality from sepsis remains high. The priorities identified represent a roadmap for research in sepsis and septic shock.