Preclinical animal studies precede the majority of clinical trials. While the clinical definitions of sepsis and recommended treatments are regularly updated, a systematic review of preclinical models of sepsis has not been done and clear modeling guidelines are lacking. To address this deficit, a Wiggers-Bernard Conference on preclinical sepsis modeling was held in Vienna in May, 2017. The goal of the conference was to identify limitations of preclinical sepsis models and to propose a set of guidelines, defined as the “Minimum Quality Threshold in Preclinical Sepsis Studies” (MQTiPSS), to enhance translational value of these models. A total of 31 experts from 13 countries participated and were divided into six thematic Working Groups: Study Design, Humane modeling, Infection types, Organ failure/dysfunction, Fluid resuscitation, and Antimicrobial therapy endpoints. As basis for the MQTiPSS discussions, the participants conducted a literature review of the 260 most highly cited scientific articles on sepsis models (2002–2013). Overall, the participants reached consensus on 29 points; 20 at “recommendation” and nine at “consideration” strength. This Executive Summary provides a synopsis of the MQTiPSS consensus. We believe that these recommendations and considerations will serve to bring a level of standardization to preclinical models of sepsis and ultimately improve translation of preclinical findings. These guideline points are proposed as “best practices” for animal models of sepsis that should be implemented. To encourage its wide dissemination, this article is freely accessible on the Intensive Care Medicine Experimental and Infection journal websites. In order to encourage its wide dissemination, this article is freely accessible in Shock, Infection, and Intensive Care Medicine Experimental.

Many preclinical studies in critical care medicine and related disciplines rely on hypothesis-driven research in mice. The underlying premise posits that mice sufficiently emulate numerous pathophysiologic alterations produced by trauma/sepsis and can serve as an experimental platform for answering clinically relevant questions. Recently, the lay press severely criticized the translational relevance of mouse models in critical care medicine. A series of provocative editorials were elicited by a highly publicized research report in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (PNAS; February 2013), which identified an unrecognized gene expression profile mismatch between human and murine leukocytes following burn/trauma/endotoxemia. Based on their data, the authors concluded that mouse models of trauma/inflammation are unsuitable for studying corresponding human conditions. We believe this conclusion was not justified. In conjunction with resulting negative commentary in the popular press, it can seriously jeopardize future basic research in critical care medicine. We will address some limitations of that PNAS report to provide a framework for discussing its conclusions and attempt to present a balanced summary of strengths/weaknesses of use of mouse models. While many investigators agree that animal research is a central component for improved patient outcomes, it is important to acknowledge known limitations in clinical translation from mouse to man. The scientific community is responsible to discuss valid limitations without overinterpretation. Hopefully, a balanced view of the strengths/weaknesses of using animals for trauma/endotoxemia/critical care research will not result in hasty discount of the clear need for using animals to advance treatment of critically ill patients.

Pre-clinical animal studies precede the majority of clinical trials. While the clinical definitions of sepsis and recommended treatments are regularly updated, a systematic review of pre-clinical models of sepsis has not been done and clear modeling guidelines are lacking. To address this deficit, a Wiggers-Bernard Conference on pre-clinical sepsis modeling was held in Vienna in May 2017. The goal of the conference was to identify limitations of pre-clinical sepsis models and to propose a set of guidelines, defined as the “Minimum Quality Threshold in Pre-Clinical Sepsis Studies” (MQTiPSS), to enhance translational value of these models. A total of 31 experts from 13 countries participated and were divided into 6 thematic working groups (WG): (1) study design, (2) humane modeling, (3) infection types, (4) organ failure/dysfunction, (5) fluid resuscitation, and (6) antimicrobial therapy endpoints. As basis for the MQTiPSS discussions, the participants conducted a literature review of the 260 most highly cited scientific articles on sepsis models (2002–2013). Overall, the participants reached consensus on 29 points; 20 at “recommendation” (R) and 9 at “consideration” (C) strength. This executive summary provides a synopsis of the MQTiPSS consensus (Tables 1 , 2 , and 3 ). Detailed commentaries to all Rs and Cs are simultaneously published in three separate full-length papers. We believe that these recommendations and considerations will serve to bring a level of standardization to pre-clinical models of sepsis and ultimately improve translation of pre-clinical findings. These guideline points are proposed as “best practices” for animal models of sepsis that should be implemented. In order to encourage its wide dissemination, this article is freely accessible in Shock, Infection and Intensive Care Medicine Experimental.

Background: The mechanisms of sepsis mortality remain undefined. While there is some evidence of organ damage, it is not clear whether this damage alone is sufficient to cause death. Therefore, we aimed to examine contribution of organ injury/dysfunction to early deaths in the mouse abdominal sepsis. Methods: Female OF-1 mice underwent either medium-severity cecal ligation and puncture (CLP-Only) or non-lethal CLP-ODam (CLP with cisplatin/carbontetrachloride to induce survivable hepatotoxicity and nephrotoxicity). In the first experiment, blood was collected daily from survivors (SUR; CLP-Only and CLP-ODam groups) or until early death (DIED; CLP-Only). In the second experiment (CLP-Only), early outcome was prospectively predicted based on body temperature (BT) and pairs of mice predicted to survive (P-SUR) and die (P-DIE) were sacrificed post-CLP. The overall magnitude of organ injury/dysfunction was compared in retrospectively and prospectively stratified mice. Results: At day 7 post-CLP, survival in CLP-Only was 48%, while CLP-ODam was non-lethal. In CLP-Only mice within 24 h of death, urea increased to 78 (versus 40 mg/dl in SUR), ALT to 166 (vs. 108 U/l), LDH to 739 (vs. 438 U/l) and glucose declined to 43 (vs. 62 mg/dl). In CLP-ODam, hypoglycemia was exacerbated (by 1.5-fold) and ALT and LDH were 20- and 8-fold higher versus DIED (CLP-Only) mice. In CLP-Only, predicted deaths (P-DIE) were preceded by a significant rise only in cystatin C (268 vs. 170 ng/ml in P-SUR) but not in creatinine and troponin I. Respiratory function of mitochondria in the liver and kidney of P-SUR and P-DIE CLP-Only mice was not impaired (vs. controls) and ATP level in organs remained similar among all groups. Histologic injury scores in the liver, kidney, heart and lung showed no major disparities among dying, surviving and control mice. Conclusions: In CLP-Only mice, although the deregulation of parameters indicative of organ injury/dysfunction was greater in dying versus surviving mice, it never exceeded the changes in surviving CLP-ODam animals, and it was not followed by histopathological damage and/or mitochondrial dysfunction. This shows that interpretation of the contribution of the organ injury/dysfunction to early deaths in the CLP model is not straightforward and depends on the pathophysiological origin of the profiled disturbances.