Sepsis, the systemic inflammatory response syndrome that occurs during an infection, is associated with considerable morbidity and mortality in intensive care units. The initial proinflammatory response can be overwhelming, leading to collateral tissue damage in the host, suggesting that the innate immune response, rather than the nature of the pathogen itself, determines the outcome of a septic patient. During the past decade, a wide variety of studies focused on blockade of proinflammatory mediators, e.g., IL-1 receptor antagonists, anti-TNF antibodies, and soluble TNF receptors; none, however, improved mortality rates (1). Possibly, dampening of the innate immune response, rather than blocking it, will yield better results. Following the initial insult and immune response, sepsis induces a pronounced and sustained immune paralysis, resulting in a higher susceptibility to secondary infections accounting for increased mortality rates in this phase of the disease. Recently, it was proposed that the next major advance in sepsis treatment could be not the attenuation, but the preservation of the immune response (2). These observations illustrate that apart from source control and antibiotic therapy, adjuvant immunomodulating therapies are of interest and may contain future therapeutic potential. In this issue of Shock, Kreth et al. (3) describe a potential role for pentoxifylline (PTX) as an immunomodulating agent able to attenuate the inflammatory response during sepsis. Pentoxifylline is a xanthine derivative that exerts its anti-inflammatory effects through phosphodiesterase inhibition. Pentoxifylline has been intensively studied in cardiovascular diseases, where it has demonstrated to decrease TNF-α levels associated with an improved left ventricular pump function in patients with advanced heart failure (4). The mode of action of PTX is, however, still not fully known. Several theories have emerged, including modulation of (a) the translocation of calcium ions, (b) inhibition of phosphodiesterase, thereby increasing intracellular cyclic AMP (cAMP) concentrations, (c) interaction with the adenosine receptor or inhibition of adenosine uptake, and (d) interaction with prostaglandin metabolism (5). Kreth et al. suggest that the anti-inflammatory properties of PTX are mediated by adenosine, more specifically via the adenosine A2A receptor (A2AR) pathway. Adenosine is able to increase the cAMP concentration through A2AR and A2BR agonism, leading to its anti-inflammatory effects. Possibly, in the presence of PTX, the adenosine-induced increase in cAMP is not diminished because cAMP is not being hydrolyzed to ADP in the presence of PTX. Next, a sufficient amount of cAMP will be available to initiate protective signaling pathways explaining the synergistic effects described by Kreth et al. Unfortunately, the authors did not use specific adenosine receptor antagonists to support this hypothesis. Although the work of Kreth et al. is of interest, several limitations concerning the clinical relevance of this study are present. First, the authors state that knowledge of circulating adenosine levels is needed to predict whether a patient will be a possible responder to PTX therapy. However, only 50% of the septic patients in their study showed "adequately elevated" adenosine levels. Adenosine was first measured in septic patients by Martin et al. (6) in 2000, showing that a high plasma adenosine concentration has a prognostic value for the outcome of septic patients, but is variable in time. Calibration of the severity of illness is therefore of the utmost importance in determining the phase of disease, which is an extremely difficult task. Second, the reliable determination of extracellular adenosine concentrations is cumbersome in daily practice because of 2 reasons: adenosine has an extremely short half-life due to rapid cellular uptake and intracellular degradation, and the endothelium acts as an active metabolic barrier for adenosine. In addition, circulating adenosine concentrations do not represent the concentration in the interstitial compartments (7). Also, various techniques are used to measure adenosine concentrations that make comparisons of these studies difficult and hazardous. Standardization of techniques to measure the endogenous adenosine concentrations in humans in vivo is needed. In conclusion, Kreth et al. promote the concept of "tailored therapies" for sepsis patients, in this case using adenosine levels to predict the efficacy of PTX treatment. Considering the difficulties to determine in which phase of this disease the patient is currently in, the difficulties associated with the measurements of adenosine in daily practice, the fact that only circulating concentrations (and not interstitial concentrations) can be measured, and the lack of clinical evidence that PTX treatment will actually improve the outcome of septic patients, this will not take place in the future. Nevertheless, the concept of tailored therapy is relevant, deserves further attention, and may result in better future treatment options with fewer adverse effects.
Read full abstract