Impact of intensive care unit supportive care on the physiology of Ebola virus disease in a universally lethal non-human primate model.
Ebola
Fluid
Hydrocortisone
NHP
Pathophysiology
Supportive care
Vasoactives
Ventilatory support
Journal
Intensive care medicine experimental
ISSN: 2197-425X
Titre abrégé: Intensive Care Med Exp
Pays: Germany
ID NLM: 101645149
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
13 Sep 2019
13 Sep 2019
Historique:
received:
23
04
2019
accepted:
28
08
2019
entrez:
15
9
2019
pubmed:
15
9
2019
medline:
15
9
2019
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
There are currently limited data for the use of specific antiviral therapies for the treatment of Ebola virus disease (EVD). While there is anecdotal evidence that supportive care may be effective, there is a paucity of direct experimental data to demonstrate a role for supportive care in EVD. We studied the impact of ICU-level supportive care interventions including fluid resuscitation, vasoactive medications, blood transfusion, hydrocortisone, and ventilator support on the pathophysiology of EVD in rhesus macaques infected with a universally lethal dose of Ebola virus strain Makona C07. Four NHPs were infected with a universally lethal dose Ebola virus strain Makona, in accordance with the gold standard lethal Ebola NHP challenge model. Following infection, the following therapeutic interventions were employed: continuous bedside supportive care, ventilator support, judicious fluid resuscitation, vasoactive medications, blood transfusion, and hydrocortisone as needed to treat cardiovascular compromise. A range of physiological parameters were continuously monitored to gage any response to the interventions. All four NHPs developed EVD and demonstrated a similar clinical course. All animals reached a terminal endpoint, which occurred at an average time of 166.5 ± 14.8 h post-infection. Fluid administration may have temporarily blunted a rise in lactate, but the effect was short lived. Vasoactive medications resulted in short-lived improvements in mean arterial pressure. Blood transfusion and hydrocortisone did not appear to have a significant positive impact on the course of the disease. The model employed for this study is reflective of an intramuscular infection in humans (e.g., needle stick) and is highly lethal to NHPs. Using this model, we found that the animals developed progressive severe organ dysfunction and profound shock preceding death. While the overall impact of supportive care on the observed pathophysiology was limited, we did observe some time-dependent positive responses. Since this model is highly lethal, it does not reflect the full spectrum of human EVD. Our findings support the need for continued development of animal models that replicate the spectrum of human disease as well as ongoing development of anti-Ebola therapies to complement supportive care.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
There are currently limited data for the use of specific antiviral therapies for the treatment of Ebola virus disease (EVD). While there is anecdotal evidence that supportive care may be effective, there is a paucity of direct experimental data to demonstrate a role for supportive care in EVD. We studied the impact of ICU-level supportive care interventions including fluid resuscitation, vasoactive medications, blood transfusion, hydrocortisone, and ventilator support on the pathophysiology of EVD in rhesus macaques infected with a universally lethal dose of Ebola virus strain Makona C07.
METHODS
METHODS
Four NHPs were infected with a universally lethal dose Ebola virus strain Makona, in accordance with the gold standard lethal Ebola NHP challenge model. Following infection, the following therapeutic interventions were employed: continuous bedside supportive care, ventilator support, judicious fluid resuscitation, vasoactive medications, blood transfusion, and hydrocortisone as needed to treat cardiovascular compromise. A range of physiological parameters were continuously monitored to gage any response to the interventions.
RESULTS
RESULTS
All four NHPs developed EVD and demonstrated a similar clinical course. All animals reached a terminal endpoint, which occurred at an average time of 166.5 ± 14.8 h post-infection. Fluid administration may have temporarily blunted a rise in lactate, but the effect was short lived. Vasoactive medications resulted in short-lived improvements in mean arterial pressure. Blood transfusion and hydrocortisone did not appear to have a significant positive impact on the course of the disease.
CONCLUSIONS
CONCLUSIONS
The model employed for this study is reflective of an intramuscular infection in humans (e.g., needle stick) and is highly lethal to NHPs. Using this model, we found that the animals developed progressive severe organ dysfunction and profound shock preceding death. While the overall impact of supportive care on the observed pathophysiology was limited, we did observe some time-dependent positive responses. Since this model is highly lethal, it does not reflect the full spectrum of human EVD. Our findings support the need for continued development of animal models that replicate the spectrum of human disease as well as ongoing development of anti-Ebola therapies to complement supportive care.
Identifiants
pubmed: 31520194
doi: 10.1186/s40635-019-0268-8
pii: 10.1186/s40635-019-0268-8
pmc: PMC6744539
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Pagination
54Subventions
Organisme : CIHR
ID : N/A
Pays : Canada
Organisme : Government of Canada
ID : N/A
Commentaires et corrections
Type : ErratumIn
Références
Pediatrics. 1957 May;19(5):823-32
pubmed: 13431307
N Engl J Med. 2007 Apr 19;356(16):1609-19
pubmed: 17442904
N Engl J Med. 2008 Feb 28;358(9):877-87
pubmed: 18305265
Dis Model Mech. 2009 Jan-Feb;2(1-2):12-7
pubmed: 19132113
Physiol Behav. 2011 Jul 6;103(5):440-4
pubmed: 21443893
J Infect Dis. 2011 Nov;204 Suppl 3:S1000-10
pubmed: 21987736
N Engl J Med. 2014 Apr 24;370(17):1583-93
pubmed: 24635770
Am J Respir Crit Care Med. 2014 Oct 1;190(7):733-7
pubmed: 25166884
Trop Med Int Health. 2015 Apr;20(4):448-54
pubmed: 25565430
PLoS Med. 2015 Apr 14;12(4):e1001815
pubmed: 25874579
J Infect Dis. 2015 Oct 1;212 Suppl 2:S91-7
pubmed: 26063223
N Engl J Med. 2016 Feb 18;374(7):636-46
pubmed: 26886522
J Infect Dis. 2016 Oct 15;214(suppl 3):S263-S267
pubmed: 27284090
Crit Care. 2016 Jul 29;20(1):217
pubmed: 27468829
Infect Dis Poverty. 2016 Nov 3;5(1):101
pubmed: 27806732
Sci Rep. 2017 Apr 26;7(1):1204
pubmed: 28446775
Pediatr Crit Care Med. 2017 Aug;18(8):750-757
pubmed: 28486385
Lancet. 2018 Feb 17;391(10121):700-708
pubmed: 29054555
J Infect. 2018 Apr;76(4):383-392
pubmed: 29248587
Microbiol Spectr. 2018 Mar;6(2):
pubmed: 29573259
Intensive Care Med. 2018 Aug;44(8):1266-1275
pubmed: 30062576
J Virol. 2019 Feb 19;93(5):null
pubmed: 30541860
Nat Commun. 2019 Jan 10;10(1):105
pubmed: 30631063
Open Forum Infect Dis. 2019 Feb 06;6(3):ofz046
pubmed: 30949520
Arch Pathol Lab Med. 1996 Feb;120(2):140-55
pubmed: 8712894
Ultrastruct Pathol. 1998 Jan-Feb;22(1):3-17
pubmed: 9491211
J Infect Dis. 1999 Feb;179 Suppl 1:S268-73
pubmed: 9988194