Acute inflammation is an immediate response to infection and injury characterised by the influx of granulocytes followed by phagocytosing mononuclear phagocytes. Provided the antigen is cleared and the immune system of the host is fully functional, the acute inflammatory response will resolve. Until now it is considered that resolution then leads back to homeostasis, the physiological state tissues experienced before inflammation occurred. Using a human model of acute inflammation driven by intradermal UV killed Escherichia coli, we found that bacteria and granulocyte clearance as well as pro-inflammatory cytokine catabolism occurred by 72h. However, following a lag phase of about 4 days there was an increase in numbers of memory T cells and CD163+ macrophage at the post-resolution site up to day 17 as well as increased biosynthesis of cyclooxygenase-derived prostanoids and DHA-derived D series resolvins. Inhibiting post-resolution prostanoids using naproxen showed that numbers of tissue memory CD4 cells were under the endogenous control of PGE2, which exerts its suppressive effects on T cell proliferation via the EP4 receptor. In addition, we re-challenged the post-resolution site with a second injection of E. coli, which when compared to saline controls resulted in primarily a macrophage-driven response with comparatively fewer PMNs; the macrophage-dominated response was reversed by cyclooxygenase inhibition. Re-challenge experiments were also carried out in mice where we obtained similar results as in humans. Therefore, we report that acute inflammatory responses in both humans and rodents do not revert back to homeostasis, but trigger a hitherto unappreciated sequence of immunological events that dictate subsequent immune response to infection.

Defects in neutrophil function have been implicated in a wide spectrum of clinical conditions. Several models are employed to study activated human neutrophils akin to those found at a site of inflammation. These include whole blood (WB) ex vivo stimulation with lipopolysaccharide (LPS) and in vivo techniques: cantharidin blister, skin windows and intra-dermal injection of UV-killed E.coli (UVKEc). Neutrophils obtained from these have never been compared. We compared the activation status of neutrophils from each technique in order to inform the optimal model for use in human studies. Healthy male volunteers were randomised to undergo one of the four techniques (n = 5/group). LPS: WB stimulated with 1ng/ml of LPS for 4 hours. Cantharidin: 12.5μl of 0.1% cantharidin elicited a single blister, aspirated at 24 hours. Skin windows: four 6mm mechanical-suction blisters created, de-roofed and an exudate-collection chamber placed over the windows for 4 hours before aspiration. UVKEc: 1.5 x 107 UVKEc injected intra-dermally. A single 10mm mechanical-suction blister formed and aspirated at 4 hours. Unstimulated WB used as the control. Flow cytometry was used to determine activation status using CD16, CD11b, CD54, CD62L and CD88. Functional status was assessed with a phagocytosis assay. The pattern of neutrophil activation was similar in all models. Neutrophil CD11b was elevated in all models, most markedly in UVKEc (p<0.0001), and CD54 was also elevated but only significant in the LPS model (p = 0.001). CD62L was significantly reduced in all 4 models (p<0.0001) and CD88 was also suppressed in all. There were no changes in CD16 in any model, neither was there any significant difference in the phagocytic capacity of the neutrophils. In summary, there are no significant differences in activation marker expression or phagocytic capacity in the neutrophils obtained from each technique. Therefore we believe whole blood stimulation is the best model in experimentally challenging inpatient populations.

The intradermal lipopolysaccharide (LPS) challenge in healthy volunteers has proven to be a valuable tool to study local inflammation in vivo. In the current study the inhibitory effects of oral and topical corticosteroid treatment on intradermal LPS responses were evaluated to benchmark the challenge for future investigational drugs. Twenty-four healthy male volunteers received a two-and-a-half-day twice daily (b.i.d.) pretreatment with topical clobetasol propionate 0.05% and six healthy volunteers received a two-and-a-half-day b.i.d. pretreatment with oral prednisolone at 0.25 mg/kg body weight per administration. Participants received one injection regimen of either 0, 2, or 4 intradermal LPS injections (5 ng LPS in 50 µL 0.9% sodium chloride solution). The LPS response was evaluated by noninvasive (perfusion, skin temperature, and erythema) and invasive assessments (cellular and cytokine responses) in suction blister exudate. Both corticosteroids significantly suppressed the clinical inflammatory response (erythema P = 0.0001 for clobetasol and P = 0.0016 for prednisolone; heat P = 0.0245 for clobetasol, perfusion P < 0.0001 for clobetasol and P = 0.0036 for prednisolone). Clobetasol also significantly reduced the number of monocytes subsets, dendritic cells, natural killer cells, and T cells in blister exudate. A similar effect was observed for prednisolone. No relevant corticosteroid effects were observed on the cytokine response to LPS. We successfully demonstrated that the anti-inflammatory effects of corticosteroids can be detected using our intradermal LPS challenge model, validating it for evaluation of future investigational drugs, as an initial assessment of the anti-inflammatory effects of such compounds in a minimally invasive manner.