ArticleJournal of immunology research2015
Characterization of Adsorbents for Cytokine Removal from Blood in an In Vitro Model.
Article in Journal of immunology research, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
6 citing papers in PubMed, 17 citations in OpenAlex.
- Does CytoSorb Interfere with Immunosuppression? A Pharmacokinetic and Functional Evaluation.Pharmaceutics · 2025Article
- Use of extracorporeal blood purification therapies in sepsis: the current paradigm, available evidence, and future perspectives.Critical care (London, England) · 2024Review
- Polyzwitterionic Coating of Porous Adsorbents for Therapeutic Apheresis.Journal of functional biomaterials · 2022Article
- Hydroxyapatite reinforced inorganic-organic hybrid nanocomposite as high-performance adsorbents for bilirubin removalBioactive materials · 2021Article
- CytoSorb® Hemoadsorption as a Promising Tool to Handle COVID-19-Induced Cytokine Storm.Case reports in critical care · 2021Article
- Low-dose polymyxin: an option for therapy of Gram-negative sepsis.Innate immunity · 2016Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionCytokines are basic targets that have to be removed effectively in order to improve the patient's health status in treating severe inflammation, sepsis, and septic shock. Although there are different adsorbents commercially available, the success of their clinical use is limited. Here, we tested different adsorbents for their effective removal of cytokines from plasma and the resulting effect on endothelial cell activation.
methodsThe three polystyrene divinylbenzene (PS-DVB) based adsorbents Amberchrom CG161c and CG300m and a clinically approved haemoperfusion adsorbent (HAC) were studied with regard to cytokine removal in human blood. To induce cytokine release from leucocytes, human blood cells were stimulated with 1 ng/ml LPS for 4 hours. Plasma was separated and adsorption experiments in a dynamic model were performed. The effect of cytokine removal on endothelial cell activation was evaluated using a HUVEC-based cell culture model. The beneficial outcome was assessed by measuring ICAM-1, E-selectin, and secreted cytokines IL-8 and IL-6. Additionally the threshold concentration for HUVEC activation by TNF-α and IL-1β was determined using this cell culture model.
resultsCG161c showed promising results in removing the investigated cytokines. Due to its pore size the adsorbent efficiently removed the key factor TNF-α, outperforming the commercially available adsorbents. The CG161c treatment reduced cytokine secretion and expression of cell adhesion molecules by HUVEC which underlines the importance of effective removal of TNF-α in inflammatory diseases.
conclusionThese results confirm the hypothesis that cytokine removal from the blood should approach physiological levels in order to reduce endothelial cell activation.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.