Monoclonal antibodies to murine lipopolysaccharide (LPS)-binding protein (LBP) protect mice from lethal endotoxemia by blocking either the binding of LPS to LBP or the presentation of LPS/LBP complexes to CD14.

Cellular responses to LPS, the major lipid component of the outer membrane of Gram-negative bacteria, are enhanced markedly by the LPS-binding protein (LBP), a plasma protein that transfers LPS to the cell surface CD14 present on cells of the myeloid lineage. LBP has been shown previously to potentiate the host response to LPS. However, experiments performed in mice with a disruption of the LBP gene have yielded discordant results. Whereas one study showed that LBP knockout mice were resistant to endotoxemia, another study did not confirm an important role for LBP in the response of mice challenged in vivo with low doses of LPS. Consequently, we generated rat mAbs to murine LBP to investigate further the contribution of LBP in experimental endotoxemia. Three classes of mAbs were obtained. Class 1 mAbs blocked the binding of LPS to LBP; class 2 mAbs blocked the binding of LPS/LBP complexes to CD14; class 3 mAbs bound LBP but did not suppress LBP activity. In vivo, class 1 and class 2 mAbs suppressed LPS-induced TNF production and protected mice from lethal endotoxemia. These results show that the neutralization of LBP accomplished by blocking either the binding of LPS to LBP or the binding of LPS/LBP complexes to CD14 protects the host from LPS-induced toxicity, confirming that LBP is a critical component of innate immunity.

Impact of an intervention to control risk associated with patient transfer.

QUESTION UNDER STUDY: Hospitals transferring patients retain responsibility until admission to the new health care facility. We define safe transfer conditions, based on appropriate risk assessment, and evaluate the impact of this strategy as implemented at our institution. METHODS: An algorithm defining transfer categories according to destination, equipment monitoring, and medication was developed and tested prospectively over 6 months. Conformity with algorithm criteria was assessed for every transfer and transfer category. After introduction of a transfer coordination centre with transfer nurses, the algorithm was implemented and the same survey was carried out over 1 year. RESULTS: Over the whole study period, the number of transfers increased by 40%, chiefly by ambulance from the emergency department to other hospitals and private clinics. Transfers to rehabilitation centres and nursing homes were reassigned to conventional vehicles. The percentage of patients requiring equipment during transfer, such as an intravenous line, decreased from 34% to 15%, while oxygen or i.v. drug requirement remained stable. The percentage of transfers considered below theoretical safety decreased from 6% to 4%, while 20% of transfers were considered safer than necessary. A substantial number of planned transfers could be "downgraded" by mutual agreement to a lower degree of supervision, and the system was stable on a short-term basis. CONCLUSION: A coordinated transfer system based on an algorithm determining transfer categories, developed on the basis of simple but valid medical and nursing criteria, reduced unnecessary ambulance transfers and treatment during transfer, and increased adequate supervision.