Whereas intravenous administration of Toll-like receptor 4 ligand lipopolysaccharide (LPS) to human volunteers is frequently used in clinical pharmacology studies, systemic use of LPS has practical limitations. We aimed to characterize the intradermal LPS response in healthy volunteers, and as such qualify the method as local inflammation model for clinical pharmacology studies.Methods: Eighteen healthy male volunteers received 2 or 4 intradermal 10 ng LPS injections and 1 saline injection on the forearms. The LPS response was evaluated by noninvasive (perfusion, skin temperature and erythema) and invasive assessments (cellular and cytokine responses) in skin biopsy and blister exudate.Results: LPS elicited a visible response and returned to baseline at 48 hours.Erythema, perfusion and temperature were statistically significant (P < .0001) over a 24-hour time course compared to saline. The protein response was dominated by an acute interleukin (IL)-6, IL-8 and tumour necrosis factor response followed by IL-1β, IL-10 and interferon-γ. The cellular response consisted of an acute neutrophil influx followed by different monocyte subsets and dendritic cells.Discussion: Intradermal LPS administration in humans causes an acute, localized and transient inflammatory reaction that is well-tolerated by healthy volunteers. This may be a valuable inflammation model for evaluating the pharmacological activity of anti-inflammatory investigational compounds in proof of pharmacology studies.

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. Twentyfour 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.