Methodology of fever research: why are polyphasic fevers often thought to be biphasic?

Abstract

This study explains why the recently described triphasic lipopolysaccharide (LPS) fevers have been repeatedly mistaken for biphasic fevers. Experiments were performed in loosely restrained male Wistar rats with a catheter implanted into the right jugular vein. Each animal was injected with Escherichia coli LPS, and its colonic (Tc) and tail skin temperatures were monitored. The results are presented as time graphs and phase-plane plots; in the latter case the rate of change of Tc is plotted against Tc. At an ambient temperature (Ta) of 30.0°C, the response to the 10 μg/kg dose of LPS was triphasic, as is obvious from time graphs of Tc (3 peaks), time graphs of effector activity (3 waves of tail skin vasoconstriction), and phase-plane plots (3 complete loops). When the Ta was below neutral (22.0°C) or the LPS dose was higher (100 or 1,000 μg/kg), the time graph of Tc did not allow for the reliable detection of all three febrile phases, but the phase-plane plot and time graph of effector activity clearly revealed the triphasic pattern. In a separate experiment, LPS (10 μg/kg) or saline was injected via one of two different procedures: in the first group the injection was performed through the jugular catheter, from outside the experimental chamber; in the second group the same nonstressing injection was combined with opening the chamber and pricking the animal in its lower abdomen with a needle. In the first group the febrile response was obviously triphasic, and none of the phases was due to the procedure of injection per se (injection of saline did not affect Tc). In the second group the fever similarly consisted of three Tc rises, but it might have been readily mistaken for biphasic because the first rise was indistinguishable from stress hyperthermia occurring in the saline-injected (and needle-pricked) controls. We conclude that several methodological factors (dose of LPS, procedure of its injection, and Ta) have contributed, although each in a different way, to the common misbelief that there are only two febrile phases.