SMITH M R, WOOD W B
J Exp Med. 1956 Apr 1;103(4):509-22. doi: 10.1084/jem.103.4.509.
The results of the experimental analysis reported in this and the two preceding papers (10, 11) indicate that in murine pneumococcal infections penicillin per se destroys the invading organisms only in those parts of the lesions where the bacteria are multiplying rapidly and are thus maximally susceptible to the bactericidal action of the drug. In areas where the bacterial growth rate is slowed, either because the pneumococci have reached a maximum population density, or because the accumulated exudate affords a relatively poor medium for rapid growth, the destructive effect of the antibiotic is greatly diminished. In such portions of the lessions the cellular defenses of the host are observed to play a major role in eliminating the bacteria. In sites where frank suppuration has developed, however, even the combined actions of the penicillin and the cellular defenses of the host are relatively ineffective in ridding the tissues of bacteria. Here, because of the poor medium provided by the pus, the pneumococci remain metabolically sluggish and therefore are not killed rapidly by the penicillin. At the same time the leucocytes in the necrotic exudate have deteriorated to the point where they cannot effectively perform their phagocytic functions. As a result, bacteria persist in such lesions for many days in spite of the most intensive penicillin treatment administered both locally and systemically. A strict analogy cannot be drawn between the action of penicillin upon specific pneumococcal lesions produced in the laboratory and its effect upon acute bacterial infections in man. Host-parasite relationships in acute bacterial infections are determined not only by the strain of parasite and the specific host involved, but also by the site in the body at which the infection occurs (16). Nevertheless, in spite of the number of variables involved, it may be possible, by means of selected laboratory models, to illustrate general principles of infection which in all probability apply to human disease. Bearing in mind the limitations of the methods employed in the present experiments, it would appear justifiable to draw the following conclusions concerning the clinical use of penicillin in acute infections caused by penicillin-sensitive bacteria. The earlier that treatment is begun the more likely is penicillin to effectuate a rapid cure. When therapy is started before the bacteria have reached a maximum population density in any part of the lesion, and before a cellular exudate is formed, the great majority of the infecting organisms will be in a state of active multiplication and thus will be killed promptiy by the bactericidal action of the drug. If, on the other hand, treatment is delayed until the bacterial growth has attained its maximum in older parts of the lesion, and the inflammatory reaction has become well advanced, the resultant slowing of bacterial metabolism will so interfere with the bactericidal action of the penicillin that ultimate destruction of many of the bacteria will have to depend upon the slower clearing effect of the phagocytic cells. In such instances of delayed therapy specific antibody, which is formed relatively slowly, may play an important role in recovery (6). If relapse is to be avoided, however, penicillin therapy must often be continued longer in well established infections than in those treated at a very early stage. Still further delay in treating infections which are prone to cause tissue destruction and suppuration, may lead to the establishment of abscesses. Fully developed abscesses often will not respond to chemotherapy alone; they will ultimately require drainage. As shown by the present murine experiments, the relative ineffectiveness of penicillin under these circumstances is due not only to the failure of the drug to kill the metabolically sluggish bacteria surviving in the pus, but also to the ineffectiveness of the phagocytic cells, most of which are non-motile or dead. Even if specific antibody gains access to such purulent foci, many of the bacteria will continue to survive because of the degenerated state of the leucocytes. It is evident, therefore, that the stage of the infection at which penicillin treatment is begun is often crucial. Equally critical may be the location of the infection. Bacterial lesions in different sites of the body vary greatly in their responses to penicillin therapy. This inconstancy of therapeutic effectiveness is due primarily to the participation of host factors of defense which differ widely in various tissues and at the same time play a major role in the curative action of the antibiotic. In cases of pneumococcal pneumonia, for example, in which each milliliter of the patient's blood contains more than 1000 pneumococci, blood cultures may become negative in a matter of minutes after the start of intensive treatment (17). The remarkable promptness with which penicillin therapy controls such acute bacteriemia is due, first, to its suppressive effect upon the primary infection in the lungs and regional lymph nodes from which the bacteria are being poured into the blood stream (16) and, secondly, to its synergistic action with the cellular defenses of the circulation. The latter are known to be extraordinarily efficient, perhaps more so than in any other tissue of the body (18). Assisting them in destroying the circulating bacteria is the penicillin's own bactericidal effect, which operates rapidly upon the metabolically active organisms in the plasma. Rarely, if ever, as they often do in other tissues of the body (10), do bacteria in the bloodstream reach such numbers, or do inflammatory cells accumulate intravascularly to such an extent, as to create metabolic conditions which depress the bactericidal actions of the antibiotic. In contrast, more prolonged and extensive penicillin therapy is needed to cure pneumococcal endocarditis (19), meningitis (19, 20), or infections of the serous cavities (3, 4). The cellular defenses of the heart valves and of the "open" fluid-containing cavities of the body are relatively inefficient as compared to those that operate in the bloodstream and in tissues with tightiy knit architectures such as the lungs and lymph nodes (16). In endocarditis relatively few phagocytic cells ever reach the site of the offending bacteria (21), and in infections of fluid-containing cavities, the phagocytic efficiency of the mobilized leucocytes is seriously interfered with by the "dilution effect" of the fluid (22, 23). Accordingly, final destruction of the bacteria must depend primarily upon the bactericidal effect of the antibiotic itself, since little assistance is provided by phagocytosis. It is no wonder, therefore, that such infections, as compared to bacteriemia, are relatively refractory to penicillin therapy. Certainly penicillin, in spite of its remarkable therapeutic properties, falls far short of being a therapia sterilans magna (24). Its effectiveness does not depend solely upon the inherent susceptibility of the infecting agent to its antimicrobial action. How readily it will cure a given infection is determined also by the state of growth of the bacteria in the various zones of the lesions, the influence of the purulent exudate upon the bactericidal action of the drug, and the destructive effect of the inflammatory phagocytes upon the invading bacteria. Optimal use of penicillin as a therapeutic agent requires due consideration of all of these factors. Finally, it should be emphasized that the conclusions drawn from this experimental analysis cannot be applied to antibiotic therapy in general. They pertain only to the action of penicillin in acute infections caused by penicillin-sensitive bacteria which act in the host as extracellular parasites (16). The most common human infections included in this category are those caused by pneumococci and Group A beta hemolytic streptococci.(7) Whether they apply also to infections due to penicillin-sensitive staphylococci may be questioned because of recent evidence that certain pathogenic strains will survive phagocytosis (27). In diseases such as tuberculosis, brucellosis, and typhoid fever, which are treated with antibiotics having properties different from those of penicillin (28) and which are caused by bacteria capable of intracellular parasitism (28), factors other than those considered in the present analysis must certainly be involved in the curative effect of antimicrobial therapy.
在本论文以及前两篇论文(参考文献10、11)中报道的实验分析结果表明,在鼠类肺炎球菌感染中,青霉素本身仅能在病变部位那些细菌快速繁殖因而对药物杀菌作用最为敏感的区域破坏入侵的细菌。在细菌生长速率减缓的区域,要么是因为肺炎球菌已达到最大种群密度,要么是因为积聚的渗出物为快速生长提供的培养基相对较差,抗生素的破坏作用会大大减弱。在病变的这些部分,可以观察到宿主的细胞防御在清除细菌方面起主要作用。然而,在出现明显化脓的部位,即使青霉素和宿主细胞防御的联合作用在清除组织中的细菌方面也相对无效。在这里,由于脓液提供的培养基很差,肺炎球菌的代谢仍然迟缓,因此不会被青霉素迅速杀死。与此同时,坏死渗出物中的白细胞已经退化到无法有效执行吞噬功能的程度。结果,尽管在局部和全身都进行了最强化的青霉素治疗,细菌仍会在这些病变中持续存在许多天。青霉素对实验室中产生的特定肺炎球菌病变的作用与其对人类急性细菌感染的影响之间不能进行严格类比。急性细菌感染中的宿主 - 寄生虫关系不仅取决于寄生虫菌株和所涉及的特定宿主,还取决于感染发生在体内的部位(参考文献16)。然而,尽管涉及诸多变量,但通过选择特定的实验室模型,有可能阐明感染的一般原则,这些原则很可能适用于人类疾病。考虑到本实验所采用方法的局限性,就青霉素在由对青霉素敏感的细菌引起的急性感染中的临床应用得出以下结论似乎是合理的。治疗开始得越早,青霉素就越有可能实现快速治愈。当在细菌在病变的任何部位达到最大种群密度之前以及在细胞渗出物形成之前开始治疗时,绝大多数感染性生物体将处于活跃繁殖状态,因此将被药物的杀菌作用迅速杀死。另一方面,如果治疗延迟到细菌在病变较老部位的生长达到最大值且炎症反应已经很严重时,细菌代谢的减缓将如此干扰青霉素的杀菌作用,以至于许多细菌的最终清除将不得不依赖吞噬细胞较慢的清除作用。在这种治疗延迟的情况下形成相对缓慢的特异性抗体可能在恢复中起重要作用(参考文献6)。然而,如果要避免复发,在已确诊的感染中,青霉素治疗通常必须比在非常早期治疗的感染中持续更长时间。对易于导致组织破坏和化脓的感染进一步延迟治疗可能会导致脓肿的形成。完全形成的脓肿通常仅靠化疗不会有反应;它们最终需要引流。正如目前的鼠类实验所示,在这些情况下青霉素相对无效不仅是因为药物未能杀死脓液中存活的代谢迟缓的细菌,还因为吞噬细胞无效,其中大多数是不活动的或已死亡。即使特异性抗体进入这样的化脓病灶,由于白细胞的退化状态,许多细菌仍将继续存活。因此,很明显青霉素治疗开始时的感染阶段通常至关重要。感染的位置可能同样关键。身体不同部位的细菌病变对青霉素治疗的反应差异很大。治疗效果的这种不稳定性主要是由于宿主防御因素的参与,这些因素在不同组织中差异很大,同时在抗生素的治疗作用中起主要作用。例如,在肺炎球菌肺炎病例中,患者每毫升血液中含有超过1000个肺炎球菌,在强化治疗开始后的几分钟内血培养可能就会转阴(参考文献17)。青霉素治疗能如此迅速地控制这种急性菌血症,首先是因为它对肺部和区域淋巴结的原发性感染有抑制作用,细菌正是从这些部位进入血流的(参考文献16),其次是因为它与循环中的细胞防御有协同作用。后者已知非常有效,可能比身体的任何其他组织都更有效(参考文献18)。协助它们破坏循环中的细菌的是青霉素自身的杀菌作用,它对血浆中代谢活跃的生物体迅速起作用。与它们在身体其他组织中经常出现的情况(参考文献10)不同,血流中的细菌很少达到如此数量,或者血管内的炎性细胞很少积聚到如此程度,以至于产生抑制抗生素杀菌作用的代谢条件。相比之下,治愈肺炎球菌性心内膜炎(参考文献19)、脑膜炎(参考文献19、20)或浆膜腔感染(参考文献3、4)需要更长时间和更广泛的青霉素治疗。与在血流以及结构紧密的组织如肺和淋巴结中起作用的细胞防御相比,心脏瓣膜和身体“开放”的含液腔的细胞防御相对低效(参考文献16)。在心内膜炎中,相对较少的吞噬细胞能到达感染细菌的部位(参考文献21),在含液腔感染中,动员起来的白细胞的吞噬效率会受到液体“稀释效应”的严重干扰(参考文献22、23)。因此,细菌的最终清除必须主要依赖抗生素本身的杀菌作用,因为吞噬作用提供的帮助很少。因此,毫不奇怪,与菌血症相比,这类感染对青霉素治疗相对难治。当然,尽管青霉素具有显著的治疗特性,但远非一种万能的杀菌疗法(参考文献24)。它的有效性不仅取决于感染病原体对其抗菌作用的固有敏感性。它治愈特定感染的难易程度还取决于病变不同区域细菌的生长状态、脓性渗出物对药物杀菌作用的影响以及炎性吞噬细胞对入侵细菌的破坏作用。要最佳地使用青霉素作为治疗剂,需要充分考虑所有这些因素。最后,应该强调的是,从这个实验分析得出的结论不能普遍适用于抗生素治疗。它们仅适用于青霉素在由对青霉素敏感的细菌引起的急性感染中的作用,这些细菌在宿主中作为细胞外寄生虫起作用(参考文献16)。这类中最常见的人类感染是由肺炎球菌和A组β溶血性链球菌引起的感染。(参考文献7)由于最近有证据表明某些致病菌株能在吞噬作用后存活(参考文献27),它们是否也适用于对青霉素敏感的葡萄球菌引起的感染可能值得怀疑。在诸如结核病、布鲁氏菌病和伤寒热等疾病中,使用的抗生素特性与青霉素不同(参考文献28),并且这些疾病是由能够进行细胞内寄生的细菌引起的(参考文献28),抗菌治疗的治愈效果肯定涉及本分析中未考虑的其他因素。