Knapp Sylvia, Schultz Marcus J, van der Poll Tom
Department of Internal Medicine, Medical University, Department of Intensive Care, University of Amsterdam, 1105AZ Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Shock. 2005 Dec;24 Suppl 1:12-8. doi: 10.1097/01.shk.0000191385.41689.f3.
Preclinical sepsis models have been used for decades to study the pathophysiologic processes during sepsis and shock. Although these studies revealed promising immunomodulating agents for the treatment of sepsis, clinical trials evaluating the efficacy of these new agents in patients with sepsis were disappointing. The main reason for this unsatisfactory experience might be that unlike the clinical situation, most of these preclinical models are devoid of a localized infectious source from which the infection disseminates. Studies on the effects of several immunomodulating strategies have demonstrated strikingly opposite results when sepsis models with a more natural route of infection, such as pneumonia, were used. In this review, we will give insights into pneumonia models and discuss results and differences in the innate immune responses during distinct pulmonary infection models.
临床前脓毒症模型已被用于研究脓毒症和休克期间的病理生理过程数十年。尽管这些研究发现了有前景的免疫调节药物用于治疗脓毒症，但评估这些新药对脓毒症患者疗效的临床试验却令人失望。这种不尽人意的主要原因可能是，与临床情况不同，大多数这些临床前模型没有感染从中播散的局部感染源。当使用具有更自然感染途径（如肺炎）的脓毒症模型时，对几种免疫调节策略效果的研究显示出截然不同的结果。在本综述中，我们将深入探讨肺炎模型，并讨论不同肺部感染模型中固有免疫反应的结果及差异。
