Advertisement

Problems with Magic Bullets: Future Trials and Multiagent Therapy

  • Arthur E. Baue
Chapter

Abstract

The explosion of knowledge about mediators of inflammation, injury, and infection has been impressive. These topics are described in other chapters in this book and are summarized in Table 57.1. Antagonists to all of these substances have been produced as monoclonal antibodies, receptor antagonists, or other enzymes or blocking agents; and many have been tried clinically. Many of these agents and the clinical trials have been reviewed by Neugebauer et al.2 The frequency of infection, sepsis, injury, or inflammation in producing multiple organ failure led to clinical trials of these so-called magic bullets for the treatment of patients with sepsis and after injury. These trials have had limited success or negative results, despite considerable evidence of the efficacy or protection by such agents in experimental animals and in studies of human volunteers. I believe the major reasons for these negative results have been (1) the use of general entry criteria for the trials rather than the treatment of specific diseases or injuries and (2) the redundancy and overlap of these complex, interacting substances. Thus the “magic bullet” approach has failed because it oversimplifies a complex biologic system.3

Keywords

Nitric Oxide Septic Shock Systemic Inflammatory Response Syndrome Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome Multiple Organ Failure 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

References

  1. 1.
    Thomas L: Adaptive Aspects of Inflammation Symposium of the International Inflammation Club. Kalamazoo, Upjohn, 1970Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Neugebauer E, Rixen D, Raum M, Schafer U: Thirty years of antimediator treatment in sepsis and septic shock: what have we learned? Langenbecks Arch Surg 1998; 383: 26–34.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Baue AE: Multiple organ failure, multiple organ dysfunction syndrome and systemic inflammatory response syndrome: Why no magic bullets? Arch Surg 1997; 132: 703–707.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Dhainaut J, Tenaillon A, Hemmer M, et al: Confirmatory plateletactivating factor receptor antagonist trial in patients with severe gram-negative bacterial sepsis: a phase III, randomized, doubleblind, placebo-controlled, multicenter trial. Crit Care Med 1998; 26: 1963–1972.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Natanson C, Esposito CJ, Banks SM: The sirens songs of confirmatory sepsis trials: selection bias and sampling error. Crit Care Med 1998; 26: 1927–1932.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Ehrlich P, Morganroth J: Ueber Hamolysins: Füntte Mittheilung. Berl Klin Wochenschr 1901; 38: 251–257.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Baue AE: The horror autotoxicus and multi-organ failure. Arch Surg 1992; 127: 1451–1462.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Dellinger RP: Post hoc analyses in sepsis trials: a formula for disappoinment? Crit Care Med 1996; 24: 727–729.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Banner RL, Cobb JP, Suffredini AF, Eichacker PO, Natanson C: Nitric oxide in sepsis: role in inflammation and shock. Shock 1995; 3(Suppl): 61–62.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Natanson C, Eichacker PO, Suffredini AF, Danner DL: Selected treatment strategies for septic shock based on proposed mechanisms of pathogenesis. Shock 1995; 3(Suppl): 62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Suffredini AF, Natanson C, Danner RL, Suffredini AF: The neutrophil as a therapeutic target in septic shock. Shock 1995; 3(Suppl): 62–63.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Eichacker PO, Natanson C, Danner RL, Suffredini AF: The neutrophil as a therapeutic target in septic shock Shock 1995; 3(Suppl); 62–63.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Tracey KJ, Fung Y, Hesse KR, et al: Anti-cachectin/TNF monoclonal antibodies prevent septic shock during letal bacteremia. Nature 1987; 330: 662–664.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Echtenacher B, Falk W, Mannel DN, Krammer PH: Requirement of endogenous tumor necrosis factor/cachectic for recovery from experimental peritonitis. J Immunol 1990; 145: 3762–3766.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Mancilla J, Garcia P, Dinarello CA: The interleukin-1 receptor antagonist can either reduce or enhance the lethality of Klebsiella pneumonia sepsis in newborn rats. Infect Immun 1993; 61: 926–932.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Cannon JG, Friedberg JS, Gelfand JA, et al: Circulating interleukin-1 beta and tumor necrosis factor-alpha concentrations after burn injury in humans. Crit Care Med 1992; 20: 1414–1419.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Luger A, Graf H, Schwartz H-P, Stummvoll H-K, Luger TA: Decreased serum interleukin 1 activity and monocyte interleukin 1 production in patients with fatal sepsis. Crit Care Med 1986; 14: 458–461.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Schatz A, Bugie E, Waksman SA: Streptomycin, a substance exhibiting antibiotic activity against gram-positive and gramnegative bacteria. Proc Soc Exp Biol Med 1944; 4: 66–69.Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Hinshaw HC, Feldman WH: Streptomycin in treatment of clinical tuberculosis: a preliminary report. Proc Staff Meet Mayo Clin 1945; 20: 313–318.Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Hinshaw HC, Plye MM, Feldman WH: Streptomycin in tuberculosis. Am J Med 1947; 2: 429–435.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    McDermott W, Muschenheim C, Hadley SJ, et al: Streptomycin in the treatment of tuberculosis in humans. Ann Intern Med 1947; 27: 769–822.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Medical Research Council: Treatment of pulmonary tuberculosis with streptomycin and para-aminosalicylic acid. BMJ 1950; 2: 1073–1085.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Robitzek EH, Selikoff IJ: Hydrazine derivative of isonicotinic acid (Rimifon, Marsalid) in the treatment of acute progressive caseouspneumonic tuberculosis: a preliminary report. Am Rev Tuberc 1952; 65: 402–428.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Committee on Treatment, International Union Against Tuberculosis and Lung Disease: Antituberculosis regimens of chemotherapy. Bull Int Un Tuberc Lung Dis 1988; 63: 60–64.Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Tuberculosis Unit, Division of Communicable Diseases, World Health Organization: Guidelines for tuberculosis treatment in adults and children in national tuberculosis programs. World Health Organization 1991; WHO/TB91: 161.Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    MacGregor RR: Treatment of myobacterial disease of the lungs caused by mycobacterium tuberculosis. In: A Fishman (ed) Pulmonary Diseases and Disorders. New York, McGraw-Hill, 1993; 1869–1882.Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Marehall EK Jr.: Historical perspectives in chemotherapy. In: Golden A, Hawking IF (eds) Advances in Chemotherapy, vol 1. San Diego, Academic, 1964; 1.Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Alexander SF: Final report of Bari mustard casualties. Allied Force Headquarters, Office of the Surgeon. APO 512, June 20, 1944Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    DeVita VA: The evolution of therapeutic research in cancer. N Engl J Med 1978; 298: 807.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    DeVita VT Jr.: Principles of cancer management: chemotherapy. In: DeVita VT Jr., Hellman S, Rosenberg SA (eds) Cancer Principles & Practice of Oncology, 5th ed, vol 1. Philadelphia, Lippincott-Raven, 1997; 333–339.Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    DeVita VT Jr.: The evolution of therapeutic research in cancer. Sounding Boards 1978; 298: 907–910.Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    DeVita VT Jr., Schein PS: Medical progress: the use of drugs in combination for the treatment of cancer, rationale and results. N Engl J Med 1973; 288: 988–1006.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Aasen AO, Naess E, Carlse H, et al: [abstract]. Shock 1995; 3(Suppl): 65. Multi-agent therapy to protect against endotoxin.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Opal S, Cross AS, Sadoff JC, et al: Combined immunotherapy in the treatment of septic shock [abstract]. Shock 1995; 3(Suppl): 65.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Faist E: Immunomodulatory approaches in critically ill surgical patients [abstract]. Shock 1995; 3(Suppl): 65–66.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Fischer C: Unpublished discussion. Fifth Vienna Shock Forum, May 7–11, 1995Google Scholar
  37. 37.
    Mannick JA, Lyons A, Kelly J, et al: Major injury induces increased production of IL-10 by cells of the immune system with a negative impact on resistance to infection. Ann Surg (in press)Google Scholar
  38. 38.
    Dalton JM, Gore DC, DeMaria EJ, et al: Combined administration of interleukin-1 receptor antagonist (IL-IRA) and soluble tumor necrosis factor receptor (STNF-R) decreases mortality and organ dysfunction following hemorrhagic shock. J Trauma (in press)Google Scholar
  39. 39.
    Knox J, Demling R, Wilmore D, et al: Increased survival after major thermal injury: the effect of growth hormone therapy in adults. J Trauma 1995; 39: 526–530.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Kirton O, Windsor J, Civetta JOV, et al: Persistent uncorrected intramucosal pH in the critically injured: the impact of splanchnic and antioxidant therapy [abstract]. Crit Care Med 1996; 24: A82.Google Scholar
  41. 41.
    Gott JP, Cooper FE, Schmidt, et al: Documentation of risk naturalization for extracorporeal circulation in four limbed, 400 patient, risk stratified, prospective, randomized trial. J Surg ResGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Fourrier F, Chopin C, Huart JJ, et al: Double-blind, placebo-controlled trial of antithrombin III concentrates in septic shock with disseminated intravascular coagulation. Chest 1993; 104: 882–888.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Inthorn D, Hoffmann JN, Haiti WH, et al: Antithrombin III supplementation in severe sepsis: beneficial effects on organ dysfunction. Shock 1997; 8: 328–334.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    Opal SM, Cross A, Jhung W, et al: Potential hazards of combination immunotherapy in the treatment of experiment septic shock. J Infect Dis 1996; 173: 1415–1421.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    Dwenger A, Remmers D, Gratz M, et al: Aprotinin prevents the development of the trauma-induced multiple organ failure in a chronic sheep model. Eur J Clin Chem Clin Biochem 1996; 30: 204–214.Google Scholar
  46. 46.
    Redl H, Schlag G, BahramI S, Yao YM: Animal models as the basis of pharmacologic intervention in trauma and sepsis patients. World J Surg 1996; 20: 487–492.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. 47.
    Moore E, Moore F, Franciose R, et al: The postischemic gut severes as a priming bed for circulating neutrophils that provoke multiple organ failure. J Trauma 1994; 37: 881.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. 48.
    Heslin MJ, Latkany L, Leung D, et al: A prospective: randomized trial of early enteral feeding after resection of upper GI malignancy. Ann Surg (in press)Google Scholar
  49. 49.
    Braga M, GianottI L, Vignall A, et al: Artificial nutrition after major abdominal surgery: impact of route of administration and composition of the diet. Crit Care Med 1998; 26: 24–30.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. 50.
    Bryg DJ, Beale RJ: Clinical effects of enteral immunonutrition on intensive care patients: a meta-analysis. Crit Care Med 1998; 26: A91.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. 51.
    Ivatury RR, Simon RJ, Islam S, et al: A prospective randomized study of end points of resuscitation after major trauma. J Am Coll Surg 1998; 183: 145–154.Google Scholar
  52. 52.
    Ljubanovic M, Calvin J, PeruzzI W: Meta-analysis of gastric pH as determinant of mortality in critically ill patients. Crit Care Med 1998; 26: A123.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. 53.
    Dellinger RP, Zimmerman JL, Taylor RW, et al: Effects of inhaled nitric oxide in patients with acute respiratory distress syndrome: results of a randomized phase II trial. Crit Care Med 1998; 26: 15–23.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. 54.
    Mattay MA, Pittet JF, Jayr C: Just say NO to inhaled nitric oxide for the acute respiratory distress syndrome. Crit Care Med 1998; 26: 1–2.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. 55.
    Zapol WM: Nitric oxide inhalation in acute respiratory distress syndrome: it works, but can we prove it? Crit Care Med 1998; 26: 2–3PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. 56.
    Mathisen DJ, Kuo EY, Hahn C, et al: Inhaled nitric oxide for adult respiratory distress syndrome following pulmonary resection. Ann Thorac Surg (in press)Google Scholar
  57. 57.
    Shoemaker WC, Appel PL, Kram HB, et al: Prospective trial of supranormal values of survivors as therapeutic goals in high-risk surgical patients. Chest 1988; 94: 1176–1188.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. 58.
    Durham RM, Neunaber K, MazuskI JE, et al: The use of oxygen consumption and delivery as endpoints for resuscitation in critically ill patients. J Trauma 1996; 41: 32–40.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. 59.
    Moore EE: Hypertonic saline dextran for post-injury resuscitation: experimental background and clinical experience. Aust NZ J Surg 1991; 61: 732–736.Google Scholar
  60. 60.
    Wade CE, Kramer GC, Grady JJ, et al: Efficacy of hypertonic 7.5% saline and 6% dextran-70 in treating trauma: a meta-analysis of controlled clinical studies. Surgery 1997; 122: 609–616.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. 61.
    Younes RN, Yin KC, Amino CJ, et al: Use of pentastarch solution in the treatment of patients with hemorrhagic hypovolemia: randomized phase II study in the emergency room. Word J Surg 1998; 22: 2–5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. 62.
    Shackford SR, Bourguignon PR, Wald SL, et al: Hypertonic saline resuscitation of patients with head injury: a prospective, randomized clinical trial. J Trauma 1998; 44: 50–58.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. 63.
    Vassar JJ, Perry CA, Gannaway WL, et al: 7.5% Sodium chloride/ dextran for resuscitation of trauma patients undergoing helicopter transport. Arch Surg 1991; 16: 1065–1072.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. 64.
    Thangathurai D, Charbonnet C, Wo CCJ, et al: Intraoperative maintenance of tissue perfusion prevents ARDS. New Horiz 1996; 4: 466–474.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  65. 65.
    Wang P, Wheng FB, Zhou M, et al: Pentoxifylline restores cardiac output and tissue perfusion after trauma-hemorrhage and decreases susceptibility to sepsis. Surgery 1993; 114: 3520–3539.Google Scholar
  66. 66.
    Bacher A, Mayer N, Klimscha W, et al: Effects of pentoxifylline on hemodynamics and oxygenation in septic and nonseptic patients. Crit Care Med 1997; 25: 795–800.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. 67.
    Sun X, Wagner DP, Knaus WA: Does selective decontamination of the digestive tract reduce mortality for severely ill patients? Crit Care Med 1996; 24: 753–755.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. 68.
    Luiten EJ, Hop WCJ, Lange JF, Bruining HA; Controlled clinical trial of selective decontamination for the treatment of aevere acute pancreatitis. Ann Surg 1995; 222: 57–65.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. 69.
    Baxby D, van Saene HKKF, Stoutenbeek CP, Zandstra DF: Selective decontamination of the digestive tract: 13 years on, what it is and what it is not. Intensive Care Med 1996; 22: 699–706.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. 70.
    Kolla S, Awad SS, Rich PB, et al: Extracorporeal life support for 100 adult patients with severe respiratory failure. Ann Surg 1997; 226: 544–566.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. 71.
    Hirasawa H, Sugal T, Oda S, et al: Continuous hemodiafiltration(Chdf) removes cytokine and improves respiratory index (Ri) and oxygen metabolism in patients with acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS). Crit Care Med 1998; 26: A120.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. 72.
    Honore PM, James J, Wauthier M, et al: Reversal of intractable circulatory failure complicating septic shock with short time high volume haemofiltxation (ST-HV-CWH) after failure of conventional therapy: a prospective evaluation. Crit Care 1998; 2: 62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2000

Authors and Affiliations

  • Arthur E. Baue

There are no affiliations available

Personalised recommendations