Advertisement

The Case for Immunotherapy Against Endotoxin in Sepsis and Septicemia

  • H. R. Michie
Part of the Update in Intensive Care and Emergency Medicine book series (UICM, volume 16)

Abstract

Conventionally treated severe gram-negative infection has an unpredictable outcome. Institution of appropriate antibiotic therapy, drainage of septic foci and adequate ventilatory, fluid and inotropic support where needed will result in survival of roughly half of the septic individuals [1, 2]. The remainder will develop a variety of potentially lethal sequelae including profound hypotension, coagulopathy and progressive organ failure and most of these patients will die. Mortality in this latter group has not improved significantly in the last two decades and the enormous cost of caring for such patients is associated with a poor reward. Furthermore a “cure” for septicemia progressing to multiple organ failure might have a greater impact on total patient survival than a cure for breast cancer according to some calculations. It might be considered that following publication of a Phase III clinical trial in a premier journal that demonstrated a 39% reduction in mortality in those with gram-negative sepsis when treated with a human moncolonal antibody against the Lipid A (a component of the endotoxin of all gram-negative strains of bacteria) this approach might be adopted with considerable enthusiasm and a desire to make such therapy available to all appropriate patients as rapidly as possible [3]. The reality is that this therapy has attracted an almost unprecedented degree of controversy [4–7]. In this chapter, only the human monoclonal anti-endotoxin antibody HA-1A (CentoxinR) will be considered in depth. The other anti-endotoxin antibody E5 (a murine antibody) has been evaluated in two Phase III clinical trials. In neither study taken individually has it been shown to increase survival in the group of patients with gram-negative sepsis and hypotension, the clinical scenario most likely to be attributable to circulating endotoxin and where an IgM antibody against endotoxin would, on theoretical grounds, be most likely to be effective [8]. For this reason, the author cannot find any compelling case for further evaluation of this agent.

Keywords

Septic Shock Pivotal Trial Observe Mortality Rate Septic Focus Aortic Graft Infection 
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.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Ledingham I McA, McArdle CS (1978) Prospective study of the treatment of septic shock. Lancet, 1:1194–1197PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Kreger BE, Craven DE, McCabe WR (1980) Gram-negative bacteremia IV. Re-evaluation and treatment in 612 patients. Am J Med 68:344–355PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Zeigler EJ, Fisher CJ, Sprung CL, et al. (1991) Treatment of Gram-negative bacteremia and septic shock with HA-1A human monoclonal antibody against endotoxin. N Eng J Med 324:429–436CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Bone RC (1991) Monoclonal antibodies to endotoxin. New allies against sepsis? JAMA 266:1125–1126PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Baumgartner JD, Heuman D, Glauser MP (1991) The HA-1A monoclonal antibody for Gram-negative sepsis. N Eng J Med (letter) 325:281–282Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Taylor D (1991) Centoxin — birth of a budgetbuster. BMJ 302:1229Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Schmidt GA (1991) The HA-1A monoclonal antibody for Gram-negative sepsis. N Eng J Med (letter) 325:280–281Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Greenman RL, Schein RMH, Martin MA, et al. (1991) A controlled clinical trial of E5 muri-ne monoclonal IgM antibody to endotoxin in the treatment of gram-negative sepsis. JAMA 266:1097–1102PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Smith CR (1992) HA-1A — additional clinical data. Presented at the 12th International Symposium on Intensive Care and Emergency Medicine, BrusselsGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Ziegler EJ, McCutchan JA, Fierer J, et al. (1982) Treatment of Gram-negative bactererma and shock with human antiserum to a mutant Escherichia coli. N Eng J Med 307:1225–1230CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Knaus WA, Draper EA, Wagner DP, Zimmerman JE (1985) APACHE II: a severity of disease classification system. Crit Care Med 13:818–829PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Morrison D (1992) HA-1A — mode of action. Presented at the 12th International Symposium on Intensive Care and Emergency Medicine, BrusselsGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 1992

Authors and Affiliations

  • H. R. Michie

There are no affiliations available

Personalised recommendations