Sepsis: the evolution of molecular pathogenesis concepts and clinical management

IF 10.7 Q1 MEDICINE, RESEARCH & EXPERIMENTAL
MedComm Pub Date : 2025-02-23 DOI:10.1002/mco2.70109
Zhongxue Feng, Lijun Wang, Jing Yang, Tingting Li, Xuelian Liao, Yan Kang, Fei Xiao, Wei Zhang
{"title":"Sepsis: the evolution of molecular pathogenesis concepts and clinical management","authors":"Zhongxue Feng,&nbsp;Lijun Wang,&nbsp;Jing Yang,&nbsp;Tingting Li,&nbsp;Xuelian Liao,&nbsp;Yan Kang,&nbsp;Fei Xiao,&nbsp;Wei Zhang","doi":"10.1002/mco2.70109","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p>The mortality rate of sepsis is approximately 22.5%, accounting for 19.7% of the total global mortality. Since Lewis Thomas proposed in 1972 that “it is our response that makes the disease (sepsis)” rather than the invading microorganisms, numerous drugs have been developed to suppress the “overwhelming” inflammatory response, but none of them has achieved the desired effect. Continued failure has led investigators to question whether deaths in septic patients are indeed caused by uncontrolled inflammation. Here, we review the history of clinical trials based on evolving concepts of sepsis pathogenesis over the past half century, summarize the factors that led to the failure of these historical drugs and the prerequisites for the success of future drugs, and propose the basic principles of preclinical research to ensure successful clinical translation. The strategy of targeting inflammatory factors are like attempting to eliminate invaders by suppressing the host's armed forces, which is logically untenable. Sepsis may not be that complex; rather, sepsis may be the result of a failure to fight microbes when the force of an invading pathogen overwhelms our defenses. Thus, strengthening the body's defense forces instead of suppressing them may be the correct strategy to overcome sepsis.</p>","PeriodicalId":94133,"journal":{"name":"MedComm","volume":"6 3","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":10.7000,"publicationDate":"2025-02-23","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1002/mco2.70109","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"MedComm","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/mco2.70109","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"MEDICINE, RESEARCH & EXPERIMENTAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

The mortality rate of sepsis is approximately 22.5%, accounting for 19.7% of the total global mortality. Since Lewis Thomas proposed in 1972 that “it is our response that makes the disease (sepsis)” rather than the invading microorganisms, numerous drugs have been developed to suppress the “overwhelming” inflammatory response, but none of them has achieved the desired effect. Continued failure has led investigators to question whether deaths in septic patients are indeed caused by uncontrolled inflammation. Here, we review the history of clinical trials based on evolving concepts of sepsis pathogenesis over the past half century, summarize the factors that led to the failure of these historical drugs and the prerequisites for the success of future drugs, and propose the basic principles of preclinical research to ensure successful clinical translation. The strategy of targeting inflammatory factors are like attempting to eliminate invaders by suppressing the host's armed forces, which is logically untenable. Sepsis may not be that complex; rather, sepsis may be the result of a failure to fight microbes when the force of an invading pathogen overwhelms our defenses. Thus, strengthening the body's defense forces instead of suppressing them may be the correct strategy to overcome sepsis.

Abstract Image

脓毒症:分子发病概念的演变与临床管理
脓毒症的死亡率约为22.5%,占全球总死亡率的19.7%。自从Lewis Thomas在1972年提出“是我们的反应而不是入侵的微生物造成了疾病(败血症)”以来,已经开发了许多药物来抑制“压倒性”的炎症反应,但没有一种药物达到预期的效果。持续的失败导致研究人员质疑败血症患者的死亡是否确实是由不受控制的炎症引起的。在此,我们回顾了近半个世纪以来脓毒症发病机制概念演变的临床试验历史,总结了导致历史上这些药物失败的因素和未来药物成功的先决条件,并提出了临床前研究的基本原则,以确保成功的临床转化。针对炎症因子的策略就像试图通过抑制宿主的武装力量来消灭入侵者,这在逻辑上是站不住脚的。败血症可能没有那么复杂;更确切地说,败血症可能是当入侵的病原体的力量压倒了我们的防御时,我们未能与微生物作斗争的结果。因此,加强而不是抑制身体的防御力量可能是克服败血症的正确策略。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
6.70
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
审稿时长
10 weeks
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信