CHEMICAL VERSUS SERUM TREATMENT OF EPIDEMIC MENINGITIS

Claims of efficiency have been made at two widely separated periods for the chemical treatment of epidemic meningitis, in the first instance for lysol and in the second for protargol. The use of lysol was long since abandoned; the recommendation for protargol is based on a single series of cases, small in number. Because of the variable severity of epidemics of meningitis, small reliance can be placed on results of treatment limited in extent to small numbers of cases and to one locality. A more uniform and accurate measure of the value of a method of treatment is provided by animals infected experimentally with pathogenic cultures of meningococci. Young guinea pigs respond in a definite manner to intraperitoneal inoculation of virulent meningococci. Neither protargol nor lysol proved to have any curative action on the experimental infection thus produced in these animals. Monkeys respond in a characteristic manner to the inoculation of virulent cultures into the subarachnoid space. Protargol displayed no curative action on the experimental infection thus produced in these animals. On the contrary, both lysol and protargol exert antileukotactic and antiphagocytic effects, and are also potent protoplasmic poisons, and the leukocytes with which they come in contact are injured and made to degenerate. According to the extent to which these harmful properties are exerted, the chemicals promote the advance rather than restrain the progress of meningococcic infection. Recovery from meningococcic infection in man and animals is accomplished chiefly through the process of phagocytosis. The specific antiserum acts curatively by increasing the emigration of leukocytes, by promoting phagocytosis directly, and by agglutinating the meningococci, and also by neutralizing endotoxin. Any means which interfere with and reduce these essential processes retard or prevent recovery. Both lysol and protargol interfere with and diminish the emigration of leukocytes and the phagocytosis of meningococci, and neither possesses antitoxic power. The mixture of antiserum with lysol and with protargol reduces to a certain extent the antileukotactic and antiphagocytic effect of the chemicals; but this action is insufficient to set aside wholly the injurious effects which they produce. It follows, therefore, that whatever theoretical advantages might accrue from a bactericidal activity exerted by these chemicals independently of the type of meningococcus causing epidemic meningitis, is more than offset by the harmful effects which they cause. Hence specific antiserum seems to provide the logical therapeutic agent with which to combat epidemic meningitis, since it is itself innocuous and promotes those processes essential to recovery from the disease. The problem up to the present has been that of producing an antiserum which represents the several types of the meningococcus, and this problem is now in a fair way to being solved.